Hillsborough planning board continues Homestead Road warehouse application after engineers debate stormwater, traffic, pipelines and rail safety

Hillsborough Township planners continued a public hearing on a proposed two-building warehouse development at 203 and 189 Homestead Road, advancing the application to April 3 for additional evidence and response from objectors and the applicant.

The hearing focused on engineering and traffic issues raised by objectors and board professionals. The applicant’s site engineer, Michael Ford of Van Cleef Engineering, described changes to stormwater design and said the project had obtained a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) flood-hazard-area approval. “We added a fourth one,” Ford said of an underground subsurface infiltration basin added behind Building 1 to address groundwater recharge and to reduce the acreage draining to any single basin below the 2.5-acre threshold cited in DEP comments. Ford and several public speakers also discussed the project’s proposed outfall to a tributary of Royce Brook and said the Somerset-Union Soil Conservation District reviewed and required specific discharge work at the stream.

Objectors pressed the applicant on several technical points during cross-examination. Among issues highlighted: whether the engineered plans show the pipeline operating hoop stress percentage required by Hillsborough Township Ordinance 188-75(c)(4); the proximity and height of proposed retaining walls (witnesses described walls that the plans show as tall as about 20 feet at some locations); and whether the applicant had recorded easements for on-site drainage that routes runoff from one proposed lot to another after the subdivision shown on revised plans.

The applicant and objectors also debated coordination with the railroad. Michael Ford testified that the applicant had shared revised grading sketches with a CSX engineering representative in August 2024 and that earlier communications with CSX’s consultant alleviated concerns about tall retaining walls adjacent to the rail right-of-way. Ford acknowledged no executed agreement with CSX had been finalized and said, “that would be typical … an applicant would wait until board action before they address all of the outside agency approvals.” Objectors pointed to an August 8, 2024 email from a Collier/CSX consultant and sought copies of subsequent communications.

Traffic engineering was a central contested subject. The applicant’s traffic rebuttal witness, Gary Dean of Dolan & Dean, submitted a February 28, 2025 letter and new charts comparing truck counts at local warehouses. Dean testified his firm’s field data from 10 warehouse sites in New Jersey and one in Pennsylvania show little statistical correlation between the number of loading docks and peak-hour truck trips; his report concluded “there was essentially 0 correlation” between loading-dock counts and truck-trip generation. Dean said he uses building square footage (ITE land-use categories) as the primary predictor of traffic and that he deliberately excluded higher-generator uses — parcel hubs, transload facilities and sort/fulfillment centers — because the applicant has represented those uses will not occupy the buildings.

Objectors and public commenters countered that the sample sizes and methods matter. Cross-examination highlighted that each of Dean’s comparative warehouse counts was typically a single-day count at each study site and that different research choices could affect statistical outcomes; objectors also emphasized that different warehouse operations (tenant types, number of shifts, shuttle use, trailer parking and multi-story storage) can materially change traffic and operational impacts. The board’s discussion included whether ITE categories and Dean’s local sampling provided definitive assurance that truck traffic would not materially increase congestion on Homestead Road and at the nearby Route 206 intersection.

The board also handled evidentiary housekeeping: counsel for the applicant and objectors marked and agreed a set of applicant exhibits (traffic and environmental reports, letters and plan revisions dated from 2021 through 2024) for the record; objectors asked for the chance to submit a citizens’ petition to the board record during closing arguments rather than as evidentiary testimony.

After several hours of testimony and public questioning, the planning board voted to continue the hearing. The board’s motion to continue the Homestead Road LLC application (file 21-PB-25-MSPV) to Thursday, April 3, 2025, at 7 p.m. carried by roll call; the applicant said it would make the traffic witness available at that later date.

The hearing remains open and the board indicated it expects additional documentary submissions from objectors and will accept rebuttal evidence that strictly responds to testimony already in the record. The board also asked parties to provide communications with outside agencies (for example, CSX) when those communications are raised in cross-examination so the record is complete.

Ending: The board recessed and set the next hearing date for April 3, 2025; parties and members of the public expecting to present new evidentiary material or rebuttal testimony were directed to file materials in advance per the board’s rules so the board engineer and planner can review them ahead of the next session.