Zoning Hearing Board - Special Meeting

There you go. Are you surprised?

I'm on. Oh, you're see [snorts] I have

[laughter] blocks. EITC donate that to

if you have $3,000 or more because I'm So, how does it work? You would pay in first and then you get that back the next. Oh, goodness. [snorts] [clears throat] In our case, it goes. So, that money goes to tuition. So, that's a tuition cost and it's great. Are you ready? Yes, sir. All right. I'm going to reopen the hearing.

H, you ready? I'm sorry. And don't be afraid to let them know if they Okay. All right. Mr. Nuski,

good evening and welcome back. A lot of smiling face smiling faces out there. Uh, let's hope they stay that way. Uh, a couple of administrative items. Uh, everyone knows we are here for the property at 1525 Wood Avenue. Uh, council, and I'm directing it to all council, but particularly uh, attorney Kaplan, uh, any problem with dispensing with the reading of the purpose of the hearing?

We will so dispense. Um, the other administrative item I suspect by now there shouldn't be, but if there is anyone in the audience who after the attorneys are done with their presentation either wants to ask questions, make a comment, speak in any manner, and you want a copy of the board's decision. If you haven't done so at a prior hearing, there is a white tablet on the my left, your right hand side of the table up here. Please come up and print, please, so it's legible, your name and address. [snorts] No. If if if you have not if you've signed a previous one, we have your name and address. This is only if you have not signed in before. But if you do want to speak, now is the time to sign in. I should say.

All right. Thanks.

[snorts]

I can't find it. council [snorts] while she's finishing up there. It is my recollection that you have completed your case in chief. We have Dr. Brown here for uh cross-examination by opposing council and when that has concluded unless opposing council have witnesses they are going to present uh we will open it up for public comment and we'll make further u an I should say an additional announcement at that time uh and then uh the proceedings will conclude. food. So, everyone is signed in. Um, Mr. Chairman, would you like to have everyone sworn in, please?

Yes. Before we do, Mr. Niski, you said um that when Mr. Kaplan's done, if any opposing council has any other U testimony, but I thought we agreed last time that this was going to be it with uh Mr. I don't suspect they will, but if they have rebuttal witnesses. [snorts] Okay.

Like I said, I I don't suspect they will. I'm I'm just like I said, I don't anticipate, but All right. Any anybody or anybody that has signed the sheet or wants to speak tonight need to be sworn in. I'm going to ask you to stand up and be sworn in now. Uh Dr. Brown should have stood

please for tonight. Yeah. Yeah, that's okay. Okay. Um, council.

Sure. Yeah, she want to speak into the mic, please. Thank you. Just make sure the green light is on. No,

there we go. [snorts] Dr. Ran, I have a few questions from your testimony from last month. Um first of all with regard to uh this project you had stated at numerous times that we did this or we designed this channel or whatever. Um what was your uh actual involvement in the project itself? Good question. Um I meant the people I'm representing. I I work for Gwen Felton. Gwen Felton. Yeah. Gwenny Consultants does a lot of work for Bojer.

I'm I'm sorry, sir. I'm sorry, doctor. What's the first name? What? Blank Consultants. Gwenny. G WY NE D. Doctor, if you could just pull that microphone a little closer to you, please. Okay. I don't think I think he's got to pull himself. Yeah. Okay. That better. Thank you. Okay. And thank you for the answer. My involvement in this project began when Mark Kaplan called me and asked me to get involved in review. So I did not good question. I did not do design. I was brought in to review everything as an outside new eyes looking on it and to see if um I could defend it. So I did not. So you're right.

So your testimony at numerous times last month you were saying we designed it this way and I was involved and you were you know I was that not true? No, I didn't say I was involved at any point. I said we and I meant Bodger. Um, that was I should have been saying Boer each time. The Bojer designed it. The engineers of Boer designed it. I reviewed their work. You are FX Brown, Inc., correct?

Uh, no, not anymore. Um, it's confusion. I'm Gwended Consultants now. Eight years ago, Bodger Engineering bought FX Brown, Inc. And so FX Brown, Inc. officially is a subsidiary of Bojer Engineering. However, I am a consultant to them to Bojer. Well, I'm looking at your website. It has FX Brown Inc. Boja Engineering and it has Frank Brown and it's you correct. Correct. And it has a division FX Brown Inc. a division of Boja Engineering Inc. Yes.

Okay. So, and you're telling us today that you no longer have any connection with that entity? It's hard to say. I I'm still under contract not to compete against them because they bought my firm eight years ago. But I was never an employee of Boge Engineering because it was kept as an outside consultant. I would work for them. I do manage projects of Bojer projects that I my FX Brown projects uh which have water resources and things like that. I manage them but I I build them basically through consultant but I do manage one engineer from a boger.

So this website that you still have up you haven't taken this website down correct? No. And people can contact you through this website. I won. People can contact you through this website and they can see what kind of work you do. Correct. Correct. And it has still FX Brown Inc. a division of Boja Engineering. Correct. Yes. And so if you're not involved with Boja Engineering on a on any basis anymore, why haven't you taken the site down?

Basically, I think Boe keeps it up because they bought the name FX Brown. FX Brown had done work in like 14 states and it had a reputation in many different areas. They keep it up because they bought they bought my name. Okay. Um I I 100% of the work I do granny consulting I do for Boier and I manage BAE projects even though they were originally FX Brown projects. Mhm. And so, for instance, when you were talking last month about stream stats and the inputs that are put into stream stats, it sounded like you were the one that actually did that. That is that not correct?

Oh, no. I didn't do any design. I came in and reviewed all the work with the design engineer. And for instance with stream sats with regard to the inputs to stream sats you were testifying how uh this project is in region four or whatever for southeastern Pennsylvania correct is that a yes yes I'm sorry and when you looked over the bojan engineering work you noted that they had put in the stream stats uh for instance something like that the in you looked at the inputs that they put in correct correct

all right and so I want to do a couple things first. Um, you had testified that you were part of the BM Pennsylvania BMP manual. Correct. Um, yes, I was one of about 10 years ago. 10. I mean, I'm looking at the storm water management oversight committee and that's what you were on. Correct. Correct. I'm looking. This was published in December of 2006 where you're listed as one of looks like maybe 20 people. Yeah. So, it was about 20 years ago about. Yeah.

Mhm. And as part of that manual, can you read for me? I'm going to show you what's paragraph 3.3, recommended volume control guidelines. Can you read that for me? recommended volume control guideline. I'm looking at the uh highlighted portion. Yes, the yellow portion. Yeah.

Regardless of where land development occurs, the impervious surfaces, the changes in vegetation and the soil compaction associated with that development result in significant increase in runoff volume. When the balance of a developed site is cleared of existing vegetation, graded and recompacted, it produces an increase in runoff volume. And you were part of the oversight committee that wrote that part of the manual. Correct. We reviewed I didn't write it. When you're doing a review, you don't you don't write it. And you put your name to it and you abide by that. Correct. I agree with If you ask me, do I agree with it? I agree with it.

Yeah. And so last month when you said that this project would not increase volume in the uh Springbrook or the Bushkill Creek, you would agree with me that your your own manual that you were part of the oversight committee disagrees with that testimony. Correct. No, I you misunderstood what I said last.

Yeah. the it will not increase the two-year volume because by law the EP requires the two-year volume be controlled because that's the stream erosion volume. I did mention and I gave statistics I can show you right here that the 10year stream volume will increase the bush flow during a 10-year flow by 0.5%. And I also mentioned a 100redyear storm would increase the bushkill flow at the 100year flow time at 3%. So I never said that what you just said whenever you develop you increase the volume. The DP requires us to control the two-year volume.

And you testified about the channel uh the new channel that would be uh the rerouting of Springbrook. Correct. Correct. And you said in your testimony that that if because this new channel was somewhere between 30 and 70% larger than the old that it would not flood. Correct. That's correct. And you in that testimony you said that the if the old one didn't flood why would you think kind of facitiously I think but why would you think that the new one would flood? I did say that not knowing whether it ever flooded. What's that? I'm not knowing ever whether the existing channel flooded.

And that's my question. You said if the old one didn't flood, why would the new one flood? Correct. Right. But I don't know whether it ever flooded. That's my point. Do you have any idea whether the old one ever flooded? No, I don't. Were you there on site on September the 16th of 1999 when we got over six inches of rain? Wow, that's a lot of rain. I was not there. Were you there on September 18th of 2004 when we got over 4 in of rain? I was not. Were you there on October 8th of 2005 when we got over 8 in of rain? You know, I can save you a lot of time by saying I've never been there when it was raining. Please just ask answer my question, sir. I'm just telling you the answer.

Have you ever been there? Were you ever there on October the 8th? I've never been there. Have you ever set foot in the best Bushkill Creek? [clears throat] Dr. Brown answered his question. Have you ever set foot in the Bushkill Creek? Inside the creek? Yes. No, not in the creek. Have you ever walked the Carl Sterner Arts Trail to see along the Bushkill Creek? Have I ever walked where? Along the Carl Sterner Arch Trail along the Bushkill Creek. No, I have never. Have you ever walked along any any portion more than onetenth of a mile along the Bushkill Creek? Probably not. Have you ever even seen the Bushkill Creek creek? Yes. When? Many years ago. I did. I had an office in the poker go up that way.

So you wouldn't have been there on August 28th of 2011 when we got 4 in of rain. Correct. I was not there. And you were not there on August 4th, just six years ago in 2020 when we got over 5 inches of rain. Correct. asked an answer. No, these are different dates. Excuse me. I'm entitled to make an objection. [clears throat] Dr. Brown said he's never been there when it rained. So, can we move on? I'm ask I'm just simple simple question. Were you there on August 4th when we got over 5 in? I made my objection. Can we have a ruling? If you want to ask him if he's aware of how much rainfall we got on a particular date, I think you accomplished the same thing.

Okay. So, [snorts] um, you said that the last time that you were, uh, the only time that you ever saw the Bushkill Creek was a long time ago. You don't even know when, correct? No. Do you remember any of the um, let's call it the topography of the creek between 13th Street and East and and the Delaware River? No, I don't. And but you did look over the boa st the boge engineering stream stat stuff that said and recognize that this was in uh region uh four. Correct. Yes.

And that's the p southeast Pennsylvania including Philadelphia, Bucks County, Chester County. Yes. Correct.

All right. and um the sort of the when you were testifying with regard to how nothing over the 2-year storm creates erosion and you said that was because of the flood plane that the extra water would go to. Correct. Let me clarify that. When you get to for many streams at the two-year storm, it starts to overflow. There could be erosion if you have a stream that doesn't overflow at two years. The new channel is not designed to overflow at the two-year storm. So, we did check and the velocity um that's going to be at the bottom during the 100year storm is not sufficient to cause erosion with the proposed design.

But you just do you have you ever been on Springbrook at any time? No. Have you ever seen where whether it floods? No. Have you ever seen whether it overflows its banks? No. So, it's pure speculation on your part. one whether the Bushkill Creek would flood. Correct. Say it again. You said if the old one doesn't flood, how would the new one flood? Are you talking about the new channel or Bush Creek? I'm actually going to ask you about both. Well, which one are you asking me about now? Right now, the old channel. What? Right now, the existing channel. [snorts] The

Have you ever do you have any idea whether has ever flooded? And so it's pure speculation, isn't it? When you testify that if the old one didn't flood, the new one will flood. What I was trying to get across is the old one is acceptable to it's been there for years and years, then a larger one should be acceptable. I think that's pretty common sense. I don't think it takes a lot of engineering to realize that. Right. But you don't know whether the old one was quote acceptable in the sense that it flooded or not. Correct. Well, if it did flood, this one's going to flood less. How do you know that? That's pure speculation, isn't it? No, because we designed it to handle the 100year storm, but it could flood out a 200year storm. Yes.

Well, it Do you know whether it flooded on September of six? Do you know whether No. Do you know whether Springbrook flooded on September the 16th of 1999 when we got over six inches of rain? No, I do not know. And you don't know whether Spring Blood flick flooded on October 8th of 2005 when we got 8 in over 8 in of rain. You have no idea, right?

No idea at all. [snorts] Now, um when you talked about have you ever uh we talked about this just a second, but the basically like the geometry of the Bushkill Creek between um 13th Street uh and the Delaware River. Do you know what that sort of geometry looks like? No, I I haven't looked at the geometry. I looked at the mathematical model and what went into the model. And part of that was this region four from southeastern Pennsylvania with the stream stats. Yes.

Yeah. And um do you do you know do you let me ask you this? If a if a flood plane is bounded on one side by very high banks that don't flood, you would expect more water to go into those areas on the other side. Correct. Correct. Objection calls for speculation. There's no there's no evidence of any such thing before us.

That was did call for a little bit of a speculative answer. I would understand, Mr. Brown, that you've never been on the Bushkill Creek between 13th Street and the Delaware River. I'm going to object to this continuing badgering of what he knew and what he didn't know. It's unnecessary and it's rude. No, he be directed to stop it.

Well, I I I think he has established that he's never been there. And my question is the Bushkill Creek between 13th Street and the Delaware River has very high banks on the north side. Would that change your opinion with regard to whether flooding would occur in greater than a two-year storm?

No, not at all. I mean, that's ridiculous question. I'd have to look at it and look at the the 100year storm. You'd have to model the Bushkill. You just don't go out and look at it. No, can't answer that question. And so and uh let me just go back then actually not go back I want to move on um the [clears throat] use of uh the the drainage ratios that you talked about and that's what Boja used correct you mean the proration yes

god what I tried to explain I guess a month ago was for one element of the project not nothing to do with the design it was prorated The it was prorated from the bushkill and we talked about how the land use is similar but it was not used for the design of the channel stream stats alone for springbook was used. The proration was used to get a deposition rate. How much might of sediment might settle out over a period of months during certain storm. Okay. And even if the proration was being higher, it would make it a more conservative design, but it would had nothing to do with the size of the channel, the the you know contour

with me to show you the with regard to you just said again that the that the land use of Springbrook is very similar to the land use of the Bushkill waterershed. I don't believe you said that. Correct. Objection. Say it again. I thought that's what I heard that the land use. All right. Hang on. Yeah. What was your statement, sir?

I can't remember what I was trying to say. What I said last month. It's closer than Dr. Brandes. Dr. Brandes is land. You showed it. It was like apples and bananas. And it's much closer, but it's not identical. And when you talk about the Bushkill Creek watershed, you're talking basically from Blue Mountain like Penarel area down through the city of East. Correct. Yes. And uh the and your testimony was that the land use in the Spring Brook is very similar to the land use of the Bushkill Creek wershed. Correct.

I said it was more similar than Dr. brand is set. That's what I said last month. I can give you the numbers if you'd like. Well, actually, could we put up the map that looks like this? I'm probably need the Bushkill Creek wershed. Yes, it's the blue and green map or excuse me, the green and red map.

[clears throat] If you're so inclined, gentlemen, the request has been made. Attorney Kaplan, if you want to pull the mic that's closest to you over in front of you and Dr. Brown, the other one over in front of you.

No problem. Thank you, gentlemen. Come on. Charge. Back up to the shoulders.

[snorts]

Let me text working. [cough and clears throat]

All you have to do is pick up the phone. Great. And so, uh, Dr. Brown. This is uh the map of the Pushkill Creek watershed along with the Spring Brook wershed. Correct. Correct. And it's the same map actually that you used in your own testimony just with the stream to the Tatam gauge and the Spring Brook outline. Correct.

Correct. and your testimony to this uh board is that the entire uh Bushkill Creek wershed is similar much more similar and of industrialized uh land use as the Spring Brook wershed. Correct. More similar than Dr. Brand just said. Yeah. And so in looking at this, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that nearly half of the spring of the Bushkill Creek wershed is uh woodland and agricultural. Correct? No, I disagree with you because I gave you numbers a month ago and I gave every one of your

numbers. Okay, you want to look at them? You you seem to have the number I gave you. Let me explain. Based on the USGS 2024 watershed map, We went in and digitized the land uses. Okay. For developed land, Dr. Brand said the bush kill had 7%. USGS, our federal government says it has 39%. Okay. He said crops a lot. The crops are 24%. He said forest was 37%. Not 50 by the way, it's 29%. Springbrook does have developed of 65% which is higher than 39%. It has crops of 20% which is similar to the bushkill and it has forest of 8%. And what I pointed out last month was you get runoff from developed land and from crop land. And one of them is 85% springbook is 85% developed in crop and bushkill is 65% roughly. So, it's a it's not identical, but it's a lot more similar than Dr. Brand's used. I don't know where he got his uh 7% developed for the bush.

I want you to look at that map, sir. You're going to tell me that the Springbrook watershed land use is similar to the Bushkill Creek land use. I said it's I just gave you the numbers. I think I said it's according to Dr. Brandis is 7% versus you know 65%. It's totally wrong. It's closer. I didn't say was equal. It's much more I said last time it is more similar than Dr. Brandis said. Mhm.

I also pointed out last month to everyone here that the this data the Bush kill was not used to design the new channel. It was not used. I gave you this just to point out that Dr. Brandis was incorrect. We did not use any of this proration. How do you know that? What? What you just said? How do you know that? I went through all the calculation and design. I spent hours talking to the design of this. I looked at the design

and I know how it was done and either you believe me or you don't believe me but stream stats was used and stream stats was used for springbook had nothing to do with Bushkill. So this land use doesn't mean anything because it was not used for the design of the new channel. And when you talked about using streams for the partially for the design of the channel, correct? The sedimentation of the channel, correct? And you agreed that when you looked over Boa Engineering's work and you said you spent hours and hours doing that, correct? Yes, I did.

And they inputed region 4, the southeastern Pennsylvania region into stream stats for that all of those calculations. Correct. Correct. Sir, [sighs] you used and you actually noted the development of regression equations for the estimation of flood flows at ungagaed streams in Pennsylvania. And that's where you came up with or at least you believe Boa came up with the idea that um [snorts] this project and the Bushkill wershed is in region 4. Correct. Yes. Do you know where North Hampton County is, sir? Kind of. Yeah. Kind of.

Yeah. Uhhuh. Have you looked at if we could go to it would be page 17 of the USGS regression equation regression development of regression I can't say that word I'm really sorry development of regression equations for the estimation of flood flows at ungagaed streams in Pennsylvania there is this evidence. I I was going to ask the same thing. This is what he testified to at his last hearing. Never in evidence. You did. So, I'm going to ask you.

This document's not in evidence. What is this, sir? It's the document that I mentioned. Yes. And what is it? You want me to read what you have trouble reading? Yes, please. It's the development of regression equations for the estimation of flood flow that ungate streams in Pennsylvania. And this is what uh you use and Boj Engineering used. Boj Engineering used it in this project. In this project and you recognize this as a as a publication that is put out by the United States Geological Survey, correct?

Yes. And I'm going to look you I'm going to ask you to look at number six from from this book. And you you've just testified that Boja Engineering used region 4 in the stream stats equations in the development of this project. Correct. Correct. Sir, do you understand that Northampton County is in region three? I I can't tell from here. You can't tell from here, sir. Go up closer here. Actually, I can't tell. I can't tell from that map. Here, take the map right here. Tell me, do you know where do you First of all, do you even know where Northampton County is?

And I'm going to object to this kind of badgery. Well, he's asking him if he knows where Northampton County is. Yeah. And over and over again, he already said they kind of answer your question. Answer, sir. Sir sir, look at that map. Is Northampton County in region three or region four? I still can't tell from there's no county. I cannot tell. Mhm. Do you see any counties in here? How about this? If you can't tell from that, do you do you know what the shape of Northampton County looks like? Why would I know the shape of a different county? I'm just

I do not. Okay. I do not know the shape. So, you don't know where Northampton County starts on this map and where it doesn't? I do not know. I don't know where Montgomery County starts in this map. And you live? That's right. I live in Montgomery County. And I'm going to show you the actual map for region three from that same document. Can you tell me on that document, sir, where Northampton?

Would you let him look at it before you badger him with another question? I'm not badgering no more than you've badgered everyone in this hearing and every planning commission hearing. I am simply asking this man questions that he seems to have no idea where Northampton County is on the USGS maps that Boja Engineering used to design this project. Do you know what that is?

No, I do not know what it is. I would ask this board to take notice that the USGS maps in this that Boj Engineering used which are in region three. They're not in region 4 and will this document I would actually be made part of the record. All right. So you're going to submit that. Attorney Kaplan. Do you wish to look at that? His own witness used it. He should have it. I'm just asking if he wants to look at it. I'll look at it in a Okay. I have no further. You have no problem if it's accepted as an exhibit.

It's a publication in United States government. Okay. I'm just asking the question. So that will be admitted as exhibit 06. And you're asking the board to recognize that on the map in there, Northampton County is in district or zone three, not four. Correct. Which shows that the engineering that Boja did for this project in the new channel in which they speech. Oh my god. This is what you do almost answering my question. Yes, attorney Kaplan. I asked them a question.

Yeah. And so it would show that um the engineering that Bojer did with regard to the movement of the new stream uh in which they used stream stats. They it's garbage in garbage out. They used the wrong region. They used an region 4 which includes Philadelphia, Chester, Bucks. They did not include it doesn't include Northampton County. Okay. Northampton County is in region three. Would you before you return to your seat, would you bring that up so that Oh,

so that it can be marked. Excuse me. What did you want me to do? I was asking attorney Shaughnessy to bring it up to so that we could mark it, but I didn't realize you had it. Yeah, I I I I would like to look at it. Okay. Then we'll ask attorney Kaplan to bring it up when he's done. Sure. I have no further questions. Do you have any other witnesses you want to add?

No, sir. Any question any questions from the board for Dr. Brown. Are there any other council present who want to ask any questions of Dr. Brown? No. Okay. I believe then that we are unless either council or any council has anything further. I think I I have some Oh, you have go ahead. Yeah,

Dr. Brown, I'm looking at this map on page 17 of this document and when I look at that map and the line that appears to separate section or region three from region four. You see this dark line? Yes. It starts all the way over west of the Susuana, does it not?

Yes. and and it travels perpendicularly across [clears throat] an area where where it hits New Jersey. Do you see that? Yes. Can you tell from this map where on the New Jersey border, region 4 ends. No, it's pretty far up the Delaware, isn't it?

Yes. So, this map that Mr. Shaughnessy has been speaking does not conclusively show what section or what region the area that we're in is located, does it? No.

Okay. Now, put that aside for a moment and help me understand. Let me let me let me ask this a different way. What tell us again what stream stats was used for in this presentation or analysis by boge. Stream stats basically gives you the the flow the stream and the flow at a certain location for different storms. So if you want the 50year storm or the 100year storm. So say you want the 100year storm. So that gives you 100ear storm and that's what you use to design the channel.

The channel. Yes. So stream stats was used to design the channel. Correct. Okay. And so I'm trying to understand why Mr. Shaughnessy is making such a big deal where this line is drawn. Would would you explain if the if you know if the stream was in a little different district? It looks like if anything it would be right on the line between three and four, doesn't it? Right.

Well, he made a big deal out of you got it in the wrong region. Address that, will you? Well, interesting part the region four the flows are higher in general on stream stats which would make the design overly conservative and the channel bigger than need be.

I have no further um excuse me we listen to Mr. Shy crossexamine you and ask you multiple times, were you ever in the Bushkill? Did you ever walk at the Bushkill? You know the question that he asked all of those times. The implication though he doesn't ask you. The implication is that in order to do your job and that in order for Boa to accurately design, you have to be intimately familiar with the streamline, the shoreline of whatever you're designing. Is that accurate?

No, it's inaccurate. So tell this board explain a little bit more of the science of what you do and what BA did to design the channel. Okay. Basically what they do is they you have to use the topo map showing you the contour kind of map

the top topographical map showing the contours which we have and then you go to stream stats and you find out what is the 100year flow. Many streams, by the way, in Pennsylvania are designed for the 2-year flow, but Pennsylvania requires new channels to be designed for the 100-year flow, which is very conservative, which means it won't overflow even for the 100 year or right at the 100 year a little bit. So, basically once you know your stream flow and you know basically the slope going down to the stream where you're going to go, you basically design a channel. You use this Hecraass model and the Hecraass model will give you the basically the dimensions you need.

The dimensions you need and and do I remember correctly from the drawings that you showed us probably at the end of your testimony that it was clear to to you designers that at the level of the two-year storm where the where the two-year storm comes up along the sides of the uh the banks, you had what's called freeboard. In other words, the banks went up even higher and created a a trough, an area that could even c carry more water even beyond the two-year storm than it would not.

Actually, what we showed with Also, we showed this free board at the 100year storm. We show five I think let me I don't want to throw it out without the right number. The freeboard depending on where you are in along the channel would be five to 30 feet above the 100year storm. So the 100year storm is really So you're saying it wouldn't come out of that channel even in the 100year storm. Correct.

So that Okay. And just so we're we're clear, the two-year storm and that channel are important to prevent erosion and siltation. Yes. Now explain that a little bit more. So

it gets more complicated. Let me explain. Because a lot of times a stream when it gets to the two-year storm, it starts to overflow. Okay? it and when [clears throat] it starts to overflow the channel velocity has reached the maximum because now the water can spread out. So the velocity decreases in this stream because now you have more water but some of it is overflowing. However, since we are keeping the water in there for the up to the 100 years storm, we went and calculated what would be the velocity at the bottom of the stream for a 100redyear storm because you it'll be a higher velocity and I can give you I think I've been

the numbers aren't

right. Okay. But the numbers are that um with the stone that are being put there and the soil being put there that the velocity for 100 year storm will not cause erosion. So we want to be very safe that even during a 100year storm most stream during 100year storm are start to eroding somewhat. So so we want to make sure it's safe for all the storms right up to the 100redyear storm. I am going to ask you one or two more questions. Dr. Brown, my knowledge of your expertise over the years was you really are stream person, a stream scientist and you were president of tell us what associations you were president of that was um aimed at preserving streams and water courses. I thought we already had qualifications.

Is this just a redundant at this point? You you you impugned his integrity or you tried to impugn his integrity or his his acument. So I have got the right to ask that question. I don't recall doing that. All I simply asked what whether he was trying to get out whether he was an employee of Boge Engineering or not. And it appears from the website that he is. Well, we're wasting a lot of time arguing back and forth. I mean, he's been qualified as an expert. You know, I don't see the need to know what organization. That's fine. But if you are

I I I I guess I'm just offended by the tone. I understand. [laughter] [gasps] That's rich. I have no further questions. Neither do I. Council, if I can just uh if I plug in, will this work? You give your name, please. Uh, my name is Cody Harding. I'm an attorney representing several objectors who've participated so far. Can I unplug this?

Okay. white

um well I don't actually need to I I could put the computer screen in front of the witness and just ask him to read something. That's okay. Um, sorry. I don't know. I wish I wish I could get this up on the screen. It would just easier. Let me try one more time. You know how this works? Can you help me? [clears throat] Okay.

[snorts] [cough] [cough] [clears throat] [clears throat and cough]

Is it? Yep. Uh, Mr. Brown, are you familiar with this document or Dr. Brown? Uh, no. Um, would it be more familiar if I told you that you authored it?

My firm authored it. That doesn't mean I authored it. Yeah. So, is it safe to say you have no familiarity with this document? What was the date on it? I can't March 2005. Yeah, that's 20 years ago. I wouldn't wouldn't have any memory of it at this um we're going to get to this section. So is it safe to are you willing to stand by the statements in this document or do you because you have no

record say that 20 years later I'd like to see the statement first. Well honestly I'm not going to ask any questions. Okay case it's all right. Sorry for I just study here. Okay. Does that complete all questions from all council present? From me or I'm sorry. From me. Yes. Anyone else?

Does the board have any questions? Because I have one or two. Go ahead. [clears throat] And it's for my own edification because when it comes to this, this is like rocket science to me. My understanding is that using stream stats, specifically according to your testimony tonight, it is based on numbers, number comparisons, statistics are based on measured flows,

right? And you indicated that the numbers for the Bushkill watershed were different were closer to the numbers of the Springbrook waterhed than

No, I think you're getting back to the land use. When we did stream stats, it had nothing to do with the Bushkill. You you just do it for Spring Book. The bush kit was only used when we prorated for getting a deposition rate. Yeah. The land uses were what we were talking about earlier. Yeah. So what we were talking about is for springbook itself the small watershed you know the stream stats was used to come up with the different year storm like 100year storm and 50 years. Say that again. To come up with what?

The 100year storm. The 50-year storm has nothing to do with the Bushkill. It is just a springbook watershed. The USGS comes in and they have a model, you know, basically bunch of regression equations and you go in and you you put a point in where you want it to be, say in a stream, and it calculates out based on statistics and probability what the the 100redyear flow should be there. the 100year stream flow, right? And not land use but nothing to do with the but it it deals with the rate of flow, does it not? Yes.

Okay, that's what I thought. And the rate of flow is, correct me if I'm wrong, affected by whether you have development or vegetation. Am I still correct? Correct. Okay. And you gave us numbers for all of those. Correct. Correct. I'm sorry. I don't know what number Well, you gave us percentages. How much What percentage was uh de developed? What percentage was forest farmland? What percentage was

I think you're mixing apples and or am I? That's that's why I'm asking. I let me let me start here for one second to explain this. Is he going to testify now? Well, yeah, that's what I'm asking. I think Dr. Brown,

let me explain. Now, the stream stats takes in all those things probably, but it doesn't. You don't put it in. when you put it into the the USGS, our government and our taxes have done go into coming up with these great regression equations based on real flow measure with their gauging station which we discussed a month ago. And so when you go in and say you have a waterershed like here and it's coming down here if you put your computer point here stream stats looks at the watershed and based on the statistics of the area it gives you a 100redyear flow in cubic feet second I think what I'm saying yeah I think then you keep going to the bushkill and what Frank is saying is

wait a minute we don't need him to interpret the testimony if he's going to testify that's another thing but well that's You want me to testify? I'll testify. I want to make sure the solicitor said he didn't understand something and I want to make sure he understand. I do think it's up to the expert to Okay. But you understand the stream stats that was used and nothing to do with the Bushkill. Okay. It's in the overall Bushkill watershed. Okay. But the the stream set only does it for spring book. But those numbers and those factors are used to determine the flow. Well, well that's what I understand.

It's all in a regression equation that the USGS comes up. Let let me come to let me come to the punchline. Okay. The reason I'm asking all of this [clears throat] is would those numbers be any different? Were the numbers attached to uh the what was it called? District or zone region? No, the you mean that booklet here, right? No, what that gives in here are the equations that are computerized. They give you regression equation, but they're on the computer. So, you go into the computer program that was developed

for the stream for the stream for the USGS, right? Okay. And they have done all this work for you. They've looked at it and what they're saying is that for this watershed, okay, based on other watershed similar, it's basically going to give you a hundredyear storm. Okay. And then you design the channel and do you guys Bob here's the important part. I think just is he testifying again anyway? But and the bottom line is wait explain it and you started to say and you use that 100redyear statistic to do what?

We designed the channel and the channel came up to be bigger than the existing channel. Would the basis upon which the flow was measured to determine the size of the covert if you will? Would that input have changed if there were different figures assigned to region three than region four? I I'd have to go back and look at that. I don't know. But it is possible. It could be possible, but it would be in probably insignificant. But it is possible. Yes. Okay.

Good question. The board have any questions? where there's no further questions. So, I guess we'll get to the audience. Are you going to close the record at this point? No. No, we're going to take audience Oh, okay. um comments now. And if I may, there were four individuals who stood up and were back there. So, out of those four, how many of you wish to speak? One, two, three. Okay, Mr. Chairman, do you want two?

So, I'm just going to u remind you that when leaving your comments, it's it's based on what this board is here for. And what we're here for is that it's Springbrook, not here for the warehouse or traffic or anything like that. We're here for Springbrook. So if your comments are for Springbrook, we'll hear you. [clears throat] If there if you're going to go off and talk about a warehouse, I'm going to cut you off. Okay. So, whoever is first, do you want to give your name and address for the record, please?

My name is Greg T. Meer. My address is 350 North 14th Street East. My property about 22. We're right at 14th Street. on our property goes to 15th Street and and I'm sorry sir I I was doing something else your last name Meyer Mer.

Thank you sir. I do have a couple questions and I don't you know I I'm just somebody but as far as the creek um the dams on the Bushkill the calculations that were done were they done prior to or after these dams that were taken off the Bushkill? You know, the flow is going to change. I think I put a dam on the curb when I was a kid. It would build up water. You break the dam, the water flows. So my question is, was that in consideration of Springbrook?

You me I don't know when I think you're probably the only one in the room who is here and could answer the question. And I would have to go back to look at the when the the USGS has been taking these flows for like 20, 30, 40 years. So it it's a bit of both. They they've done it before and after whatever goes on. You'd have to go back and really look at the raw data to answer that question. Does it matter? I if dams several dams have been taken out,

does it matter to Spring Brook? It it depends on where the dams were and how big they were, but yeah, it could matter. I mean, ultimately for the hundredyear storm, you'll have very little matter. For a small storm would have more matter. Yeah. Yeah.

Um Okay. Um you know, because I live right there. I I know Springbrook. I fished Springbrook. I backed up to Bushko Creek and where Spring Brook backs up to. I've been there and I know what it's like. Um, my other question is not related to that, but maybe maybe I'm wrong. Uh, because we're just supposed to be talking about Spring Brook, not electrical power. Okay. Well, not unless Spring Brook runs on electrical power, but [laughter] it just might.

What's your question? ask you anyway.

Um, well, my thoughts are because I live right there and I seen the fire that an explosion that almost happened at Mint. If you notice the side of the building is burnt. Um, when the power goes out, they have problems with power there. when the power goes out. Last time I was there, they had a fire and they the gentleman from Mntech said if the power goes out and they almost had an explosion, that whole block would go because of what their use there at Mentech, propane, settling, all kind of burnable gases. And what that doesn't matter, but what lay loose there was a fire protection. And if you notice side a building is burnt. I seen it from my house. I called in the emergency for that. Going back to Springbrook, you know where are they pulling the water? If there's a fire there, where are they pulling the water from?

Wouldn't that relate to the building and not the Okay, we're just talking about spring book. No further questions about Spring Brook, but thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I don't want to interrupt, but I would like to clarify that we're not here just for the rerouting of the tributary. We're all we're here for construction in a flood plane, which includes the rerouting of the tributary and the building of a road and the building of 390,000 square feet of retention ponds. So, it's not just the rerouting of the tributary. That is one of the three things. Well, but but we're not here for the building.

No, no, we're not. But I just wanted to clarify that it's about the construction in a flood plane. One aspect of which is the spring.

Who's next? [clears throat] Good evening. Name is Bruce McCutchen. It's MC Cut T C H E O N. It's 619 West Lafayette Street. Thank you. I'll try. I'll squat. Um My question actually is for the the board. I have no reason to doubt the the quality job that these folks have done to make for their proposal. The modeling is just that. It's modeling. My question is, if and when it all goes to hell in a hand basket with a flood, who's responsible for that cleanup?

With all due respect, sir, that's not a question this board can answer. Well, I think it's something you ought to consider. If you're going to be asking the citizens of Easton to pony up to fix it, that is something I think it's part of your responsibility. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Who's next? Oh, I just have a brief statement as a representative the of the board of directors of the Carl Sterner Arts Trail. Could you give your name, please? Jen Zondo Dennis and I live at 10:30. I'm sorry. Run that back again, please. Jen keen or just It's actually G hen. And is it Sandra Dennis? Xando hyphen Dennis Zan N. Thank you. And your address, please? It's 10:32 Lehigh Street. Thank you. And you're here representing

the Carl Sterner Arts Trail Board of Directors.

Thank you. So, in the context of this um special exception hearing, I just want to make a brief statement. Um introducing the Carl Sterner Arts Trail, for those of you who are unfamiliar, was established in 2011, thanks in large part to a $9 million grant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Arts Trail is a unique community resource, not because of its artistic and natural beauty, but also for health and wellness, attracting attracting visitors from beyond our borders as a stimulating green museum and a quiet place for contemplation in a bustling city. And we've heard the testimony. Um, and we're just going to make the statement that we strongly urge the zoning committee to reject the request for the special exception with regard to Spring Creek and the other three um elements in in with regard to those matters. Um, and we urge you to use all available legal means to block such a harmful use while encouraging responsible development of the property along the Bushkill that the Carl Sterner Arts Rail Board are stewards of and that will protect our most valuable resources, the community and its environment.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else? You want to come up to the mic, please? I give your name. My name is My name is Tyler Myers. I'm here on behalf of Gross McInley LLP and Charles Pax, an objector in this matter. And I was just asking a procedural question. Would council for either the applicant or any of the any of the opposing parties be afforded the opportunity to make closing remarks? Oh yeah.

Okay. Just wanted to clarify that. I don't know that they'll want to, but

is there anybody else? All right. breaking. I want to take a brief break and then we'll come back with the closing remarks. Very brief.

That was my group, but they should have caught it and reviewed, but That's good. I'm ask I can't say please be close anymore because we've heard enough

my goof I don't remember but we Good.

Yeah. Yeah, Is it cereal?

I actually had cereal. I had I had cereal. My dad likes Cheerios.

See that? You don't want to eat mac and cheese before you go to bed. I had nightmares. Well, I think that's why they're all here.

Mind if I take that? What? Yeah. [laughter]

I didn't even buy you dinner. Crazy. [snorts] [laughter] He used to have the same conversation with my dad because he always used to say he was a machinist. And I said, "Dad, what you do and what you did for 30ome years is just as perplexing to me."

Really, they all shoulders don't agree [laughter]

Yep. Yep. I'm sure that's It shouldn't be

g took it. I I must have started within in region four, but nobody [snorts] corrected me. They should have looked at you know uh Don my geography sucked as you know I can't even identify Montgomery County. I'm sorry about that. So the design was done actually better than they think it was.

I would have been willing to tell them I'm terrible. Made a mistake. Not bad. Feels like the air condition.

Long as we get it back because we're gonna

I want to take it in. I thought he could have Well, all right, I think we're back now. Um, does it matter who goes first?

Goes first. All right. You want to give your summation closing argument in less than two minutes? That'd be great. [snorts]

First of all, I'm going to correct something. Is your mic on, Mark? Oh, thought it was. There you go.

First of all, I'm going to correct what Mr. Shaughnessy said. Mr. Shaughnessy said that it was important that this stream be either in region three or region four. The fact of the matter is that when you go into the USGS materials, you go onto a computer screen, you identify the stream in question, and it's an interactive uh program and it doesn't matter whether that stream is in three or four because the information in that interactive program is based on the stream itself. So, I'll just try to get that out of the way. So, my my my closing is not very long nor complicated. When we started these hearings, I I submitted a brief in support of our application. Maybe you got it, maybe you saw it, I don't know. But I want to hone in on the essence of the law of special exceptions. And if you've heard this before, I apologize. But it all goes back to a case called Bray about 1980

19

1980. And it's been cited literally tens of 20 times. First of all, what Bray said was that a special exception is not special. It's you are it is a permitted use that the legislative body has said is appropriate for this part of the municipality. Unless, this is not the legal terms, but unless it's really horrible, horrible, horrible. So what does the really horrible horrible mean? It means that the applicant, my client has a burden of proof and that burden of proof is very straightforward. It is our obligation number one to prove that our use fits into the special exception categories that are permitted. There's no question about that. A warehouse is permitted. We then have to comply with or satisfy objective objective objective criteria and and we have satisfied all of the objective criteria. You've seen all of the reports, but your professionals in this town and in this city have reviewed everything. And they said that for the special exception, as the chairman said about an hour ago, which is all we're here for, we satisfy all of the specific criteria. On top of that, because this is a

stormwater related application, we have to go through all the state and federal agencies. And the cases have said that in in the vernacular if the if if D and the Army Corps and the uh conservation district have come to a conclusion with regard to the technicalities of compliance. It's really beyond the purview uh of of the municipality to second to second guessess that. Now, I know people don't like to hear that, but that's that's what that's what the cases have said. So, I don't think there's a big argument that we've complied with all those things or that every city official who had to review it and every federal and state official had to review the relocation of this stream has signed off on it. So, let's go back to Bray. Gray said that I have or my client has the initial burden of proof. That is I got to show that we comply with all of the objective criteria. The burden then shifts and I suspect that you've heard this language before. If there are protesters or objectors, they have an extremely high um their burden of proof is very very high. They have to prove without speculation

but with objective testimony that this that our project doesn't comply for specific reasons and that because it doesn't comply, it will cause some harm to the community. But what harm? It has to be a harm greater than would be contemplated or would happen for let's call the normal warehouse that goes on this property. And I suggest to you, you've heard all of it. There was none of that specific testimony. Why is and and so why is Frank Brown here? Frank Brown is here because the only attempt at an expert witness was Dr. Brandis. And Dr. Brandis said a lot of things, but Dr. Brandis said nothing specific. There was no scientific analysis. What Dr. Brandis did was attack the methodology that was used by Boa. And and this is what I was trying to get at before, Mr. Solicitor. Why was why is Frank here? It's this progression. We file our materials that get reviewed by everybody. all the and everybody says okay all the professionals all the and Dr. Brandice comes in here and says,

"I see what they did and they used this report, this stream stats, and it's garbage in, it's garbage out." and he made a lot of statements that made me bring my longtime friend and and associate, the man who knows more about streams than anybody I know in here to shut that down. And I think that Frank Brown should have satisfied you that we followed we followed the methodology the standard methodology which is the requirement in your ordinance. So, we get to this arguing about what stream stats or that stats or what did Frank do or what did Boja do. We're only here to rebut [clears throat] what Dr. Brandis said. And I want to make sure that everybody understands what we said. Dr. Brandice picked on basically one aspect of the process and he said you shouldn't have used the Bushkill map that was up there and you shouldn't have used whatever map you used for the the the stream and you shouldn't have compared them and you shouldn't have done that and that's garbage in garbage out. He did no study. And what the cases say is if it's traffic, if it's engineering, if it's something technical, there has to be scientific demonstration

that to satisfy that very very high burden that the protestants have. It didn't happen. It didn't come close to happening. So, you've got you've got a you've got a tough job. You got a lot of people. You got a lot of your neighbors that don't want this project. We've already seen that at the planning commission and we've already seen the litigation start and it's going to get more. I ask you to do your job. Calls and strikes. If we if we complied, do what you're supposed to do and say the law requires me to approve this special exception and I thank you for your patience. Really, you've been you've been a wonderful audience. I really appreciate your patience. Thank you.

Thank you. Who wants to go next? [clears throat]

like to say a few words. Um, I really appreciate Oh my gosh, this doesn't There we go. Really appreciate uh Attorney Kaplan leading in with the special exception requirements. Um, not to bore you with some overly technical language, but the specific sections of the zoning ordinance would state um, under section 59527A, for all flood hazard areas, properties within the flood hazard area as identified in the city code in section 298 shall comply with chapter 298 and other applicable regulations. Sorry, let me rephrase that. Any other applicable regulations? Now under 298, that's the section of the zoning ordinance which per not apologies, the flood plane ordinance which permits the movement of a water course by special exception. That's not the only portion of the city code that governs special exceptions. Your own zoning ordinance has a set of guidelines for special exceptions and when a grant of of a special exception is proper. Apologize. under uh 59540 of the zoning ordinance. I'm just going to skip towards the end and read a brief paragraph before moving forward. The board shall grant a special exception only if it finds adequate evidence presented by the applicant. That the proposed special exception is duly authorized under provisions of this chapter, which would be 298. That the application falls within the terms of the specific provisions allowing for the special exceptions. Once again, 298. and that the proposed use complies with all other requirements of this chapter and the following criteria and it will go on to list I believe eight nine additional criteria. If you look into each one of those particular criteria, all of them reflect on the proposed end use of the property. There has been little to no discussion

of the proposed end use of the property in this zoning hearing. I know I wasn't privy to the original hearings, but what has been presented is a lovely thesis and fora into what would be required to move a water course absent any sort of extraneous considerations. It is technically feasible. All of the things comply. There's permits for everything. But the problem is that none of the calculations, none of the math, none of the plans reflect on the proposed end use of the property. never heard about sediment runoff from the industrial use and how that might impact the overall runoff or the overall flow of the of the water course. There's just been a distinct lack of discussion relating to the proposed use. And since the applicant has failed to create any sort of technical specifications around the proposed use, they've failed to meet the requirements necessary for the grant of special special exception under the zoning ordinance. So that's one aspect of what I would like to say. Another technical aspect is permits. As you understand, there's dozens of permits that have been issued for this project from dozens of regulatory agencies. Probably not actually dozens, but if you'll indulge me, a permit is just one insular, one insular approval for one small aspect of the project. I could get an NPDS permit for one acre of earth disturbance. Uh if that one acre of earth disturbance is to build a nuclear power plant in the middle of Eastn City, that won't necessarily be approved because it's prohibited by the zoning ordinance. Just because you have a permit doesn't mean you can create the thing you want to do. It helps and it's an addition to the zoning ordinance approvals that are required, but they aren't by themselves cart blanch to consider with your to consider moving forward with the development. And [clears throat] finally, I'll try to be brief. Um the one final thing that I'd like to sort of remind you is the role of the zoning hearing board in this matter. You are tasked to be the factf finder. So that

means you have to assess all the evidence that was presented, all the testimony, even if it is technical and I don't understand a lot of it frankly. You have to you have to be charged with assessing whether or not the individuals here presenting are providing the full story, the true story, all of the scientific facts that be necessary to make a determination. Not halftruths, not partial stories, not things that are designed to hide maybe some of the negative aspects or downsides of the project and development. You need to assess whether or not an individual whose company was purchased by the company who submitted the plans and who submitted the application is being genuine. You need to assess whether someone whose only experience moving a water course was three or four times for other warehouse developments is being genuine and is being honest and whether or not they have the technical and engineering experience to be unbiased in this matter to be sort of an independent overseer to be demonstrating the engineering concepts as they are not as they should be in order to improve this project. The individuals who were hired to and brought on to act as engineers and to act as various representatives throughout this project have done so explicitly with the goal of creating a warehouse and they have no doubt modified some of their practices and geared it towards creating a more positive view of things. So, it's your job to assess whether or not some of those have truths, some of those inconsistencies are enough to or are enough of a mar on the project to prevent it from moving forward. And that's all I really have to say.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

[clears throat]

We've all been here long enough for all these hearings. I'll be very very brief. I do take issue with uh the thought that Dr. Brandis and Dr. Germinoski. He forgets that we also had an expert geologist here that his testimony went unrefuted. Dr. Germinoski said they didn't do the correct studies. They didn't do the borings in the area where the where this uh stream is going to be moved to. So they have no idea what is underneath the area where the 70 to 30% larger course that they're talking about here is is under it. They have no idea. They have no idea whether the carst geology underneath that is going to fall apart in the first year and will be in inundated with sink holes. They have no idea the fact that they own their own guy here who comes and doesn't even know what region for the USGS surveys is. He doesn't even know that Northampton County is in region three versus Union 4. He actually testifies he's not sure whether whether it would make a difference. The point is Boja Engineering is the one that did that work. He didn't do the work. He looked at it and said, "Yep, looks like region four." And they put in region four. But the engineering that went into the new channel is based on inputs that are simply incorrect. They're just incorrect. So to sit here and and and it wasn't just the stream stats. If you go back and look at Dr. Brandis's testimony, there were four or five things that he said these people just do not did not do this correctly. Same with Dr. Germinoski. it didn't do us and it is creating a danger that is evident and will is real. So, um the other thing is as Mr. Kaplan explains your role, it's

like you're a clerk. He's telling you this body right here that you're just a clerk. They have the permits. They go through A through Z. They've provided the permits. Why even have these hearings? Why even have them if according to him if they did one two three four five six seven you should just be the ones that just check it off and go okay that is not your role and you know that you've been doing this all of you have been doing it for a long time and you've been doing it under circumstances that you know you've had a lot of experience and you know that you just don't sit there and make a check mark when they have a permit. No, you bring your own knowledge, your own experience to these things and that is what the community is asking you to do and our clients are asking you to do. So we would ask you to reject the spectral exception for the reasons that we have presented and reject the analysis that uh the the applicant has put forward. Thank you. Just on behalf of my clients, uh I just want to thank uh the board and the community's patience and uh thoughtfulness in this process. So I won't bore everyone with a closing statement. Thank you.

Thank you.

May I correct one statement that I think I think you gave your what was made in in the closing argument. Yeah. Okay. We're done.

Um yeah, at this point the uh the hearing is or the record is closed uh as far as testimony and argument. Um this board I've served as the solicitor to this board for 34 years and we have never once gone into executive session. And that's because this board likes everything to be transparent and we're not going to be any different tonight as far as transparency is concerned. But we have also listened to almost 14 hours of technical testimony and have a comb of exhibits to comb through. Um, and I know that these individuals who do uh take their jobs very seriously because um they all have been here for a long time uh and they all do their jobs well. But I know they're going to have questions. uh I do want to go over the uh parameters uh within which they should be sticking in uh combing through everything and coming to a decision. So we will go into executive session um with the the mountain of paperwork we have here. I don't know if they they may get in there and surprise me and say, "We have no questions. We understood everything. We're ready to vote." I suspect that won't be the case. My point is, I have no idea how long we're going to be. You are welcome to stick around.

I would ask Paige that you wait uh until we come back out. we will go back on the record uh to give some brief explanation uh and and cast a vote. Okay, thank you folks.

Yeah. Nasty comment about me and you. Huh? My clerk, but I'm a prostitute with Right. You got it right.

Well, you know, if they succumb to the politics already suing us being turned down, you know, we have land development. This is just a little special exception. Already turned this thing down. I sued them. Sued them in a unusual way. before they even printed their decision. And today or tomorrow, we're going to file the notice of appeal. Normal notice of appeal. To get this out of the way.

Yeah. Be nice for that. [cough] Why did they turn down this development?

Let's turn this. [laughter] adult time, you know, also just like with my parents. That's what we did. I went It's All that stuff.

You know, whatever. Easy. [laughter] That's a good something like that. What about this is no

And it's like I'm not watching Excuse me. Do you like that.

It is a very unique motion. I do know where they are because I just cleaned up the person when I was from your driveway instead of my reason to not be on Facebook. Facebook account. That's like just a public

Jeff Bezos. No, I don't think [laughter]

25. That's too How's it going? There we go. Maybe

We have 15 minutes left.

[laughter]

You told us I guess we're going

What's for $100 million.

I don't know. I like to I

Good take candy.

of course shouldn't She wasn't read

That's a new rule. Well, my stomach let it touch the ground. [laughter]

Ready? Um, yeah. So, we're back on record. Um, and Bob, before you say anything, just want to remind everybody that at the end of the day, we're all human beings. All right. So, keep that in mind.

That [clears throat] said, uh, and I'm [snorts] getting horse. Sorry about that. As I indicated before we went in, this board never goes into executive session, but obviously this was a different set of circumstances, a lot of technical testimony. Uh, a lot of different law to be applied. The board was apprised of the law they had to look at and consider in making their decision. And I told you going in, this board takes their job very seriously. And this was probably one of the toughest decisions I've seen them struggle with because fact is that both sides did a an excellent job in presenting their respective positions. But in the final analysis, as a prelude to the board's vote, which will occur in a minute, um we are required to advise the appellant of the reasons if there is to be a denial. And the board's um conclusion was that a there was not full compliance with each and every one of the requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance. um specifically but not nearly limited

to the insufficiency of some of the certifications that were attached as exhibits. But more to the point, um, it came down to the testimony of the experts here, all of whom did a great job. But the board felt that the testimony of the experts for the objectors was more compelling and more convincing. And with that, I will turn it over to the chairman to call for a vote or a motion and a vote.

I'm going to make a motion to deny. Second, Mr. Civetella. I Miss Panto, Mr. Lobac, I Miss Thomas, it's denied. Thank you, folks.