[brief] The Board also rejected the testimony from, and the renderings generated by, [...].  Ja029.  Employed by [...], a site development company with a focus on engineering, surveying, and landscape architecture and GIS, [...] presented testimony on his 3-D renderings of the proposed project.  Ja101-Ja103; 5T 14:14-22.  Although not asked to be qualified as an expert witness, [...]’s testimony certainly established his credentials, and the basis upon which to evaluate the reliability of his testimony.  He created 3-D renderings of the project through an extensive graphic design process: (1) he started with the existing survey, proposed grading plan, and “Revit model” (a 3-D architectural drawing); (2) the three items were input into “Autodesk Infraworks” to create the 3-D environment; (3) the output from “Autodesk Infraworks” was input to “Lumion”, which created the rendering; and (4) he utilized the landscape plans to apply the environmental features.  (5T 18:15-25 through 23:1-3).  Both “Autodesk Infraworks” and “Lumion” are industry-standard software programs, and [...] confirmed that the renderings were generated from a viewshed height of about six feet, mimicking a person standing on Florence-Columbus Road.  (5T 23:1-2; 30:19-21).  The Board’s Resolution rejected [...]’s testimony because he had not completed post-development comparisons, a view was not generated from the southwest end of the development, and he was unable to definitively confirm the height of the crops in the fields.  (Even in South Jersey, and regardless of whether they would be soybean, corn, or tomatoes, the crops would not be 48 feet tall!).  Ja029.  The Resolution fails to address any credibility concerns as to [...], and these findings notably forget to mention extremely relevant facts found in the record.  For example, these findings fail to recognize that [...] generated three renderings: (1) from Florence-Columbus Road, looking towards the two structures; (2) from the proposed driveway on Florence-Columbus Road; and (3) from Old York Road.  (5T 17:3-9; 18:1-14).  The Board’s Resolution cites the failure to provide a view from the dwellings on the southwest end of the development, but the nearest southwest dwelling is on Cedar Lane Extension, 700 to 800 feet from the nearest proposed structure.  (5T 75:20-25 through 77:1).  Similarly, the warehouse are setback 700 feet from Florence-Columbus Road, the largest contiguous property is preserved farmland, and the property abuts Interstate 295 and 150-foot wide PSE&G easement (5T 75:20-25 through 77:1); see also Sections III(A)(2) & III(B)(1).  When viewed in conjunction with the entirety of the record, [...]’s renderings and testimony are supported by substantial credible evidence.  He testified, “[t]he goal is visual communication.  It’s helping people make decisions. ” (5T 23:25; 24:1).  An honest review of [...]’s testimony and renderings show that these graphics were never meant to be an exact depiction, but only a reliable visual to supplement the 2-D blueprints.  [...] himself recognized this and testified accordingly, but the Resolution substitutes his uncontroverted testimony and properly prepared demonstrative evidence with invented and speculative reasons to deny Plaintiff’s application.  The exercise is not only disingenuous, but arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable when viewing the record as a whole.