##VIDEO ID:SxZgAOwZIBo## [Music] good evening welcome to the township of hallow planning board's meeting Thursday September 19th 2024 Eileen opening statement please the open adequate notice having been given pursuant to the New Jersey open public meeting act in the following m manner first on January 5th 2024 a copy of said notice was emailed to the Asbury Park Press and the Star Ledger second on January 5th 2024 a copy of said notice was hand delivered to the clerk of the township of Howell third on January 5th 2024 said notice was posted in the office of the planning board and on the bulletin board in the Howell Township Municipal Building 4567 Route 9 Howell Township New Jersey in accordance with the fire prevention code and your safety please be advised that this facility is designed with two emergency exits which are at the front and rear of the meeting room furthermore smoking is not permitted in the municipal building please take note that this meeting is being videotaped for possible future broadcast on Howell Township TV 77 also for anyone who was here earlier bit of housekeeping the restrooms in the corner here are now unlocked sorry about the inconvenience thank you all right thank you roll call please Mr Cristiano's been excused Mr Greenfield's been excused Mr leio here Mr Mercer here Mr tanhouse has been excused Mr Withers I have not heard from Mr reel here councilwoman fiser here miss Pike here Mr Carbonic here and chairman huster here you have a forum thank you would everybody please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance and we'll do a moment of silence for the Fallen men and women both here and abroad to the flag the United States of America and to the rep for it stands one nation under God indivisible liy and justice for all thank you Eileen do we have any minutes I have no minutes this evening any correspondents yes I do uh there was an application scheduled for this evening for SMC properties case number sp123 I have an email from John Jackson the attorney asking that this application be carried to the next available hearing date which actually he picked November 7th uh with no further notice and granted an extension of time through November 7th for the board okay okay so let me just make the announcement on that SMC you said I SMC yes okay so application sp-11 123 SMC Properties LLC uh will not be heard tonight it will be carried to the board's November 7th 2024 meeting it is a live meeting beginning 7 o' here in town hall there will not be any further notice to Property Owners thank you I also have a letter from attorney Jared P he is the attorney for case number SD 3015 which is the last case on our app uh agenda tonight for Abraham weinman he has also asked that this application be adjourned with no requirement to Ren notice to the how Township planning board meeting on October 10th and asked that the application be scheduled at the top of the agenda and that application is still good on time got it okay so the application sd- 3015 Abraham Wiman be carried to the board's October 10th 2024 meeting it is a live meeting begins 7 o'clock here in the main meeting room in town hall there me no further notice to Property Owners thank you and the last item is just um I sent another email today to the various planning board members who have not done their storm water training yet and I ask that you please do that as soon as possible so the town can be in compliance and you need to send me an email when you complete it so we can keep that for our records and that's all I have all right thank you thank you any resolutions no resolution all right submission waivers case number sp1128 links waste and recycling center Solutions Inc it's preliminary final major site plan with ancillary variance and design waiver relief uh good evening evening good evening Mr chairman members of the planning board my name is Gregory Vela of the law fir Collins Vel cello on behalf of uh the applicant links waste and recycling center Solutions Inc we're here for some waiver relief I did speak to your engineer uh and I'll pass it on to her great you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide this board is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do so Mr chairman members of of the board the submission waivers are specifically outlined in our July 12th 2024 review letter in item three um as Mr V indicated I did have the opportunity to speak with him I recommend that the board require checklist item 16 a traffic report as well as checklist item 60 all Overland and underground drainage conveyances within 2,000 ft Downstream as it relates to the balance of the items I take no exception to the granting of those waivers for the purposes of deeming complete however recommend on a subsequent submission some of the more administrative items like email or state planning designation or reference for the north Arrow be included um having said that though I would like to see items 16 and 60 at this time councilor are you good with that absolutely I already have the engineers working on the ones that she says we need to do great questions from the board I will entertain a motion sure I'll make a motion Miss Pike second Mr Mercer for the second Mr leio yes Mr Mercer yes Mr reel yes councilwoman fiser yes Miss Pike yes Mr Carbonic yes chairman huster yes motion carries thank you everybody have a great rest of thank you you too in a couple months hopefully all right all right so the application the only application this evening case number sp105 aav vrw property LLC this is preliminary and final major site plan approval with design waiver relief um I do want to make an announcement prior uh counselor um we we understand that this is a sensitive topic uh everybody will get to speak when we do open it to public you know we will give everybody time uh so you know just be and and you will have your chance to speak okay Mr chairman just before we get started just by way of housekeeping it's my understanding that all board members with the exception of uh the councilwoman are eligible to vote tonight yes Mr uh Rebel and Mr Carbonic and Miss Pike have all certified so they're all eligible okay so if we could just have all Council enter their appearances members of the board uh professionals good evening uh Rob Simon uh attorney with Herold law here on behalf of the applicant aav rhw property LLC block 41 lot 17 Victory Road good evening good evening uh Zoe Ferguson of liberman bler and sovic on behalf of the objectors um and I have a list of my clients uh board would like but that has been previously submitted to the board and Remains the Same as previously submitted and Remains the Same thank you okay um Mr Simon you you heard my announcement about the number of eligible voters tonight um so it's less than a full board are you satisfied with that prepared to move forward I am yes okay so um good evening good to be back here before this board um as the board is aware uh because we haven't been here in a while this is an application seeking uh preliminary and final major site plan approval to construct uh an approximately 200,000 foot Warehouse office building uh with 25 loading dock spaces 68 trailer parking spaces and 72 passenger vehicle uh parking spaces the property is 1991 acres in size and located within the uh special economic uh development Zone District Al along Victory Road um so as the board may recall um the last time we were before the board there was an issue raised about the proposed septic system and septic design for this site and at that time it was agreed that the applicant would uh get that information come back to the board and present it so uh that's what we would like to do at this point unless the board has any questions uh we have a a witness uh Vincent Kelly from cers and if there's no other questions I'd like to have Mr Kelly be sworn at this time sure you swear we affirm the testimony about to provide this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please State and spell your name for the record Vincent Kelly ke l l y business address 101 Crawford's Corner hell New Jersey hey Mr Kelly were you previously qualified he he he was not he hasn't been here before so Council if you could just qualify Mr so um Mr Kelly can you please provide the board um with your credentials occupation affiliation areas of expertise and license and experience in the field of engineering yes so I am a licensed uh civil engineer in the state of New Jersey I graduated from NJIT 2011 with BS in civil engineering been licensed uh almost five years now I've been practiced up and down uh the state providing testimony have actually appeared in front of this board uh September of last year and my uh license is current and in good standing we'll accept before we before we accept Mr chairman sure uh Miss Ferguson do you have any uh V you'd like uh no thank you okay go ahead Mr chairman credentials are good great thank you um Mr Kelly you've had an opportunity to review the application materials in connection with this matter yes and you've also um reviewed the uh CME uh letter uh dated May 7th 2024 uh regarding septic design yes uh and you prepared the septic design for this application I have yes um can you just walk the board uh through the the design um as to why the particular design why it works or doesn't work and that everything has been been verified sure uh and let's before we even start make sure that we have the the correct plan that we're we're working off of so is this I know we received some exhibits late this afternoon is that what you're referring to now one of the exhibits that was sent this afternoon so the can you just confirm the the date of 918 in the title block that should be the current plan okay was this marked alen yes it is it's marked as a 68 okay all right is this a new exhibit that wasn't previously submitted before yesterday this late this afternoon yeah there's a few hours ago actually okay so I have we haven't seen this correct okay uh I'd like to know how different it is from what we have seen since let's let's listen to the testimony we'll get maybe compare it to uh prior versions so um Mr Kelly and I'm going to let you uh make your presentation before we do so there there was a septic design plan uh that was submitted to the board a67 last revised uh April 18th 2024 and now we're up to a68 which is I believe an update dated plan last revised uh September 18th of 2024 correct correct so in the process of your uh testimony um if you could maybe just describe the differences between the plans sure that's no problem at all um so uh before I I start uh just want to let you know within the uh the township itself uh the way it it works is uh within the township subdivision and site plan application process uh the Howell Township Utilities Department gets a copy of the application can I can I just interrupt Miss feron has somebody who's who's sitting next to her I don't know what the purpose of this is if this is doesn't matter what the purpose of it is she can have anybody sit next to her that she wants well is it her client what does it matter okay go ahead please proceed Mr Kelly so the how Township utility department uh gets a copy of the application they determine uh what sanitary sewer serviceability uh is associated with the site itself this site was determined that uh it's only uh viable via septic system uh and then after that application happens uh you make an application to the township itself to receive a permit to actually construct a uh a septic system which we have also received from the township uh the condition of that permit to construct it is that you need to have the septic system also reviewed and approved through the governing body which is Mammoth County Health Department we have also received uh the permit uh that the plan uh that's sitting on the screen has been in conformance uh with NJ 7 colon9 and we have received their permit as well uh so everything that um uh you know on the planwise and everything like that there's nothing really stopping uh from going out and constructing the deceptic application just did you receive the permit or did you receive the approval permit I I watched them sign it this morning is the permit the approval yes okay so let me ask you why you got the permit approved today when the last time we discussed this was November 2023 excellent question thanks I mean honestly like it's been almost a year since you've been here and the last time you were here the issue was the septic correct Mr Simon that's the reason why we adjourned correct and now we're back prevent presenting that test we're back almost a year later with something that got approved today like you asked them to you you're G to ask them to act on this well Mr chairman I think let's just allow the applicant to uh present and then we'll we'll and go through cross examination and we'll assess where we are sure yeah and the and Mr Kelly the um municipal or uh approval that was via letter dated March 6 2024 yes okay and that I believe has been marked as b47 for the record so that was back in March so um again um in response also to miss beam's comment if you can also through the course of your testimony just identify the differences let's say from March 6 2024 uh through the last septics uh design submission to the board prior to today and also what the updates consist of sure uh so the the previous Subic system that was uh done back in uh March or April uh was always supposed to be a pressure dosing system and it was day one it is still a pressure dosing system now uh the only real difference between the the previous iteration and now is just some minor uh technical um calculations that the the board the M County Health Department wanted to clarify and say uh the only other thing they wanted to see as well uh within the septic system itself is the replacement of the zone of uh disposal which is the the yep so if you look at the the bottom section of the the septic system below the zone of treatment uh we went out there and tested the soil that's on site today it is feasible with the soil on site it's classified as a K3 which has a very good permeability rate through the soil itself uh so it would pass the septic system if we didn't replace it with the the K4 soil the the M countyy Health Department just asked that we do that and instead of uh pushing back on them we really didn't have an issue with it because it'll actually Pro uh prolong the life of the the septic system itself that's that's really the only only real difference between the previous plan and the one that was signed today so if you would just go for through for the benefit of the board um why you decide in the particular design sure uh so the pressure dosing system uh realistically was the only viable option for this uh this site uh due to how flat the the site actually is if anybody that's lived in this area for I'm sure which a lot of you have like myself lived in this area it's very flat uh you don't have very steep slopes so it's not really feasible to go from the the building gravity fed because it goes at a certain percent slope into uh a septic area that way the only way to really do that would be to fill the site and raise everything so you'd have to raise the parking lot you'd have to raise the building realistically it besides financials doesn't really make sense to the surrounding properties everything like that to just add extra feet for really no no reason and and just go through uh for the board uh why you believe that uh this design um as you uh propos and was approved um why is it appropriate specifically for this for this project ju basically just went over that so because of the the natural slope of the the land it's really the only only option for it uh the specific location uh where the septic system is is obviously on the east side of the the property uh behind the storm water basin it's going to be surrounded by uh trees everything like that never really going to see it from the the general public and even from the operations uh itself going to have a small little cleared area for maintenance and everything like that but where it's located you're you're really never going to ever see this and again it is below surface it's not above grade or anything like that at the end of the day it's going to look just like grass with uh some uh PVC caps sticking out of the ground so what's what's powering the pressure dosing system is it a electric electric pump or correct so is there a backup or something at the power to go out and say cause a situation where to back up and yes there there is an alarm that that goes off when either power is tripped uh or if there's uh ever an issue with one of like the floats that are within the the system or you know to the pump itself so basically a maintenance crew will come out service it make sure it's it's good to go but again if the entire area is out of power I mean that's what I was thinking of more in like a storm situation if you're out of power for a day or two you could have a backup in I guess would you call an eological situation there so Upstream of that the ground surface it's actually a great question so Upstream of that it there's there's two tanks one there's a a septic tank that takes all the solids uh so that has a large area itself and then directly Downstream of that is where the the pump is housing it's the dosen tank and everything like that it has uh area for the water to sit sit there it actually has a reserve area as well that's basically uh the same size of what uh a daily usage would do so let's say the the power goes out it has extra area to hold that and it would never basically overflow within the tank and you know spill out into the ground Mr chairman the only thing that I want to note is that the the septic design is very specific to the maximum number of employees that would be allowed as well as delivery people so um I don't recall if they've ever put a number on that but you're design assumes 112 employees and 63 delivery over a 24-hour period correct so is that the stipulation that's being placed on the approval then um let me I'll go check with the uh with the client on that get back you what's the minimum distance from the seasonal high water to the bottom of the treatment zone for the county standards for the permit you go down uh so the the seasonal high is actually identified I think it's memory serves at 7205 says 71 7 okay 71 um so that's a seasonal high right there so the distance to the ground elevation about seven eight feet so it's within a foot uh that that's just the zone of disposal that's the the secondary treatment that that further uh brings it into the ground uh the zone of treatment it has 4T section up top so basically you got you know you got top soil and then you also have the the foot of stone and then about 5 feet treatment right I was just saying to the question right the yeah the bottom of treatment is at 71.0 five and the seasonal high is at 70. 31 it's it's not treated like a basin where you need a minimum twoot clearance from the bottom of the invert to the no the water level the the zone of disposal is allowed to have the seasonal high within it so this this is different than the original design correct the original septic design on this property this this is a different design that's fair to say I that I don't know I when I when I designed it uh it was a pressure dosing system so this is the only septic design we're seeing this this is the one at that so what I can represent is the septic design was submitted to my office um and I generated a relet in May and at that time it was a pressure dosing and a mounded system there have been two um update revisions to that plan um but I believe as was testified too they were you know technical in nature it didn't change the system okay so the system itself is the system itself this was the design submitted to the board um back in the spring got it thank you and originally it was 200 plus feet from the existing building or I'm maybe that was the original plan maybe this is different than that so where is this located you know is this closer to Victory Road yeah V Victory Road is is to the north but the where the setic system is placed it has the appropriate distance to uh the property line and if you see the property line it kind of cuts away from a victory road too so by Nature it's it's set farther back yeah I remember at that time that was the area where where the ground was going to be raised 28 in 28 in top so right that's what we talked about last time so I wanted to make sure because it's been a while yeah so I got some notes here from we did that yeah so that obviously changes the you know maybe that Mees the ground water requirement I don't know I don't know okay I have nothing further the disposal area also you mentioned they tested the soil was a K3 permeability and the plans are saying K4 but you got approval for K3 uh we got an approved for K4 uh I thought you said it was it was a K3 it was tested at K3 it was tested at K3 and there's nothing wrong with having K3 soil in the zone of disposal uh K4 just helps uh uh break it down a little a little bit better so that the mom County Health Department just asked us to do it since we were adding a since we're doing a mounted system and introducing K4 sand already they just said just bring it all the way home for your entire entire system again it no no real issue it actually benefits the the longevity of the system itself add adds years to the the the system it's increasing the time of disposal because K3 is a lower permeability than K4 correct correct are isolation valves in the event that there's an issue with the system as in you know I mean I'm not sure of the design but if they need to stop anything from you know any leak you know leakage or anything like that yeah if they ever need to maintain it they'll they'll have a pump truck on site and then you know similar to like what they would do for maintenance they they come out and they service it with that they would have a pump and do that while they make the repairs but yeah basically they I would assume they would stop operation so stop flushing the toilet and stop getting more stuff introduced to it by the way Laur in response to your question about the number of employees and deliveries the app Mr Simon just into the mic if you pull that over closer to you it'll pick you up I have to make sure you're on sorry is that better okay um in response to the the question about the maximum number of employees and delivery Personnel uh that was stated in um Laura's letter of May SE or memo of May 7 2024 the applicant will will stipulate as to the maximum number of employ I'm going give them to Iran uh the maximum number of employees over 24hour period would be 112 and the maximum number of delivery Personnel over a 24-hour period would be 63 delivery Personnel or okay and that's and that's uh also is delineated in the CME memo dated May 7 2024 okay Mr chair I just a a question the plan that was signed today and you received the the approval for today when was that plan submitted uh it was I walked the plan in this morning uh but I sent the plan to them uh yesterday before I wed walked it in to make sure they we're good with everything okay can I no I my question is all right and Ron I apologize if this is out of line but if you guys going to originally come here in July what was the plan in July if you just walked it in the door yesterday the septic approval by the county right is not required to be obtained prior to this board making a determination on this development application there's a section in Municipal lus law understand section 22b that permits a board as typical to condition any approval on the issuance of any outside approvals that in essence would would preempt whether it's County whether it's state that have jurisdiction over the development application so whether we're coming in in July and it's a good question whether we're coming in in July August or just so happens today the reality is that the board has has the information pursuant to the howl ordinance to make a determination on the application even without an outside approval whether it's County approval State approval and of course if for example the board were inclined to hear the or we were hearing the matter let's say in August and the board was inclined to approve the application absolutely a condition of approval would have to be obtaining all outside approvals that are are relevant or applicable to the development application pursuant to section 22b in Miss Ban's law including County Health approval okay let me rephrase my question just sure section 22d does say that however I think they're looking at it a little bit in isolation the purpose of this board's review of of the septic plan and this L review of the particularly the location and the design is more oriented towards the improvements that are within the board's jurisdiction understanding whether this plan would impact where the buildings are going to go how circulation can flow things that are directly under this board's jurisdiction so the board is not seeking to supplant uh the County's Authority or or to take away you know an an outside agency approval it's seeking to understand what that would what that Design's impact is on the things that are within its jurisdiction and I would cite the field case and the Morris County case that talk about there are instances where the lack of Outside Agency approvals impact those very things in one of those cases there was a uh a permit from the DP regarding a dam construction and the courts found that the lack of having that approval and that information deprived the board of an information in that case to make a determination regarding storm water management so this board isn't looking at it to approve a septic design it's looking at it to understand the impact of that design and that placement upon issues that are squarely within its jurisdiction uh Mr Kelly you want to um respond to the uh to the chair's uh inquiry yes so I actually I have your answer um so back in January um when this application get kept getting carried basically back in January we actually got an email response from the MTH County Health Department that said if uh you you replace the soil that I described everything else is addressed and once you do that you know your permit will be issued uh so we our plan was really to come back and says we do this you know we will get our permit basically we have since done that uh and here we are getting our permit so that's okay easy answer and the plans were submitted in I think around January to to the board and then I think updated in April and I think that um the CME letter was in May any questions okay I have nothing further for this Witness okay yeah Mr chair I would recommend opening it to to miss Ferguson if she has any questions yeah Miss Ferguson please thank you very much um I've never used this shape of microphone so I hope I do it right okay um Mr Kelly my name is Zoe Ferguson I represent the objectors so the modifications to this plan were made yesterday or today I just want to clarify yesterday yesterday okay and it was brought into the county today is that right okay um the gallons per day Day You're Expecting here is it still 1,995 correct okay uh Mr Cary just speaking into the microphone sorry correct and did you how did you how did you come to that determination that that was the number of gallons per day that you needed for this application so it's a combination of employees and the deliveries that are expected for the site uh the deliveries expected for the site is at 63 uh and then uh 12 get you to to uh 1 1995 uh the septic rules themselves are if you are under 2,000 gallons per day uh you are governed by the county health department and do do not need to go uh to the state and seek a a different application so we were staying underneath the 2,000 gallons per day and that's that's how we determined it I appreciate that I was going to follow up on that about that DP standard but I wanted to first ask you um there's no tenant for the site is there I would have to ask the applicant um I'm not aware of that attorney say currently no Mr Simon said currently no okay so how do you know how many employees and how many delivery people are going to be there per day well that that will have to be determined by the end user uh I would have to ask the applicant to speak on if there's any negotiations or anything like that uh but that's really up for them to to decide well you just we just sated that no matter who the tenant is going to be it's now limited to those numbers that you just gave corre correct and that that will be part of their marketability so um just to clarify because I think that I heard you say this and I wanted to make sure that it's correct um when you were calculating the the gallons per day used for the site and therefore the site uh size the equipment that you need you were aiming to get under 2,000 gallons per day is that right correct okay um was that with regard to considering who the tenant would be or was it specifically only just to make sure it's under 2,000 gallons per day whatever the number is objection we already said that that there's no particular tenant identified for the site Mr Simon again just the okay you get underneath the the trip limitation of 2,000 gallons this is also common practice for uh SPEC Building such as as this nature um you know you you want to get uh local approval um and and move forward with you know construction and everything like that right no thank you I appreciate that um and I understand it's onpc so does that mean if you could just clarify for me does that mean that on any given day there will never be more than 1,995 gallons per day of eent at the site or is it possible it could ever be over that a based on my calculations now it should never be over that should never be over that is there any possibility would ever be over that over 2,000 gallons per day no okay so that that five gallon difference is that's never going to happen not not based on my calculations no calculations of the employees and the deliver Mr Kelly you really need need to get closer to that microphone is this better yes okay can can you say it again oh I was just I was just um just saying that your calculations that you're referencing are the employees and the delivery people um can I ask you did you do any calculation of any secondary uses in uh njac 7-7 colon 9A any syn stations anything like that no it was based on employees and the delivery coming to the site are there going to be any syns at the site again this is a a SPEC Building um well the sinks are included in you know the the bathroom usage for the employees for the delivery so I would imagine there would be some sinks to wash your hands yes so that's included in the calculations you've already done correct okay and so I have to ask you does that mean that no and and maybe you're not the right person to answer this question but because you're the septic person I want to make sure that I'm asking you if I need to uh does that mean that any tenant who might come here on spec who knows who it could be they're never going to have they're not going to be install any sync systems who knows what's going to be in here any anything else any showers that can never happen here um yeah correct So it's b it's based on employee usage of the bathroom and the deliveries okay um do you have the distance in feet between the septic disposal field um the inside bottom of the Basin so I know that there's there I think an illustration here 54 ft 54 ft distance between the the field and the bottom Basin not the bottom of the basins to the burm in the middle uh which is considered a uh water course uh CU that's what actually impounds water the bottom of the Basin is just um just ancill grading okay it's 54 ft from that okay but but not from the bottom of Bas when you say it's ancillary grading can you expand on what that means just for me it just means that it's the toe of the slope of the grading that's tying into the existing Contours of the site okay what what is the relationship with the the pipe there storm the storm water pipe as far as the the the the storm water pipe that runs through the middle of the BM yes I would have to ask the site engineer uh its specific nature uh I would imagine it conveys storm water though would it be 50 feet away if it's it's in the middle of the burm so it' be 54 feet away 54 feet okay and so that measurements to the middle of the burm that is correct okay um how how is this system going to be accessed how uh how is it going to be maintained uh well there uh the the east side of the property line uh between the the Basin and where the edge of the tree line is uh will be open uh grass where they could somebody could get back there to maintain it can you I'm so sorry could you just explain to me where on the on the design that is sure do you see the line that says FM um yeah yes I do okay yeah so that is going to be maintained grass and that's how you get back to the septic system maintained grass okay so there's not going to be any paved walkways there no okay um and is that going to be does that maintain grass is that going to be sturdy enough for any kind of equipment that might need to get back there to do any any repair any maintenance yes okay um and I just wanted to go back to a question that a member the board had and make sure that I have the right answer so that I have for my for my notes um there's an alarm if the if the power is tripped but there's no actual backup system on the system is that right if you're are you referring to a generator yeah uh I don't know there's as far as I know there's no generator uh on the site there's not going to be one for the septic system again when when the building's powered down uh or you know um some storm that happens Mo most likely folks won't be at work uh again the the Upstream septic tank and the dosing tank have enough volume uh to store that until the power comes back on and then gets distributed to the septic system itself um I might be I might be wrong here am I because it's been a while since we were here isn't this site going to be maybe 247 I would have to ask the the applicant on that um is designed for a 20 for uh employees to be there 24/7 again with this being a SPEC Building I don't know the the you know if there it's going to be full 24 hours or not okay it's just you know we can't really know when people are going to be at work or not if it's a 247 operation uh wouldn't you say what's what's what's the question yeah I just believe that the witness was was making a explanation about you know how maybe part of the reason that you don't have a generator is that if power's going to go out people might not be at work and if I misunderstood that please let me know um and so I wanted to clarify that people might be at work at this site 24 hours a day 7 days a week um but that's all I have on that question um and I think so there's no changes to this plan aside from April other than changing the soil from K3 to K4 um and some minor technical calculations is that is that right correct what are those calculations do you mind if I ask sure uh they just speak into the microphone please sure so there was just some minor uh clarifications on the if you scroll all the way down to the to the bottom and a little bit to the right the the dosing pump calculations uh the the new seor reviewer the one that I spoke to uh that was going to uh approve the um plan in January are retired so somebody else took another look at it they had a few questions we gave them the calculations there was nothing wrong with the calculations on the plan uh the guy just misread something and then he just wanted us to add The the Reserve volume uh within the dosing tank itself other than that um like I said the the soil mounded replacement was the only add to the plan okay I just have one more question um I appreciate that thank you because I I was curious about that when you said uh calculations yes um how how can you be sure that this system is never going to get over 2,000 gallons per day if the limit that you have right now is 1995 and that's a five gallon difference how how is it that you're so certain of that again this is this is how the calculations were derived there's going to be a stipulation in the they proving should should the board act favorably uh with limitations for employees and the deliveries so if there's anything that would you know be over that they would there was enforcement that probably could be taken into action uh what you're kind of alluding to though the system is designed uh with conservative measures within the septic code itself uh and not only that the septic bed itself applies uh basically a factor of safety about 33% on the system itself so it can accommodate more volume than what it's designed to but again we don't ever think that's going to happen and if it was going to have that larger capacity um it would need a Amendment to the water the Wastewater management plan of the county is that correct what I just spoke to the factor of safety is already built into the SEPTA code and it's already on the approved plan okay thank you so can I just ask a question sure you just said the guy misread the numbers so sure would you what and what numbers were misread the his name is Chris uh Liberto he's the guy who actually signed the plan or the the permit from the mammoth County Health Department okay and in the uh calculations he uh didn't notice that we had two rows of laterals uh off of the Central Main system so he was coming up with a lower number and he wanted to know where he came up with a higher number number and that's we basically just clarified it for him and he's acknowledged that considering he issued the permit yes okay thank you when performing the groundwater an mounding analysis did you assume the K3 disposal field or the K4 that's shown on the plans and if so did it back up into the treatment Zone considering it's only it's within a foot of the bottom of the treatment zone so the groundwater mounting is is a is a storm water C calculation um you don't still have to look at mounding of this seasonal High ground water into the treatment Zone No it's it's it's you know it when it goes in there it's supposed to treat directly down into it and then once it goes that way it's not like a a continuously fed system like a storm water basin infiltrating every rainstorm this this system's you know going to go off uh you know once or twice a day basically so it g it gives a time to perk through it so there's no you know no availability for it to back up into the system it's a good question though excuse me I have a question um can you elaborate like how you come up with that calculation of the 1995 you kept saying like the calculation says that describe that here so in in uh 7on uh 9 or 79a which is a deceptive the subsurface disposal uh rules within the state uh their calculation has has uh 15 gallons per day per employee uh and then five gallons per day per delivery so doing that math get you to 1995 everybody go to the what happens if everybody goes to the bathro that I'm sure they will um again twice or three times like you what about there's deliveries with with two two people in the truck or three people in truck well again the the 15 gallons and the five gallons per day uh it has has that factored into it for multiple uses throughout the day and and let's say back to storm order issues say we ranged for a week and everything that's perking into the storm water management system around the building off the gutters into the Rocks would this being a sensitive area water already already flooding the roadway in this on Victory Road when it's high water table then what how's that going to affect the septic what about the septic raises up and it causes a sanitary issue that that onto the roadway so that's actually really good question um the the septic system has been designed as a mounted system uh if you scroll down a little bit on the plans I could give you kind of a profile I know okay so so basically and where it's located uh and with within respect to the above ground Basin uh realistically the only order that's going to get there is going to be what Falls onto it and everything else is going to go uh to the side of it so so last last I guess it was the last time we here the time before Mr mer I don't know if you remember Mr mer we were talking about the 28 in of top soil and how that was going to push water and out into the roadway okay okay that was our biggest issue and without even the septic even uh being a real Factor because you guys didn't have the entire plan what we were going to do so that's where I have you know I think the main issue is like I said what about it does rain for a week or more right it could happen we have a lot of those problems what is going to prevent that that septic system from completely rising up not keeping up with the storm water off the building perking at a quick enough rate for the ground to get rid of it because it's in a high area and not affec the roadway you you you understand I know you understand my question I understand your question so the the septic system where it's located behind the uh above ground Basin uh is in an area where it's it's really not going to affect uh drainage of the site again there's a small area on top of the system that pushes the water around it the storm water basin itself is designed to hold the water so anything going on to the septic system itself is is going to push around it and go into the low spot in the the the the wooded area behind it this the seasonal high water table that you're talking about has already been designed into the septic system itself again knowing that it's only seasonal like it's seasonal High it does go down but it it has been designed to account for the highest groundwater that's you know is noted in this area or observed during our test bets so it has taken groundwater into account is the is the lateral fill extension the two foot is that kind of like an industry standard that's again within the septic regs itself uh when you do a a mounted replacement system like that they want two feet on the side of it as well just so it doesn't move laterally it it has a little little buffer there got it so conditions I have so conditions for the approval for the septic was there in the scope considerations for you know you mentioned the amount the amount of gallons the high limit is there are there monitors that will be included in this or projected to be included so that because nobody's going to be inspecting this and it's if it exceeds that amount is anybody going to know oh absolutely so if you actually scroll up a little bit so you see the the the four circles in each Each corner uh called that inspection ports and then if you scroll a little bit to the right on the plan right there uh so that's a detail of the inspection Port basically uh what's going to stick out of the ground is a PVC with a cap uh so you are to able to actually inspect it and make sure there's no uh you know standing water within the stone bed area or anything like that which allows you to say all right the septic system is is uh working as designed I guess I think what Mr merer right so if the water table was high right if the water table is high and then all of a sudden this the septic limit is exceeded are there going to be monitoring systems almost like an underground storage tank right right you have to you have to include is that what that is that's what the dosing tank is so the dosing tank holds the is that alarmed back to notify somebody yes that that has an alarm it has floats and everything like that where if it starts to get too high it's noted and then maintenance crew will come out and service the site is there is there a um a meter on it that reads gallons that are pumped into the septic per day flow meter a flow meter I don't I don't think there's no Provisions for it so no got it what's the elevation of the in the uh Inlet pipe into the um septic field thank you 60 I was going to say 65 or 6 7605 so elevation yep 7605 so this is going to be a mounded system this is going to be a mounded system correct so we don't love that just so you know that's not a situation that we love here well I mean but is there a is there some ordinance provision no there's not but is there a way to grade it out to not require it to be mounded I mean that this is requ a larger footprint correct to do that potentially that would require a larger footprint correct if you were have to graded out much larger agreed that's why I'm asking that's why I'm asking Yes again there there's you know the mounted system is my opinion a good design especially where it's located and the topography around it uh it's not naturally sloping uh from one side to the other again because it's flat mounted systems are are very are very common and again in my opinion the the best approach for so that's not my as that's not my question is there a way to grade it out so that it's not mounded I don't I don't believe so just because of the size of the system um to get the the minimum and maximum distance on top of the septic system on one side to the other uh I don't believe it's going to be feasible so the 28 inches that the ground is being raised this is going to be mounded above that 28 inches correct yep be huge yep again where it's where it's located it it is surrounded by trees but so you you should not be able to see it from victory road again it will be grass it's not like it's a uh a treatment plan or anything like that this is respectfully like we've had like there's a a strip center on n not far from here that has a mounted system in the front yard which I don't necessarily think the board anticipated was going to be there so they want to know what it's going to look like honestly was it always anticipated to be a mounded system correct so I'm just saying you know we don't typically love that and I'm not saying it's not permitted but it's definitely something that we need to understand the visual impact associated with it and whether it's visual from the front yard or not whatever but M Mr Kelly do you believe that there's going to be any type of adverse visual impact from this system I in my opinion no have you have you evaluated that have you taken photos from the road to see whether you could see it or not I have not okay thanks Mr be yes sir the visual thing is one thing okay nobody wants to look at at a mound you know whoever drives by whatever but I think myself and and some of the board members here are more concerned with the water table and pushing everything to the road we've spoke we spoke about this last time 28 in and I am just still not convinced with storm water and septic at the same time in the event of multiple rainstorms or a 30in snow storm and everything melting off and the high water table everything perking up and pushing to Victory Road I totally understand that this is just an addition to that that's all I'm saying hey Jen yes sir um is there any Landscaping that would Sherry would need to be getting involved with on a mounded system or has that already been discussed you can't landscap you can't you can't you can't put anything on it right so just a mount the root system CL it up right that's what I was going to ask is there any trees or anything around it that could clog it up because you were talking about trees or brush got got a tree line next to it correct correct and that tree line is the property line uh no the the property Line's even farther uh from the system the system was design uh where within 10 ft of it uh there's no trees which is in deceptic rigs you mentioned it was going to be surrounded by trees is that by the road side if if you look at the plan um you see the black uh the black line where it looks like squigglies yeah ien just for for the record this is we're looking at this plan this is a68 yes okay is doing it oh I'm sorry Laura this this is a68 this the plan that's on the screen right now yes okay thank you um Mr chair I have a couple more questions but whenever the board is done I just want to sure does anybody have anything floor is yours Miss Ferguson thank you um just just very briefly um so Mr Kelly you mentioned that there's there's not going to be an impact of the of the storm water mounding from from Bel the infiltration Basin on the system have we done any mounding analysis on that Basin for the storm water basin I'd have to ask the site engineer okay um I also wanted to ask you when you did those test pits that that seasonal how table was you know you thought acceptable can I do you have any idea when when those test bits were done what time of year uh it's in the the Geotech report that was submitted as part of the application okay thank you um and one more question you you talked about the number of employees in a 24-hour period is that going to change it all in shifts or is it GNA that's a Max 24-hour period 24-hour period okay thank you so much thank you Mr chair good okay sure anybody else Mr Simon I have no further questions for this witness okay um I guess at this time I will open it up to the public for questions only for for the septic just just questions no testimony sir come on up just remind everybody please speak clearly into the microphone it's not the best equipment here Hey sir if you could just State and spell your name and give us your address uh Mike Bernstein 3 Con in Court Howell Mr Bernstein how are you good how are you tonight all right um I just have a question that no one has asked how is this system vented every system has to be vented if it's a septic system it's got to be vented or it's going to be over pressurized now right now I understand that he's saying that that's going to be on the edge of the property where it's not going to affect anybody but at some point that property that property is going to get sold something's going to happen on that property next door but right next to this vented septic system that's my first question the second question is all the calculations that you're using into the microphone please sorry it's all the calculations that you're using how old are the calculations that you're basing what you are presenting here tonight because the weather has changed there's plenty of instances in Howell that everybody sitting here and there know that Flood now that never did before when we were promised that that never could happen like he's saying that could never happen well it's happened and I just want to know and maybe you'll tell them how old are the calculations and how is the system vented and how are you going to prevent that from going anywhere near what's close to it thanks for your time thanks Mr Bernstein Mr Kelly uh in in regards to the septic calculations um they've been within the past year uh for the how the uh sewage flows have been generated uh the how old the septic rules themselves are within the state I'd have to look at at the code when those were adopted but this has been common practice for for years it's in accordance with the rules the calculations were done in 2024 uh and 2023 okay and then the he had a question regarding the venting uh the venting yes uh within this the septic tank itself uh there's a uh effluent um filter that kind of uh filters out the gas deflecting years ago they used to use a like a a gas deflector so it didn't just go directly out um yeah and now they just have a e filter to kind of filter that out for the the smell and everything got it thank you anybody else from the public just questions only at this time sure since your represented you can ask questions done it before also are are you represented by Council yes you've let us asked question before so I wasn't sure if it was going to be allowed to no if you're represented by Council your Council does the cross-examination you can testify but your council is responsible for anyone else seeing none I'll close the public questions at this time Mr Simon Okay um Mr chairman I have no further Witnesses at this time okay um other than um I recall there may be a couple of members of the public who still didn't have a chance maybe to cross-examine well make statements yeah we're going to do that I think I've been requested by a few here to take a f minute break just before we do that M Mr M Ferguson do you have any uh Witnesses you want to uh put up tonight uh in rol not not right now no I do not tonight thank you okay all right thank you yeah so we're going to just adjourn for a five minute break okay thank you the board will now recess until 816 Simon anything else no I think it's up we're public comment and yeah um I think just so the record's clear my my my recollection is that we started public comment correct I don't know if it was comment or question seeing as it was 11 months ago uh I think there were some comments I think there was comments we start a public comment Mr chair but I would just I'm just going to open it up yeah that's be my recommendation I just wanted to record sure sure sorry so Mr chair my recommendation would be Miss Ferguson if you have clients who would like to testify I guess we could take your list first okay sure um thank you very much okay I just need to swear you in first do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth I do please State and spell your name and give us your address Betty valz gimal b l e z hyen gimal g i m b e e l 97 Victory Road okay go ahead ma'am thank you for the opportunity to make a comment okay um so in response to the tenant use uh the different tennis use group kicks in required number of fixtures and additional fixtures um the 2021 National Standard plumbing code requires certain fixtures based on the type of use and use group yet they don't know the use yet so for example adding a possible mop sync or eyewash station would increase the amount of water use they are using basic use of bs-1 and if they put any other specialty Flex use like F1 or F2 or all B then the fixture count will change a lot and 1,995 gallons will go go up very quickly in comment to the mounded system it wasn't always designed that way because they didn't even have a septic design until now let's see um as far as the 247 use if my math serves me correctly that's three shifts of eight hours a piece so that's a lot more people using this septic system and right now they still don't have D approval thank [Applause] you um Council I think that's all I have for my so Mr chair we can open up to the rest of the public now okay if anyone would like to come up and comment on this application now is your time sir come on up you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth okay sir if you just ask close to the mic and state and spell your name and give us your address yes uh my name is Wayne Senator I live at 245 thorough bread Drive uh free hole North how how Mr sanatori can you just spell your last name for us s n a t o r e okay go ahead sir I just have a couple of questions with the announcement from the uh Town manager the other day about the uh property in question on the applic the application being uh um potentially bought by the town I just uh wanted to ask a couple of questions and I don't know if it's if you're allowed to tell me this but I'll ask you anyway who who is the town negotiating with for this property we're we're the planning board the we're an autonomous agency so this board has nothing to do or not even knowledgeable about anything that the township may be pursuing we're not part of those conversations uh it's not anything that uh we have jurisdiction to look at so we don't we have no information on that okay so so you can't answer the question but doesn't it seem funny that you negotiate you're right now you're trying to approve an application with property that'ss probably going to be negotiated with with the with the we're not trying to approve anything we're hearing an application I understand and we're we're constrained by the municipal land use law here's what happens if we don't hear an application there are certain time frames that the municipal land use law provides that uh a decision must be made and if the board determines that it's just not going to hold a hearing then the applicant has a right to go to court and get what's called an automatic approval which takes this board out of it and it's happened in other municipalities so you know it the the process here would actually wind up with an approval without our participation at all uh an ability to approve or deny the application if we didn't hear the application okay so are you up at that gate at that fence you're at that fence we're past it we're living on uh the applicant has given various extensions of time so the we are at the limit of the last extension of time that we received okay so I just uh well I mean my basic questions were all around that you know so I guess I can't ask questions like that since you have no jurisdiction or no certainly at the governing body you can ask those questions but here it's just not anything that the law allows us to pursue nor would we be involved in any negotiations uh with you know to to purchase the property just not anything that the law allows us to uh to get into okay well then I apologize for wasting you're not wasting anybody's time sir all right anyone else hey you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to provide this board is the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth yes I do please State and spell your name and give us your address my name is Mark pesi M RC p a r II addresses to Castle Court okay go ahead Mr pesi thank you sir good evening board evening uh I just wanted to remind that uh you know our ordinances section 1886 environmental impact report States in section section D that and I I I'll read from our ordinances upon completion of all reviews and public hearings the planning board shall consider the environmental impact record and if the planning board finds that the proposed development will result in substantial damage to any of the elements of the environment said forth in this section which is not adequately resolved or avoided by The applicant's Proposal the planning board may deny the application and then the ordinance in section e goes on to list the following subsections that are to be considered one stability of the soil during and after the proposed alteration two drainage patterns and effect on surface water runoff three effect on Springs four potential effect on animals and significant plant species five potential air and water pollution especially on uh any potential increas in siltation six effective any construction plans or other environmental changes on critical slope areas or sewage Disposal Systems seven problems related to rock removal eight amount of resulting non-agricultural displacement of soils nine potential noise pollution 10 increase in amount of industrial waste 11 increase problems of industrial or non-industrial waste disposal 12 circumstances or conditions that are peculiar to the site or to the application under consideration that are not generally applicable to sites or applications in the same general locality and and that would result in imposition of an undue burden on the applicant of if an environmental impact report were required the other thing that I just think that's important to put on the record is that the last time we had this hearing was in November 2nd 2023 just prior to that this planning board adopted a master plan re-exam in which there was recommendations uh that to remove the S Zone uh in this particular in along around Victory Road area following that our Council took action in the beginning of this year in January 16th if I'm not mistaken to rezone this property to A6 residential now I understand that this application was filed long before the zoning change and that it's protected under the time of application rule but I think it's important for this record that this board and the policy of our governing body was that it didn't see fit that a warehouse is devel of this size is developed on this particular property and I just think that that needs to be part of this record and I thank everyone tonight thank you hey do you swear or affirm the testimony about to provide this board is the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do please State and spok your name and give us your address good evening uh board professionals and Council and members of the public my name is Lawrence white wh te I reside at 15 w n w y in Hal New Jersey can you go back where do you live 15 w n w a y renway I have to spell it because the W's silent okay go ahead sir thank you uh well folks I'm sure if you took a Paul in this town about 90% of the people in this town would say it's insane to put a warehouse on Victory Road this is a whining bucolic Road filled with residences and Farms including life stock farms and it's got a high water table it's got winding roads it's got weak access to 547 and no one in their right mind would think that you should put a 200,000 foot Warehouse on this property I understand that the board is constrained by the municipal land use law and that this was at the time of application a permitted use on this particular parcel of land but I will say that this entire Township has been let down by Our Town Council who failed to change the zoning regulations after they defeated the mammoth Commerce Mega Warehouse in 2020 they could have changed the zoning laws they didn't until 20123 and that's what allowed this application to come on a very inappropriate parcel of land and I just want that to be part of the record this evening thank you thank [Applause] you anyone else Last Chance close the public portion Mr chairman I'd recommend that we permit Miss Ferguson comments and then the uh applicants coun closing comments sure thank you very much Council um I gave m rubano a little uh Drive I just had a visual I wanted to to show it's not evidence it's just a demonstrative it's basically sites from the transcripts because there's been so many hearings um and if the board would humor me I'd love to put it up visually it's not anything new it's basically quotes from the past heing give us one moment I don't know what it is just tell me what is it she has the drive what you drive what do it named oh I think it's howl 919 can can I just have a proper as to what what you're referring to it's basically it's a it's a slide deck and it basically just goes through the the testimony that's been it's it's not going to be long what's been given so far and it's it's not arguments it's just you're saying it's excerpts from the transcript yes okay are you looking for the PowerPoint or the PDF uh PDF is fine they're both the same thank you yes thank you very much I appreciate it um so uh again I'm Zoe Ferguson and I I was before the board with uh another attorney about 10 months ago and I just wanted to give the board a little bit of a visual um reminder of some of the some of the things that we've we've gone through so far and some of the reasons this application should be denied um so we go to the next slide so the appli presented wait wait wait excuse me yes I'm sorry there's a difference between showing on a slide transcript pages and for example let's say highlighting some language in a transcript page to to make a point I I get that that's that's certainly fair and appropriate but to provide a PowerPoint presentation of a summation let alone not providing anyone with a copy of it until until this very very moment I believe you want to not providing people with copies when we receive something 3 hours before the hearing so I don't I don't believe that this she can certainly read it but now I'm seeing visuals and and and evidence to be made part of the record well here's my recommendation Mr chair Rules of Evidence are not strictly applicable um to the extent that I think the board can give it its appropriate weight and I think we can assess whether whether there's any new information that is being provided rather than a summary of information that was already part of the record to the extent it's new information you know we'll have to determine how to proceed but so far you know we haven't gotten into it but uh we'll we will evaluate as we go Mr chair I wouldn't uh want to present any new information essentially it's a verbal summation which is yes argumentative about what the application shouldn't be granted but it's based only on testimony that's already been given um there's citations to each of these images that are all from the applicants own materials this is from the subject design from January uh not from today's design um and it's just facts so certainly if there's any information that the board would deem to be new you know that's please let me know and I would honor that my objection is noted but you can proceed thank you very much um and I'll be as brief as I can I don't want to waste anybody's time uh so the applicant presented Witnesses in several times last year April May June October and November I know there's been some changes on the board since then we presented our witness uh Jeff G and Ed junor from Princeton Hydro he's actually here beside me uh and our last hearing was November 2nd at which point the applicant was I think ready to proceed but then there was some confusion by the septic system and we decided to come back for that um and the next slide please this is well this is not this is not current because it's not from today so um I guess I can skip this thank you um this you know this is also a slide that talks about the poptic design which is also not from today however uh from the testimony listed from Mr Kelly today this is still accurate so the gallage proposed for the subject design is 1,995 gallons per day it's 5 gallons less than 2,000 gallons per day um and you've heard Mr Kelly's testimony that not ever not once in any situation would this go over 2,000 gallons per day um if that were to happen it would require State approval and uh County Amendment to the Water Management plan but that's according to their engineer never going to happen it's also not including any additional design criteria such as any additional sink stations showers or process waste um which is what testimony was given today by Mr Kelly the next slide um this is going to be the portion that is not this is coming from transcripts that's citations but it's you know these are the argumentative points this is of course not you know um facts that the applicant has brought but these are this is what our expert has testified to and he's also here so I'm going to set forth a couple of different issues with the storm water um and give insation why this application should be denied the first one um and they're I'm going to go over them in in some detail not too much uh the next slide is going to be about the recharge issues it's the first issue um but very briefly the first one is that the groundwater recharge requirements under the Howell ordinance Howell's own ordinance um incorporates the D groundwater recharge requirements and those ordinance Provisions are not being met because the groundwater as we listed testimony about 10 months ago maybe maybe more than that maybe it was last October uh groundwater going be added to the storm sewer system so at one of the infiltration basins I believe was Basin number four Mr Gold testified and you can go to the next slide please um actually two slides yeah thank you very much um or actually go to the next slide thank you okay here we go uh Mr Gold testified that the applicant has this proposal to place anti-ep collars around the underground pipes um and the applicant testified I believe Mr lamb testified that that would stop the groundwater from flowing around the pipes and going into the infiltration Basin why does that matter who cares because if water goes from the groundwater flowing around the pipes into the Basin that's adding additional water that hasn't been considered in the recharge requirements and so we're not only putting storm water in the Basin we're also putting groundw in the Basin and so there's some recharge but not the recharge that's required under the DP regulations and more importantly the how ordinance um which is within this board's perview for sure next slide please um next issue that Mr Gold testified about is that the applicant's interpretation of the elevation of the groundwater seems uh very curious and and a bit strange crul because there seems to be just enough separation from the uh bottom of the Basin to the seasonal High groundwater table just enough directly underneath one Basin but barely any on either side of the Basin I believe was a couple of inches um that's a requirement for the NDP regulations and the howl ordinances and so if that basic recharge requirement of two fee separation isn't being met which it seems difficult to believe that it is being met if it's conveniently just enough under one spot but not working on the other sides then that's something appc has to show and if they can't show that then this can't be approved the next slide Please Mr go also testified that the groundwater mounting calculations don't meet the best practices so the njd um bmps the best management practices are Incorporated into howl storm waterer ordinance um he testified that these calculations as they were done for Basin number four uh which I I think is the large long Basin on the on the east side of the property but regardless one of the storm water basins um the calculations there seem seem seem not to meet the ordinance because the water isn't going to be able to drain in compliance with those bmps incorporate to the ordinance and as a result we're gonna potentially have uh scum algae mosquito breeding issues for all the reasons that we don't want extra water in that Basin those are the real life reasons that you're thinking about that this application should be denied next slide please and I promise I'm only a couple more minutes and then I will stop talking um the green infrastructure standards at the storm water rule for the state which are incorporated into the how ordinance require that the max drainage area for a small scale Basin is 2 and a half acres so each of these basins that you you can see on the right and that's from the applicants drainage plan from June 5th 2023 um those basins are all kind of uh clumped together Mr Gold testified that those basins really should be spread ACR the site to mimic recharge next slide please and then the final thing um that's that's related to storm water uh and the environment is the applicant's proposal to put some trees in or on the BMS um and I know there was some discussion about that you can put plant material in the Basin but this is not in the Basin it's on the BMS and so umu Mr Gold did explain and and give some information about how that shouldn't be permitted on emak human surfaces and then the very last slide that I'm going to show oh next actually this slide I'm going to I'm going to stop on for a minute thank you um the board's position here the board's role for this town and the people in the town is to make a decision about whose Witnesses are credible who's provided the board with full information and you know provideed a perspective that we can trust and rely on the applicant here has provided a number of different interpretations of their own information including brand new information on multiple occasions it's not clear what they're going to put here they don't even know what they're going to put here um and the board has the opportunity and the legal obligation to assess The credibility of the experts of the different sides and so if the board should so choose they have the duty to decide which experts to rely on um and we submit that that should be ours not the applicants and the next slide is one final word and I really am done about traffic safety the traffic engineer back in the day you may recall those of you who were here on the board um Miss peny came several times before the board very dutifully and gave lots of testimony about the traffic safety one thing that's going to be added here on this site or actually off the site is going to be an easement on the property which the applicant doesn't own um that's at the intersection with 547 that's going to be Paving over a rounding out that lot so that they can actually turn trucks in and out of the site um it's it's clear from Miss panky's testimony that there's no clear number on how many of those trucks are going to be going over the center line when turning right onto Route 547 these illustrations are from the applicant's truck turning concept plan plan by Langan on February 23rd 2023 and they show different iterations of trucks and how far they're going to go over the center line um we would submit that this is essentially Ingress and egress to the site this is on a easement that the applicant has has purchased for the applicants truck traffic um and that's something the board should consider and so at the end of the day um you know the board's heard the testimony of our Witnesses the applicants Witnesses the board has sat through many of these hearings and is very well equipped to make the decisions that need to be made um in in terms of honoring not only how's ordinances um but the spirit of this of this property and what the town has made clear this this application should not go through there's serious flooding issues that have not yet been properly addressed and um I think that the board would do well to you know follow that and and take seriously the issues that we have with the environment on this property thank you very much thank you Mr Simon Mr chairman uh members of the board board professionals um Miss Ferguson um and members of the public we want to um thank you for your attention and frankly your participation as part of this application and when you have an application before board and you have public participation it is always in my humble opinion a very good thing because what you're trying to do as an applicant certainly is to get the best plan possible and receiving input not just from of course your excellent board professionals but also members of the public helps in almost all circumstances to achieve a better plan and in this case a fully compliant plan that I will get into in a moment as you know the applicant here is seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval to construct a a warehouse building with loading docks trailer parking spaces and P passenger vehicle parking spaces this property is almost 20 acres in size it is deemed to be located for purposes of this application within within the Special Economic Development Zone District along Victory Road this development fully complies 100% complies with the use and bulk standards applicable to the S Zone in terms of design waivers or exceptions under section 51b of the municipal land use law the only one that we believe is required is under Section 188-195 A regarding tree replacement where it says all required replac with trees shall be planted on the site from which trees were removed if possible some folks think that that doesn't require or trigger a waiver we're going to be conservative and to the extent that it does require a waiver certainly we're making a contribution to be deposited in the township tree fund due to the limited available planting area um and we've put on the record I believe it's over $300,000 that's going to be contributed to the township tree fund should approval be granted for this application also to the extent that there may be a possible waiver or two driveway widths being 30 ft where the ordinance in one section says that driveway widths um exceeding 24t shall be approved by the planning board we've also provided testimony again in a conservative mode to the extent that a design waiver or exception is required for that type of relief as you know we've entered many many exhibits over many hearings in connection with this application some of which were in direct response to comments made by the public by your board professionals by the board by Mr Gaul we've put on various Witnesses you heard from Jeremy Lang the director director of development for active Acquisitions you heard from tongo lamb of bowler engineering the engineer on the project Sean nagger the architect on the project Carrie peny from Langan engineering our traffic and circulation consultant Michael Morris from GZA go environmental who discussed the environmental condition of the property Christine cfone our professional Planner on the project who went over those design waivers that I just mentioned and tonight you heard from Victor Kelly of Colliers engineering as to the septic design which includes the county approval that we just obtained and we certainly sincerely believe that we have addressed and we will continue of course to address all conditions and requirements set forth in the various reports submitted by the board professionals um unless to the extent otherwise addressed and dealt with during the course of these hearings and certainly we would continue to work with Miss Newman Miss beam Miss spau to address any outstanding technical requirements or concerns so let's talk about the law for a second for for a fully conforming application the board's role in reviewing a site plan application for a permitted use is limited as a matter of law the board is to review such an application solely for compliance with the applicable Municipal ordinances a board is not as a matter of law for any fully conforming Act application permitted to deny an application based on concerns that are unrelated to an applicants compliance with the ordinance and the municipal land use law and that is not based on affirmative evidence affirmative evidence presented at an underlying hearing we have as the applicant presented all information required by the township ordinances to demonstrate full compliance with the ordinances requirements for site plan approval we've also provided as I stated additional information requested by the board requested by your Professionals for consideration of the application we presented extensive expert witness testimony and as Mr cachero is going to advise you in or presumably in the piso Manon case the New Jersey Supreme Court restricted the power of planning boards to deny land use applications for permitted uses and the quote is that the denial of a site plan application for a permitted use would be a drastic action when the pertinent ordinance standards are met a planning board's Authority in reviewing a site plan application is again whether it informs to the municipality's zoning and sight plan ordinances the a board does not have authority to prohibit a use that's otherwise permitted as in this case by the municipality's zoning ordinance the board is also well aware that it has no authority to deny a site plan for a permitted use because of Any any anticipated detrimental impact on off track traffic conditions and that is the Duncan Donuts vers North Brunswick case I happen to notice that Miss Ferguson um Cherry Picked a sentence a quote from the Dunkin Donuts case that talks about offsite traffic let's be clear offsite traffic is not to be considered for a permitted use with the one exception is if it's exactly right outside right outside the Ingress and egress to a particular site an applicant when an applicant meets the site plan ordinance standards an application may not be denied because of offsite traffic or other conditions that is the meridian Quality Care case Lionel's Appliance case Duncan Donuts case the Appel Division and the New Jersey Supreme Court have repeatedly stated that New Jersey Court specifically have held that any increases in traffic that result from a particular development application for a permitted use were by definition necessarily considered by the governing body when adopting ordinances making certain uses permitted in other words the mere increase in traffic may not be used as the reason to deny an application for a permitted use it's beyond this boards this planning boards jurisdiction and the municipal land use law specifically provides for off-track improvements that a municipality may require a developer to make as a condition to be imposed by either a planning board and some cases a board of adjustment for approval of a site plan that's section 42 in the municipal luse law and that deals with things such as a contribution to necessary offsite Street improvements if you're going to uh increase the width of particular roadway and you ask the developer to contribute their pratus share to that off track Improvement under section 42 of the municipal luse law that is permitted but not to consider denying an application because of anything related to offsite traffic circulation impacts so in this case we ask for particular waivers or exceptions uh one has to the need to make a financial contribution for the trees and also the width of the driveways that I I already talked about the the property as you know is heavily wooded it's not capable of being developed unless it was cleared the applicant has thus proposed waiver relief to permit an inlo Financial contribution which we believe is appropriate considering the condition of the property and in fact that is uh heavily wooded so that would be under Section 51b and of course um I already talked about the fact that there's a discrepancy in the ordinance between a a driveway that's greater 24t to be approved by the board given consideration to the width and curbing Etc and the fact that um Comm for commercial or industrial uses that main driveways shall be a minimum of 30 feet wide we believe that we're fully compliant and that no driveway relief is requ required for this application and in fact I believe that the board has previously determined in connection with other applications that the proposed 30 foot wide driveway for warehouse uses would be is in fact compliant with the ordinance requirements but again to be conservative under both the tree removal and the width of the driveway we're asking for for Relief under Section 51b and um it goes without mentioning although I will mention it that there's been no testimony or evidence offered or provided by the public by anyone in opposition to these waivers or exception requests um and or that any variance or additional waiver or exception are required by the applicant for this application me take a moment to talk about storm water regarding storm water management the board is aware that through the course of many hearings on this application through the course of the expert witnesses that the applicant presented and certainly with regard to um the board Engineers most recent letter dealing with storm War management dated October 27th 2023 the applicant believes it has fully complied with all ordinance requirements All State regulations regarding storm water design storm water management plan and certainly the applicant will also certainly fully comply with all technical comments that have been made um particularly with regard to the storm water management design including those comments in the latest uh CME letter D dated October 27th uh 2023 and we continue to contend that our storm waterer management plan and our design fully complies with all applicable regulations and ordinances we also believe that we have fully fully addressed Mr G's testimony on the various issues some of which were raised by Miss Ferguson in her Powerpoint summation regarding this application um I will note parenthetically that during my cross-examination of Mr G I started and I went back to the transcript today just to double check on June I believe it was uh 12th Mr G began his testimony and I asked him did you prepare any type of report for this application he said no and then I said you looking at notes and he said yes I'm looking at notes I said well are those notes in written form that you that you prepared a writing and he said no they're just notes well that was on June 12th 2023 and then on Feb late February of 2024 uh Miss Ferguson I believe uh sent an email to the board and ask in that and enclosed a report from Mr Gul and and said this this represents a summation summation of Mr G's testimony and it was dated when it was dated June 5th of 2023 was dated even prior to him beginning testimony it was marked as' 05 for the record and I believe it should be stricken certainly from the record um Mr Gul made various suggestions or statements throughout his testimony in June and in October as to the applicant storm water management plan and as you all know as to those suggestions or statements that we contended warranted a response comprehensive response we either explain through evidence and testimony why we respectfully disagreed with Mr G with line inv verse pointing to the regulations pointing to the ordinance accorting to best practices showing additional exhibits designs specifications why we respectfully disagreed with him or in some cases based on Mr G's comments we actually modified the storm water plan to address those concerns for example Mr G was happy to see and I believe Miss Ferguson mentioned this in her summation was happy to see that we're proposing watertight joint joints to eliminate water from getting into the pipes and he asked that oh can you I just want you to check the buoyancy calculation to prove to demonstrate that these pipes are not going to lift out of the ground so what did we do we responded by providing the buoyancy calculations to demonstrate that in fact they would not do so uh Mr G also sent stated that there may be an interception of seasonal High groundwater by the storm waterer pipes and the French drains thereby negating the full infiltration benefits of the recharge Basin what did Mr lamb do Mr lamb responded by providing anti-ep collars to eliminate any increased storm water flow through the pipe trench from any preferential path and by extending there was a liner if you recall we extended the proposed liner all the way to the surface of the trench to again to demonstrate that we're going to be preventing any groundwater from entering into the French drain again Mr lamb provided an explanation or response to each one of Mr G's comments that again warranted a response and stated that the applicant would fully comply with all of cme's comments in their various review letters to the extent not done to date at no time was there any specific regulation or ordinance that was identified that that resulted in this applicant being required to amend their application to present variance a variance request or to amend their application to present any type of EX ception or waiver request under section 51b of the municipal anus law not one there was no throughout the entire testimony of Mr Gul because he I asked him Mr cachero asked him point to one variance or or or waiver exception that is triggered by your testimony that we have not addressed and the answer was no I cannot point to any and certainly again parenthetically if Mr Gul had done so what would we have done we would have of course revised the plans to comply or we would have requested ex exception design relief and and provided evidence on the record why that was warrant warranted we never even got to that and I also remind the board that since the applicant has has applied for a freshwater wetlands permit from the DP that permit application triggers a review by the DP of the project storm water management plan and again I mentioned it earlier this evening section and Mr cachero agreed me section 22b provides that a board approval shall be conditioned on approvals by other governmental agencies such as the D with jurisdiction in appropriate instances in other words the storm water management plan besides being reviewed by your professionals is also going to be fully reviewed by the njde again we believe through our expert testimony that we are fully compliant with the township ordinance and regulations in all respects regarding storm water management uh there will also be BMP compliance per the applicants Geotech and mounding Analysis there's going to be an operation and maintenance manual uh reviewed and approved by the township that's going to be recorded as a lean against the property to guarantee in perpetuity the maintenance by the property owner um of the storm water management plan in accordance with the approved plan so again we believe that we have more than provided in a thorough comprehensive basis all pertinent information including that asked of us sufficient to assess and confirm the adequacy and the feasibility of the applicant's storm water management plan again in compliance with the ordinance and the applicable state regulations let's talk for a minute about traffic and by the way I looked up at Miss Ferguson's PowerPoint which included I think one slide about um the testimony Miss peny and that right hand turn and just so the board is aware the slide that Miss Ferguson showed was a slide of existing conditions it is it was not a slide of proposed conditions regarding that intersection so I wanted it just to mention that right from the GetGo we have provided certainly extensive traffic and circulation testimony by miss peny the public failed to provide any expert traffic circulation testimony challenging our experts analysis and conclusions or providing any type of Alternatives none the site driveways as testified to by Miss peny will oper operate at acceptable levels of service and they're designed to provide safe and adequate access circulation appropriate sight lines all per the testimony provided the driveway designs driveway widths are going to allow vehicles to enter and exit the site safely and efficiently while not relevant to the board site plan review for all the reasons I stated earlier under Dunkin Donuts and its progyny the proposed Warehouse is not expected to significantly alter the traffic operations in the study area during the peak hour as testified to by Miss Panky and that intersections will operate in fact at acceptable levels of service the proposed voluntary Road improvements by the applicant if you remember including along the scurve that the applicant has proposed will obviously improve conditions not just for vehicles that are entering and exiting this particular site but for all types of drivers coming from any direction and certainly make those conditions safer for the benefit of the general public the proposed additional pavement the additional striping the signage proposed at the scurve and again these are voluntary conditions of approval for this application and if you recall I mentioned about under section 42 an applicant would typically for these types of improvements agree just to contribute their Prat share the applicant affirmatively stated on more than one occasion throughout the course of this presentation of this application that they would agree to contribute to make these improvements on their own to make the curve in the roadway safer for all types of vehicles regarding the right turns at Victory Road in Lakewood as you saw from Miss Ferguson's PowerPoint school buses today are making that right hand turn and they are encroaching over the center line today per do Department of Transportation standards given that the majority of traffic making that turn is a passenger car vehicle the intersection as a matter of of law does not need to be designed for those larger Vehicles there is no intersection Improvement whether it's secured by easen or otherwise is necessary for this project as a matter of Law and we testified and we provided evidence that we do not believe that any of the trucks from the development for this site are even going to be making that right-hand turn in the first place given the anticipated circulation offsite and where trucks are going to go from our site that being said we did voluntarily admittedly secure an easement on a proactive basis so that both existing traffic such as school buses and any additional traffic from the proposed development can make a right-hand turn without moving into the oncoming traffic lean believing that the board may want us to do so based on some of the questioning by the board members and the board professionals and certainly while the easement currently remains part of our proposal it is up to the board to determine whether you believe that it is necessary given the evidence and testimony provided if the board determines that the easement is not necessary that's fine if it's determin that the easement is necessary it is also fine in other words we will not pursue the easement with the Township in the county if that is ultimately the desire of this board but if the easement is required by the board it's going to become part of the public roadway Improvement and once offer offered by the applicant and accepted by the township and the county it will be an off trck Improvement under section 42 of the municipal lanus law again not located on the property not located on the closest half of the abing street or right away of the property and again even as the off trck Improvement under section 42 of mpal anus law where they would only be responsible to provide their pratus share they they remain willing to pay the full C cost of that contemplated Improvement so where are we we are proud of this application and the process that has led us here because the process allowed for what the applicant and the board together with the public should want for a fully conforming development application which is a conforming application that is not to slop together but is thoughtfully conceived and then made better by the input of the public including as I mentioned earlier the in input of Mr G that's all you want respectfully believe as a board for a development application and as a board attorney which I am for a number of municipalities instructing my board on a fully conforming application I would say to you as an applicants attorney that we believe the law requires that the application as submitted and the testimony and the evidence provided warrants an approval of this application um we believe that the proposed development is appropriate we believe it's fully compliant with the law and accordingly uh we again thank you for your attention and your patience throughout the many months in this application but we do ask the board to approve this application thank you thank you Mr chair just a few things sure and then of course any questions that the board may have I'll begin just with the one objection to uh regarding evidence uh specifically uh exhibit 05 my recommendation would be that the board uh accept the continue to accept the exhibit and to give it whatever weight it deems appropriate uh for for that exhibit and not to uh to exclude the exhibit with regard to the board's role in any site plan application the jurisdiction of any planning board is tightly circumscribed by both the municipal land law as well as decisions of New Jersey's courts the role is well let me start off with the role is not um the board is not a legislative body so the case law is clear that the board doesn't get to disagree with the governing body as to what uses are permitted or not permitted in his own that's a legislative decision and if you make a decision based upon your disagreement with it the courts call that usurping unlawfully usurping the legislative authority of the governing body so if you like Warehouse applications that's not a reason to vote for or against this application if you dislike warehouses it's not a reason to vote for or against an application the board's role in any site plan application is to look at its ordinances and to determine whether an applicant satisfies or doesn't satisfy the ordinance where an applicant does not satisfy certain provisions of an ordinance the board has to analyze the testimony and determine whether the applicant has satisfied its burden of proof to be granted relief where an applicant has satisfied the ordinance requirements board is required to give approval I would say the one exception to that though and um Mr Simon cited the Dunkin Donuts case even where an application is fully compliant with all ordinance requirements if a board finds that the Ingress and egress to the site is dangerous that would support a denial of a conforming application or an application for a permitted use parenthetically that was one of the significant reasons that the board denied the mammoth Commerce application and the courts upheld that because it was based upon the Ingress and egress and not upon General traffic in the area um with regard to a few uh specific elements that were discussed I want to talk about uh the ordinance the environmental ordinance that Mr paresi uh cited and he gave the correct citation to that to that ordinance and he read it appeared to be verbatim I don't have any disagreement with uh how it was recited however I think that you have to read the ordinance in concert with the New Jersey case law and the remainder of our site plan ordinance there's no standards in that ordinance for a board to apply and I think the board would be hard pressed to find that there is something that could be considered noise pollution when an applicant is complying with the noise ordinance in this case the applicant is not requested any relief from any noise ordinance requirements it's not even those requirements are not even in the uh the Landes ordinance uh similarly air pollution is regulated by the federal government and the state government you know if an applicant complies with what those requirements are a board can't disagree with those levels of government and their regulations and find that there's a detrimental impact um I always say it's similar to cell tower applications where you know boards are prohibited from finding that the radiation is dangerous by federal law um same thing with soil in terms of uh their outside agencies that regulated the Freehold Soil Conservation so I think you have to read that section and find that there's been a violation somewhere of an applicable standard whether it be a local County State or federal standard in order to get to a place where you could deny an application based upon that um with regard to storm water management um I mean the board has heard a lot of testimony about storm water management but at the end of the day what you this board has to be solely focused upon is compliance with the storm MET Management regulations the municipal regulations parot the the state regulations so unless you find that there is a provision of those regulations that were not satisfied you the board is really not in a place to deny based upon uh storm water management issues in terms of the number of revisions that were made to the plan there was some discussion about that really doesn't matter for this board how many revisions were made to a plan it's what does the plan look like at the time a decision is made and you have to apply the standard that I gave you before to whatever that final plan looks like it's not uncommon for plans to be revised over time as a result of cross-examination you know questions from the board or or you anything else that happens so uh you know number of revisions is not relevant It's the final product that that is relevant and I would just say you know at the end of the day I think both Council are correct in terms of the board has to you know take and consider not only the expert testimony from the applicant the expert testimony from uh the objector also the board's own experts as well as any lay testimony that you may have heard from from from the public and balance that and find which testimony you find to be most persuasive but again it's in the context of uh compliance with ordinance requirements so if boort has any questions I'm certainly available any questions anyone okay so um so just I I just want to make sure before we take any motions yep um Mr Simon the request is plinary and final site plan approval with ancillary design waver relief that's correct okay okay at this time I will entertain a motion chairman Mr legio yeah all right L I would like to make you know make a motion to deny application sp- 1105 I've attended every hearing on this application I have listened to the testimony from the applicants professionals the obor's professionals okay I believe the Prof the objectives professionals have presented a lot of credible testimony that raises multiple concerns for this application being a planning board member the number one issue for me is protecting the roadway safety for our community it doesn't matter how much signage is put in place trucks are going to come and go from this site as they please I do not believe trucks will not cross into oncoming traffic this is an unsafe condition roadway safety for our community must be our primary concern I believe that the applicant has failed to prove that Ingress and egress will not result in a lethal situation so you're making a motion a motion to deny do I have a second I'll second Mr Mercer with a second okay I just I always say this whenever there's a motion to deny you're voting on the motion so a vote Yes on the motion is to deny okay Eileen I'll have a roll call please Mr leio yes Mr Mercer yes Mr Rubble reel I'm sorry yes Miss Pike yes Mr Carbonic yes Excuse me yes chairman huster yes motion carries applications [Applause] denied right um any Master Plan update Chen no not at this time but we will be doing um updated how housing element stuff coming probably beginning of the year 20 25 correct got it okay I won't bug you for the rest of the year then um Ron is there any reason to go into executive session all right do I have a motion to adjourn second oh thank you