##VIDEO ID:NF54VfARfsE## e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e to the flag of the United States of America to The Republic stands na indivisible andice for all good evening ladies and gentlemen uh excuse my voice but uh I caught a cold after I got back from uh my very nice vacation uh so you'll be fortunate maybe I won't talk a great deal tonight um we'll have uh the open public meetings act Please Mr sh yes good morning to the August 19th uh Jackson Township planning board meeting uh in compliance with the open meetings act all of the appropriate forums have been uh posted uh so that the General Public is aware and we are in compliance for the open public meetings act thank you a roll call please Mr brzy Mr Bernstein Mr marzo here Mr heler here Mr rker here M Rose here Mr Tremor here Mr Ward here Mr wall Mr Sullivan here Dr Camp here uh we'll have a um vote on payment voucher for the recording secretary for August 19th please so moved second roll call please Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr Riker yes Miss Rose yes Mr treemmer yes Mr weart yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campbell yes uh approval of the minutes of August 5th regular meeting please eligible to vote are Mr Brey Mr marzo Mr heler Mr rker Miss Rose Mr Tremor and Mr Sullivan roll call please motion Mo thank you second Mr brzy sorry Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr raker yes M Rose yes Mr tremer yes and Mr Sullivan yes and I'd like to thank you for doing such an excellent job on those you're welcome always a challenge uh gentlemen engineering and planning matters nothing here M thank you legal matters not at this time we have a happily many resolutions Okay resolution 2024 - 26 resolution of the planning board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting preliminary and final major slate plan approval with required variances for a Mikvah for congregation Mikvah of Jackson block 634 lot 46 eligible to vote are Mr heler Mr rker Miss Rose Mr chmer and Mr Sullivan motion second Mr heler yes Mr rker yes Miss Rose yes Mr chmer yes Mr Sullivan yes resolution 2024-25 resolution of the planning board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting preliminary and final major site plan approval with required variances and design waivers for a twostory office building for Brewers Bridge land LLC block 6506 Lots 53 54 72 73 74 75 and 76 eligible to vote are Mr marzo Mr heler Mr rker Miss Rose and Dr Campbell motion second okay Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr rker yes Miss Rose yes Dr Campbell yes resolution 20 2428 resolution of the planning board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting preliminary and final major site plan approval and minor subdivision approval for a house of worship for Myer zti block 141 101 Lots 19 and 21 eligible to vote Mr marzo Mr hel Mr Tremor and Dr Campbell motion please motion second Mr marzo yes Mr Herer yes Mr chmer yes and Dr Campbell yes resolution 2024 29 resolution of the planning board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey granting preliminary and final major site plan approval with design waivers for the construction of a warehouse and office for rexis Block 21502 Lots 1 2 3 and four eligible to vote are Mr marzo Mr heler Miss Rose Mr Tremor Mr sorry Mr Sullivan and Dr gamble motion please motion second Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Miss Rose yes Mr Tremor yes Mr Sullivan yes and Dr Campbell yes and the last one is resolution 2024 D30 resolution of the planning board of the township of Jackson County of ocean state of New Jersey graning preliminary and final major site plan approval and preliminary and final major subdivision approval for 482 single family Residential Building lots for krupnik realy holding company LLC block 1 19301 lot four eligible to vote are Mr marzo Mr rker Miss Rose Mr Tremor Mr weard and Dr Campbell motion to approve second Mr marzo yes Mr rker yes Miss Rose yes Mr chmer yes Mr weard yes and Dr cim yes we have uh changes to the schedule the agenda schedule block 8302 Lot 1 through 10 Forest Hill Avenue LLC carry from September 9th 2024 4 to October 28th 2024 with notice required take a motion to [Music] approve motion to approve second rooll please yes Mr heler yes Mr breaker yes M Rose yes Mr Tremor yes Mr Mr weart yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Camp yes um Mr Mar do we have anything on master plan U not at this time we have uh the summer uh issues with people being on vacation so we'll be getting back to a report hopefully next meeting thank you all right we're on good evening Madam chair members of the board salvator alfery clear giobi alferi and Jacob zi have for the applicant sorry uh this is a minor subdivision application um we have one witness our planner and engineer Grant McFarland please raise your right hand do you swear or affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I do right for the record Graham McFarland professional engineer professional planner previously qualified and testified before this board several times just a few just a few times and testifying is both correct yes all right and and Graham are there exhibits that you want Anthony to put up yes yes they just one the the board accepts the credentials good sorry thank you very much uh yes you can see we have exhibit A1 up on the screen which is just a colored version of the minor subdivision plan that was submitted in support of the application uh you can see the property in total which is about uh 7.6 Acres I I believe yeah 7.6 Acres uh the property is currently um split zoned the um the portion the the square portion on on her right hand side has Frontage on Isaac Court which was actually a subdivision that was approved by the by the zoning board that got the density variant for undersized Lots uh so that square portion is the existing lot 3210 uh the remainder of the tract which is you know the more regular shape has Frontage on Jackson Pines Road which is way over on the on the left hand side of the uh of the of the exhibit uh you can see our proposal is to subdivide the property two lots remaining as two lots in the configuration as shown where the yellow portion would would remain part of the lot fronting on Jackson Pines Road and that lot would contain about 4.3 acres and then the uh you know the blue/purple portion would be uh would be subdivided with the frontage remaining on Isaac court and that would end up at about 3.3 three acres now again the property is split zone so as how we applied the zoning criteria is that the portion of the lot that remains within the R1 Zone would be bound by the R1 requirements and the portion of each lot that remains in the R3 Zone would be bound by the R3 requirements uh Mr Peters did point out one item to be clarified on our plan which is the sidey yard setback for the for for proposed lot 7.01 again that's a lot that fronts on Jackson Pines Road uh that lot actually requires a 50ft sidey setback our our plan improperly showed a 30-foot sidey yard setback the existing home on Jackson Pines Road to remains has an existing side yard setback of about 40 feet so that existing non-conformance would be uh would remain with the application we are not proposing to demolish or alter uh that single family home as part of this application and just to clarify further this subdivision in no way exacerbates that variance condition is that correct that's correct okay continue lot size right correct there's no impact to that side yard setback in in any fashion I I did we did look at the uh the file map from when that lot was created actually in 1979 and that file map did not give any requirements for sideart sep or indicate any variance was granted at that particular time so anyhow just for the record we we would classify that as existing non-conformance and again as we testified not being uh altered or exacerbated by by this application uh the lot that fronts on Isaac court so the proposed lot in blue lot 3218 uh does have um public water service and it would have Septic Service as well the lot Froning on Jackson Pines would still remain with uh individual Water Service uh by well and individual um disposal by a by a septic field uh we do not show cban sidewalk on this plan at this time along Jackson Pines Road that of course is up up to the board to uh to make a determination uh whichever the board decides of course we're we're Bound by as the ordinance clearly clearly dictates that the lot that is on ISAC Court uh cerb is already has already been installed as part of the approvals for that development and sidewalk is also required uh for that lot which would be constructed when that lot is to veloped and a plot plan is submitted for review by the uh by the by the township of course we have letters from both uh both professionals going to Mr C's letter first of course he identifies the application uh lists the zoning requirements uh we talked about the variants required for the existing non-conformance uh Mr CLE also points out a couple of technical revisions he also discusses a very slight encroachment of the adjoining driveway on on lot eight uh for the a lot on Jackson Pines Road and that drive that owner would get a notice to to move that driveway so we would agree to comply with all of his comments the one question he asks is how do we intend to perfect the subdivision it'll be filed by by map and then we have a letter from Mr Peters dated August 13th where he also discusses the merits of the application tabulates The Zone criteria of course identifies the variant required for that existing non that existing non-conformance uh again his letter discusses the the 50 Foot required in or3 zone which we agree with he does have a couple of uh technical comments again talking about the curb and the sidewalk which I think the board would have some discussion on uh and we would don't take any exception to any of the comments in his letter uh we had submitted the application to the Jackson mua and they had uh issued a letter April 9th saying they had no interest in a minor subdivision uh as they are not impacted by it two lots for into two lots we also have uh a letter of approval from the O count Health Department no objection to the project we have a letter from Jackson Bureau of fire safety approv the subdivision a letter dated August 9th 2024 and then a letter from the police department dated April 16th uh they indicate they not identified any traffic safety related concerns with the application so that summarizes my direct and we both uh lots and both homes comply with the residential site Improvement standards relating to the number of parking spaces required yes that I believe um concludes the presentation Madam chair thank you madam chair either to Mr McFarland or Mr alfier in our report on page five under subdivision issues um comment B um in the R1 zone for New Lots created by subdivision don't they need to comply with the R3 zoning standards unless they're connected to public sewer and wouldn't that impact the yard setbacks for the portion of the lot in the R1 zone I'm not saying it's right wrong more of a a conversation if you're not connecting the public sewer then the standard is R3 so that would the setbacks have to change and quite frankly it might be out of character with the homes that are going to be built on Isaac court but so I think um yeah yeah I mean we should have a discussion about it I think you're if I understand correctly you're you're really asking about the lot the portion of the lot that's remaining on Isaac Court correct correct you had said that the portion that's in the R1 Zone will use the R1 design standards right which I assume is the bulk standards my concern is that so actually ER I I misspoke when I said that because the the subdivision for which that lot was approved on Isaac Court did have uh reduced side yard and front yard setback requirements which is what we show on our minor subdivision plan so this plan for the new lot 3218 fronting on Isaac Court uh that subdivision was approved with 40 foot front yard and 20 foot side yard setbacks so we're looking to maintain those consistent with that approval and again my my debate point is that once you add a lot to it that's still technically a subdivision so do you in fact need to ask for Relief to keep the 20ft side yard 40 foot front yard that quite frankly probably makes sense on Isaac cour so I guess I'm asking the attorneys that question as opposed to the planner it would appear that you come back with a lot that was in the R1 Zone and you add more property to it it's a subdivision the subdivision require you to if it's not hooked up the sewer to go to higher setback standards frankly I'm not sure that they're proper on Isaac court but for the purposes of our resolution being correct I just I want to make sure if they need the relief we should discuss the relief and the board can decide they can make the argument that Isaac Court was designed that way and we're just adding more land to it technically it's a subdivision when you add lot to it yeah I I think that the the legal debate is probably unnecessary because the the relief that was granted again is not impacted by the subdivision in fact we're adding land and not taking away land so to for the purpose of completing this we probably should ask for the same variance relief that was previously granted which is consistent with all the houses on that street so it's not like we're introducing something that differs would that be uh acceptable yeah thank you Ernie so that should be part of the resolution please yes let's just articulate that so could you describe the setbacks so that the it's clear yeah sure again when when when the subdivision of Isaac Court was was approved uh this subject lot was identified as new lot 3210 uh consistent with all the other Lots in that application uh those lots were granted a 40-ft front yard setback and 20 foot side yard setback variances and we're simply looking to maintain those and the the addition of land doesn't doesn't exacerbate that condition it because the house is being built closer to the road anyway correct and again Madam chair I appreciate the board taking the time I've already been asked by Municipal staff what do we do with this new laot that has more land to it so we've got on the record we get in the resolution shouldn't be a problem when they go for the zoning permit or building good thank you and uh the sidewalk issue I'm a big fan of sidewalks in neighborhoods I am as well it's whatever the board determines please sidewalk and Kirby and curb thank you even if the properties on either side at this point may not have them they will there there's certainly no other curban sidewalk on Jack on Jackson Pines Road but it's certainly within the board's um you know jurisdiction to require CB sidewalk by by and our goal is to encourage them moving forward agreed one never knows how these things are going to end up all right so we'll put sidewalks into the resolution as well thank you any questions from the board Mr R uh just as general statement uh This falls below the minimum threshold for the environmental uh review yes so I'll just send you an email no concern thank you any other questions from the board I think we'll open to public now for uh direct question questioning to Mr McFarland only just direct questioning on his testimony if anyone from the public has questions seeing no one come forward I move to close the public cross examination second now to the public if anyone has any comments to make about this particular project please come forward now seeing no members of the public approach the the podium for a public comment on this matter and this matter only motion to close second Mr Ralph fery would you like to very briefly this is a fully conforming except for the Varian which I'm going to get to momentarily um minor subdivision application of the two variants or sets of variances that we're seeking one is for the existing home and the side yard setback which is not impacted by the subdivision and the other as Mr Peters points out is for the um front and sidey guard setback for the Isaac Court lot which was previously granted by the zon board and is consistent with the neighborhood um and is being improved and that we're adding land to the property rather than taking away and therefore we request that the board Grant the approvals as requested with the conditions that the board has imposed and we will comply with both reports from the board professionals excuse me I have the same cold as you do by the way oh maybe not the same exactly all right any uh anything from anyone before before we uh take a motion well ask for a motion please motion to approve second roll call please Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr rker yes Mr Rose yes Mr Tremor yes Mr weard yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campell yes congratulations thank you thank you we're going to take a few minutes to be setting up for the next uh applicant e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e with regard to what exactly they're seeking now they are seeking to have a uh Public Road and I've read my colleagues uh letter about uh talking about the the obors drking this case out and for those of us who have been here we know that that is not so uh the board has been extremely lenient I think with the applicant as far as calling their Witnesses and my testimony presentation I think has been uh short when we read in the letter which I have sent to the board the uh 40 col 67- 23.7 it very clearly says that the only entity who has jurisdiction to accept a road as a public road is the governing body uh Miss Jennings has made light of the fact that this is a I refer to it as a cuis act well I certainly realize that there are cultist acts throughout the uh municipality uh with regard to the public road references made to instances in which there is a private road well in a private road that's exactly what it is it's under the control of the entity that is seeking the application I think what is significance here is that the owner of this property and the applicant has never appeared before you to give testimony as to exactly what they're going to do they intend to have four large buildings they intend to have a treatment facility and I would submit to you that the only reason why they are seeking a public road which is that if they applied for a priv private road which I would submit they must the standards are far greater for them and it may very well result in uh a dimunition of the size of the application but there's a very simple question before the board right now this matter must be considered by the governing body to see whether or not they will accept this as a private road as a public road I'm sorry and I would submit to you that when we look at the definition under 40 Co and 67 there 23.2 that this cannot be a public road because in fact the applicant has indicated even in the letters from my colleague that this will be a facility where they are seeking a tax abatement or no taxes at all and in those instances it cannot qualify as a public road it must be a private road and that is not what was presented present it to you in the final analysis of this application in one instance they said it was a private road and quite frankly I've been all of these hearings and I think they were going back and forth I think in one of the meetings the board indicor did want to see the applicant appear before them uh that applicant has not done that so right now we have a culdesac with four buildings plus a treatment plan uh they'll admit they'll be seeking a tax abatement and they may will be enti to one but that is to be decided by the governing body as to whether or not they will accept this as a public roote and in order for this application to be approved it must be accepted by the municipality and I would respectfully submit to you the quickest way to resolve this problem is let the governing body make that call thank you very much thank you just so I hit all the points I'm just going to read the that I wrote Into the record so that everybody can understand what the applicant's position is which we totally disagree with Mr garski this is an application that was filed 2 and a half years ago and deemed complete in November of 2022 under the municipal land use law when you have no variances the board has 95 days to act on an application we are well past the time in which the board has to act the applicant has extended time and time again so I think we all need to keep that in mind and I going to read the letter so that everybody in the audience as understands as well because I'm sure the board members already received my letter and reviewed it but I'm indicating in my letter that Mr gazer rowski in his letter of just Thursday late Thursday afternoon requested that the planning board put these proceedings on hold while the determination is made as to whether the township will accept a public roadway dedication proposed by the applicant in connection with his application to construct four private religious schools preliminarily I note the lateness of this request which is designed solely to delay this board's final determination of the application Mr gazer Row's request was filed a mere two business days prior to the hearing date even though the applicant has not submitted any modifications to this proposal in several weeks finally even if Mr gazar Rousey's concerns were well founded which they are not the issue is not before the board and is not relevant to legal and factual analysis the board must conduct to read your determination on the application it is important to recognize that the township has accepted roadway dedications for any number of reasons in the past including for private for-profit developers of residential subdivisions the proposed dedication included in this application is not meaningfully different from the other dedications that have already been accepted the proposed Road meets the township standards and is appropriate for dedication I find it hard to comprehend Mr gazer Rousey's comment that the road is a kisac when as shown in the attached exhibit a which is a photo of the surrounding area the immediate area has several col sacks which would presumably be only used by the residents on those streets similar to the applicant's proposal for example the following streets in the immediate vicinity of the applicant's property each serve less than 20 single family residences you have goova Avenue with three residences Constitution Drive with 16 carry court with 11 Buckingham Boulevard 14 Declaration Lane 11 Symphony court and Maestro Court 15 featherlane 10 none of these streets are through streets nor are they used by the public to travel through the township but there are all dedicated public streets for the benefit of the residents who live on those streets the board must also remember that the application is variance free for a permitted use and contains only a handful of design waivers the law says that the planning board quote shall close quote Grant an approval for such an application C njsa 4055 d-46 and 51 Mr Gaz aroused his concern regarding the particular operator of the school is not relevant the board may not base its approval determination on the user it may only consider the use proposed for the property and I State several case law that says that it must also be noted that Mr gazar Rousey's letter contains factual inaccuracies for example he asserts that the applicant quote initially applied for a private Road close quote which is not true the initial application proposed a public roadway at the board's request and at the applicant's Great expense the plans were revised to show a private road but this triggered a number of bulk variances which the applicant was willing to ask for however the board planner indicated that the private road might trigger a devarian because private roadways are not a permitted principal use as a result the applicant withdrew its request for a private road to avoid being transferred to the zoning Board of adjustment and having to secure a Dev variance because they're before the planning board with a variance free application as for Mr gazar Rousey's complaint that the applicant has not testified he cites No Authority that would require such testimony the applicant is in charge of how it presents its application it is not required to provide testimony in support of a fully conforming site plan application where the board's discretion to deny the application is extremely limited and in most cases not permitted furthermore the board should be troubled by some of the language used in Mr gazer Row's letter that is designed to inflame the board rather than provide a cogent legal Theory concerning the dedication of a public RightWay number one he states that the students of the proposed schools will be quote from various municipalities located in Ocean and Mammoth County close quote this fact is irrelevant as the board may not consider that residents of other municipalities may use the proposed development and is not a basis to deny the application or for the governing body to refuse to accept the dedication of the public right away second sentence quote there is no doubt that because the schools are for a specific religion and none other they shall seek to be tax exempt close quote whether a proposed use or property owner might be entitled to a property tax exemption is not relevant to the board's consideration the board may not deny an application based on the proposed use presuming the use is permitted which in this case it is nor May the governing body refuse to accept a dedication for public roadway purposes based on the possibility the landowner May seek a property tax exemption third sentence that we have an issue with quote the project coming in to disturb their quality quality of life presumably he's talking about his clients the obors are being called upon to have their tax dollars utilized for the benefit of the upkeep of a private road that benefits only quote this community close quote which I found to be the most offensive word in the letter um this thinly veiled swipe at the particular religion of the applicants members and the students will attend the schools is not relevant to these proceedings all individuals have the right to practice and pursue education within any religion they choose various religious uses are entitled to property tax exemptions which again is not a basis to deny either the application or for the governing body to reject the proposed RightWay dedication number four he writes the applicant is quote seeking to have its upkeep financed by the tax dollars of the surrounding neighborhood while they bear no tax obligation close quote setting aside that this allegation is baseless again this is not a basis to deny the application or ref refuse the dedication applicant will receive a property tax exemption if it is entitled to under the applicable statute the statement does not bear any of the factors that might be considered in determining whether property tax exemption is appropriate Mr gazer Rousey's threat that if the governing body accepts the roadway quote that will be challenged quot quote should not deter the board from following the law any challenge would be frivolous and would likely entitle the township and possibly the applicant to the collection of attorney fees under rule 1 col 4-8 and njsa 2A 15- 59.1 Additionally the denial of applicants fully conforming application would likely entitle my client to damages and federal court against the planning board and need not might remind the board you may not even be aware but the congregation or bias case that was before the Zoning Board of adjustment that was denied back in 2012 which was a 10-year piece of litigation cost the board uh the township over $1 million Mr gazer rowski was the attorney for those objectors finally my office has conducted some preliminary legal research on the substance of Mr gazar Rousey's claim though this letter is not intended to serve as a legal brief or a comprehensive legal analysis concerning this issue it is sufficient to establish why Mr gazer Rousey's claims are wholly without Merit Mr garousi cites njsa 40 col 67- 23.7 but an analysis of that statute is not necessary or relevant here nor is it the only statute that would allow for a municipality to accept the dedication of a public Street municipalities May accept streets from property owners who are entitled to property tax exemption the statute under which applicant may be entitled to an exemption in the future is njsa 54 col 43.6 which provides exemptions to schools houses of worships libraries volunteer first aid squads Charities hospitals and a wide variety of other not for-profit uses if a municipality is not able to accept the dedication for a public RightWay from a property owner with a tax exemption pursu to this statute the board and the township must consider whether if they prepared to refuse use future roadway dedications from all houses of worship schools hospitals libraries and other nonprofit property owners that are entitled to property tax exemptions by virtue of their nonprofit uses other statutes with the township May accept the dedication or njsa 40 col 671b and njsa 4A col 12-5 A1 which the township relied upon to accept peric Lane under ordinance 27-18 for these reasons the applicant strenuously objects to placing the application on hold to resolve this invented roadway dedication issue the board may include as a condition of approval that the applicant must secure the acceptance of the public road by the township this is no different than the applicant if they needed to seek a permit from the njd County planning board approval comments from the environmental commission they are all conditions of the board's approval the board is instructed to review the ordinance review the application determine whether or not the application complies with the ordinance that's your only charge you do not have jurisdiction to accept roads I agree with Mr gazari on that point you granting an approval this evening subject to the applicant going to the township to uh see if they'll accept the dedication relieves you of any liability you are not you're making a condition just like if you said this is subject to getting an NJ D permit you're not telling the D to give us a permit you don't have the authority to do that so this is no different than any other Outside Agency approval and respectfully the applicant would reject any uh adjournment of this application we've been here a long time we've done our homework we've tried to work with the board we've tried to work with the consultants and uh we would just like to wrap it up tonight have Mr gazar rowski do his traffic testimony we'll do a little bit across and we're done thank you thank you Miss Jennings NOP thank you Miss Jennings Miss Jennings that's uh all right so now I'm going to address my board Mr karowski do you want to respond or I I just want to respond uh briefly I mean it seems that my colleague has acknowledged that the proposed use May in fact be entitled to a tax abatement or a tax exemption she also seems to acknowledge if in fact this board were to Grant an approval at this particular point they can make make it subject to the applicant going before uh the governing body to seek the acceptance of this alleged public Street uh this board does not have the jurisdiction to acknowledge or rule that the pet should be accepted only the governing body has the power to do that that could be disposed of perhaps within 30 days I don't I fail to understand uh the gist of this argument of my client dragging this matter out they have agreed to secure any and all necessary approvals one of those approvals is the acceptance of the public street she makes reference to the DP well fine the acceptance of the street perhaps is no different than the D acknowledging where a tielines land is so we're really we are at a point where it's really I would submit to you respectfully it is a call for the governing body to make there is nothing here about you I I do take great at some of these veiled allegations of bias and or the like I've been practicing law for over 60 years I graduated from Law School in 1965 I served as an attorney in the United States Marine Corps honorably I believe I am I know I am an honorable person uh there is not a Prejudice bone in my body and for her to make this application allegation is outrageous thank you I did not pen your letter Mr galowski those were your words that I used in my response so those were your words your choices your free choices now it's my turn and with respect to just go to the governing body there's case law right on point the problem here is that there's a lot of different jurisdictions that have uh over application so if the county decides hey wait until you get your planning board approval or the D says don't come to us and you have the county approval an applicant just goes around and around in circles so the courts decided a long time ago you can't do that once an application is filed the clock starts ticking and you are obligated to act on the application within statutory time frames or risk an automatic approval so I don't think the board wants to Grant an automa see us go to court and get an automatic approval you spend a lot of time listening to testimony I think that if you were to Grant the application there are conditions on the approval that you can impose that would protect uh you and others so that's all I have to say thank you okay all right so at this point I'm going to address my board on a couple issues um number one I want the board to disregard uh any comments about tax AB bment tax exemption I agree with Miss Jennings on the fact that there really is nothing within the ordinances or the ml which give the planning board the ability of either approving or denying an application based upon the the tax status or tax exemption status of a corporation or individual or you know however you want to you want to pan that uh the ability to be taxed or not be taxed is kind of irrelevant to the board making a decision and determination based upon the ordinances and the spirit and intent of the governing documents that they have to take a look at right unless there's an ordinance directly on point with that most townships don't have that we don't have that so it's a little bit of a different story um second issue I want to touch on uh give the board a little guidance on all right is that of the public rad and we've been talking about this for a while now so I I think that we need to put this to bed all right and what I mean by that is that this application seems the anchoring point of this application seems to be the public R all right um when you take a look at it kind of from a a top- down perspective seems to be interior driveway uh that's being dedicated to the township is a public roope all right whenever something is dedicated to the township what that requires is that the township Council um it gets put on their agenda they take a vote on it they get a resolution um and it's formally adopted and accepted by the township all right now there's there's two different types of roadway dedications there's one which is residential the second one which is uh non-residential commmercial you can kind of lump them together all right this case it's it seems to be non-residential SL commercial all right that's kind of the bucket that we want to put in here now it when we when we take a look at it it's it resembles more of like an industrial park or a shopping plaza or medical facility or trailer park where you have an interior roadway that's going to a dead end which leads to a private um private facility that's going to be used for private purposes now it doesn't mean that it can't be dedicated it just means that that the way it it's set up uh and and the way that it appears is that of a right of way it appears of be a a private interior road that with no p through traffic it just this is what it is um so that kind of goes into the specifics of what we have in front of us so in this situation the applicant is making a choice all right and the choice is to is to deem it a public road as opposed to a private road and that's that's the applicant can do that that's their right but this Choice determines the standards that is being presented to the board all right um those standards determine whether or not we see variances or not in this situation the interior the interior driveway that's going into the application if if it was labeled that of a private road seems and I think by the applicants own admission would create variances now the extent of what Varian is we don't know I mean most likely based upon the the odd shape uh of the lot it's kind of a flag lot most likely would be C1 hardship variances right sometimes are di Minimus but we don't we don't have that in front of us we haven't been able to see that um as a board it's the plans weren't revised so we know that most likely variances would happen as a result of the road being labeled private um but we don't know to what extent all right that is has yet to be determined um so that would radically change the nature of the application presented to the board um so that goes back to when we take a look at a situation like that I personally tried to go back and trying to find some legal precedence on the topic right so I went back over the weekend as much as I'd love to do that with my two and three-year-old climbing all over me looking at the 2009 circulation plan um couldn't find any guidance there right went back to the master plan I took a look at the um the official roadway maps of the township couldn't find any guidance there I went back to all the applications that are on the website um that we have access to and a lot of them I I wasn't around for right so um I can't I could not find a single situation in which we had a uh a non-residential SLC commmercial private entity trying to have an interior roadway that that dead ends dedicated to the township uh as a public road doesn't mean they can't do it it just means I we don't have any prior legal guidance on it all right and because of that what we have in front of us as a board is kind of it's a novel issue it's it's a novel issue that we've never had in front of us doesn't mean it hasn't happened before but we don't have any evidence of it none of our governing documents that that that we go to to kind of make sure we're interpreting the appropriate spirit and intent of um none of that gives us any guidance um so given that I would consider this a novel issue all right because of that I'm going to recommend to the board that we view this as what's called a threshold issue now a threshold issue is um something where a board attorney will rule on an issue of jurisdiction a board will rule on a threshold issue which means um it's similar to the jurisdiction but it's it's a critical requirement that has to be satisfied in order for the board to truly with specificity understand exactly what's being presented to them and evaluate it appropriately you know basically being able to take a look at it and say okay we vetted it from every angle uh we have all the information in front of us that we're able to fully see kind of the panoramic view and to make sure that you know all the ordinances and the governing documents and the master plan everything is being comported with and complied with all right um because of that um if we view it as a threshold issue all right if the board views it as a threshold issue um if it goes before the governing body and the governing body um gives us their feedback on it two things may happen one um the governing body may say great that sounds great good we we accept it fine no big deal and we're right back to to where we are right now and the applicant can um the applicant's testimony is finished but Mr gazowsky can um you know finish his testimony and go from there alternatively what would happen is that if the with the guidance of the governing body if the governing body says we don't want this thing the entire everything may change and we don't know to what extent because we haven't seen it it hasn't been called out um you know it could just be C1 variances it could be hardship variances the the structures may change the dimensions may change we we don't know that because we haven't seen that as a board yet um therefore it's it's very difficult to adequately determine what's in front of the board without fully fleshing out this threshold issue so at this time I'm going to request that the board make a determination by way of vote as to whether they consider it a threshold issue or not so you're asking for a motion so it would be a motion to determine whether or not solely specifically just on this issue of the public roadway uh us needing uh governing body guidance on the issue because of the novel aspect of this because we've never seen this as a board before and because we want to vet it from all issues vet it from all angles um the vote is to deem this a threshold issue that needs governing body um guidance and and let me just expand on that so um take it one step further so Mrs Jennings is correct in the fact that miss m Jennings is correct so most conditions that we see as a board are called condition uh subsequent all right so there's we we talk about conditions of approval all the time but there's there's different types of conditions first condition is uh that we see all the time the condition of approval is condition subsequent um there's something called a condition precedent which is what the threshold issue would be a condition precedent would be um needing to know this information prior to the board being able to fully evaluate the application on all of its merits um that would be what we're voting on right now we would be voting on determining this um a conditioned precedent and viewing it as a threshold issue due to the novel nature of the request being made by the applicant so with that I'll give it to the board looking for a motion on that subject considering that this is a threshold issue and a threshold issue only for the governing body on this particular matter issue only I'll make a motion to send it forth to the governing body for a decision I second that motion roll call vote Please Mr marzo yes Mr Herer yes Mr rker yes see Miss Rose yes Mr Tremor yes Mr weard yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Kim yes okay I guess let's see you in court because you don't have an extension of time that was a terrible um advice that you just gave your board Bobby so I will be seeing you in court bye that's unall for no it's the truth it's absolutely ridiculous I go in the application two and a half years and you made up  so no I'll see you in your court and the Asbury Park Press tomorrow the Asbury Park Press tomorrow is going to be Jackson BS again and you guys are going to be sued and I'm going to name each and every one of you in the lawsuit that's what's going to happen all done have a great night all right oh yeah okay Miss Jennings language all done was inappropriate inappropri okay so hang on hang on we're not we're not not done yet not done yet all right so this goes back to my next question to Miss Jennings will you give us time of extension okay all right with that being said if the applicant is not going to give us a time of extension to seek the governing B's uh Counsel on this um I'm going to request that the board make a a determination is to to die without prejudice solely as to this issue so for no other reason I mean the applicant can refile next week if they want and bring it back right to where we are right now and that's fine we just have to hear back from the governing body so all right all right all right so right now right now we have to have a motion even though Miss Jennings left we still have to have a motion as to what we're going to do because we haven't made any formal action so the applicant has not granted us time of extension which that's fine that's their right all right but due to that we have a threshold issue that you just voted on that determined it to be a threshold issue um therefore if you are going to vote on this it has to be by way of denying the application without prejudice allow them to bring it back at any point in time that's fine um but you have to make a motion on it all right seeking a motion for record purposes on only whatever time we have I can't see without my glasses I'll note for the record that the applicant is abandoned the application has left the building and has left a stenographer here I don't know why you're still here sir that's on the record I make a motion to deny this application without prejudice roll call vote Please Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr rer yes Miss Rose yes Mr tremer yes Mr weard yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Kim yes we can move on to our next applicate please Pi five take a couple minutes we'll have 10 minute recess e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e can take their seats and stop conversations thank you we'd like to move on I need to get home I can barely talk thank you we're back in session now Mr alfery good evening again Madam chair members of the board salvator alfery clear giobi alfery and Jacobs on behalf of the applicant uh this is an application for a sh at 140-146 South New Prospect Road um it is variance free we have uh two witnesses to present Ellie Halper is our um engineer and Scott Kennel is our traffic expert and architect sorry sorry not not Scott um Ellie's the oh we have nalii too I'm sorry we do have an architect present sorry um so our or our intended order is to call Ellie Halper first then the architect will present the elevations that have been previously submitted and then finally tra traffic with Scott Kennel we'd request that Mr Halper be sworn in please all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name and spell your last for the record Eric Halpert H PT licensed professional engineer and planner in the state of New Jersey I have testified before this board and multiple boards multiple jurisdictions and these plans were prepared under my supervision we accept your credentials thank you thank you testifying as an engineer and a planner or just an engineer well U if if if a variant comes up that needs planning testimony he'll cover that but we swear him as as an engineer and a planner yes please and and um you you you pre submit excuse me before before you give testimony I'd like to give our professionals an opportunity toh speak thank you um thank you mad chair um yeah um Mr Airy summarized the application um 8700t uh House of work worship um our review has indicated that it's pretty much variance free with the exception of a 5-ft fence within a buffer area so um some testimony from the applicant as far as um compliance with the um the newly enacted ordinance governing development of houses houses of worship um have the testimony of course regarding the um the site operations um there was also um uh some testimony required as far as the um earthw work if there's going to be a soil removal or so soil importation um some testimony from the applicant as far as ownership and maintenance of the U stormw um system and most most specifically um an indication as as far as compliance with um the new lead acted ordinance 24447 e that's all for now thank you Mr C Mr Peters thank you madam chair our office has a report dated August 14th of this year um well I don't often disagree with Mr Alfieri um I just want to this is a house of worship I know the phrase is sh our ordinance doesn't use the word sh uses the word house of worship for that purpose um this is a permitted use in the R1 Zone um Mr CLE hit just about all the highlights I think it is important that Mr Halpert give us some testimony with regards to compliance with the newly enacted ordinance 3123 specifically as it relates to buffer plantings around the perimeter and Frontage of the site thank you Mr one one more thing um originally the application um indicated no um signage um and of course the comment would be that you know any future signage would have to comply with um ordinance standards the um elevation drawings that um were passed out seems to indicate there's a um a building mount in sign proposed so just testimony from the applicant regarding um compliance with that one wall sign thank that's fine and I'd like to hit the um Mr CLE mentioned up front about whether a variance is required for the fence or not in reading the ordinance that specific section of the ordinance it says a buffer Andor fence so I don't know what Endor means usually it would be and or but Andor I'm taking it to mean perhaps it's the board's discretion as to whether we should have the plantings and the fence or one or the other we have no issue with whatever you decide you want plantings you want a fence you want both we're okay so we don't want to seek a variance is the end result we like both I figured that but I I didn't want to offer it I fig we're being offered we might as well take what we can so and I think Doug that would then address the issue correct okay fine thank thank you all right Mr Halper um let's refer to A1 which is um well identify it for us please um up on the uh screen is exhibit A1 an aerial of the site depicting um in high the um site highlighted this is on the Southwest side of South New Prospect Road across the street from the Mikvah that the board recently approved the site contains um as is um still visible beneath the shading there are several structures there is a structure that is currently um that received approval from the zoning board several years ago for a use variants to operate as a house of worship on the one property um and there is also on um let me get the Lots right on lot um 22 is the um house um of worship on Lot 21 is a residential um dwelling there are other accessory structures the applicant is proposing to demolish all and to construct um what is proposed on the site plan a uh one-story house of worship and I we get into as I uh the actual square footage and discrepancies um that exist between the side plane and the um and the um architect plan and and South um South New Prospect is a county road is that yes so before so um before getting um so could you pull up um the site plan let's get it uh could you pull up the site plan please sheet number three the submitted site plan thank you um could you zoom in a little bit just to capture the um the site okay so to work um from the roadway um inward the um site has Frontage um um the site has Frontage along South New Prospect roadway and requires County approval the plan has been submitted to the county and received preliminary approval um pending their um conditions the conditions are um currently South New Prospect roadway is signalized um in three directions along South New Prospect in two directions and a signal facing Wood Lane Road the applicant is proposing as a to provide access to the house of worship with a a access drive and the county will be requiring and the applicant will be agree will be agreeing to signalize the fourth leg of the of of the uh traffic signal so the access Drive is going to be a signalized um access drive so when you say fourth leg that means the um either direction of South New Prospect and Woodland have traffic signals the one facing the subject property does not have a signal operational do you have a pointer do you guys have a red light I my pointer um the battery I I just noticed I do not have a pointer gotcha I apologize I brought the pointer it's not working anthon's coming an the rescue thank you rental thank you very much High interest rate okay thank you I apologize for that um currently the uh South New Prospect roadway is signalized in three directions it is sign ized in both directions of South New Prospect and there is a traffic signal directing traffic for traffic coming from Wood Lane and turning on to um South New Prospect uh the the uh this is showing the proposed site plan this is not constructed right now um could you go back one page to the existing conditions plan please and we we don't have to mark the plans or do you want us to Mark the pl the sheets that have been submitted if if they haven't been marked already if you want to mark them for identification purposes so we know we yeah um that would be A2 then so we're now a sheet two of of A2 this is sheet two of the submitted site plan and we're going to mark it as A2 the entire set will be A2 okay yeah okay so this is the existing conditions plan it shows the two properties that are part of the site plan application including the current um structure that received the use variants to be used as a house of worship there is um could you zoom in a little bit more to this section so the board could see the driveway and scroll up a little bit the thank you perfect there is an existing driveway right now that is providing access to the site it is unsignalized presently and that is the fourth leg that we're discussing that the county will be requiring as part of our application to have that for to have that signalized as part of our application so currently there are signals directing traffic along South New Prospect along Wood Lane not not there is no signal uh that is providing any direction to the access drive into the property RF replicant will be required to provide um a traffic signal for the access drive and is agree and agrees thank you okay so we're going to go back to sheet three the site yes could you go back to sheet three and we'll still discuss more um conditions that the county is placing on the applicant that the applicant is agreeing to we discussed the traffic signal there will not be any stop sign there is a stop sign that is shown on the on the plan there will not be a stop there will not be a stop sign there will be a bar but it will be signalized additionally um the county is requiring the striping the restriping of South New Prospect roadway as the board is aware South New Prospect roadway is undergoing um construction along the entire length of the roadway and the section will be a three Lane section with one lane for each Direction and a middle Lane to provide left turn um left turns for traffic going in both directions at this intersection the county is requiring the applicant to stripe a left turn lane into the site and a left turn lane onto Wood Lane Avenue so as part of the um uh as part of what the applicant will be required to do to there will be a fourth a fourth leg for the traffic signal the TR the um roadway will be striped with um three lanes and at this intersection there will be a left turn only lane onto Wood Lane and a left turn only lane into the into the SES okay now um describe for the board the site plan itself what is being proposed emphasis on Landscaping storm water management site circulation yeah so excuse me before we move on to that since we're on that entryway yes I'm I'm looking at the that new intersection yes wouldn't it make sense to widen your uh Drive uh to equal the Wood Lane um with so that perhaps you could have uh an Ingress and an egress maybe with the a divider uh but it would match it would be exactly the same width you have plenty of room so I'm in terms of that I will let our traffic experts speak exactly to whether or not but but this is not I'm not talking about traffic I'm talking about Aesthetics aesthetically it would be a balance where you would have the balance of both the roadway and the street it's just a thought because as I say right I can see you have plenty of room there yes there is room I I I understand and the um design of the driveway was um was designed in uh conjunction with the county to line up with the county roadway and the applicant would have no issue simply for Aesthetics to widen it however because the issue is I would say is more than Aesthetics um to um provide Ingress and egress I would prefer to defer to the traffic um expert as to whether or not that should be something but in terms of Aesthetics the applicant would have no issue however I would say that there is more than Aesthetics to the question of having a wider balance balance is the word I'm looking for okay hang on first things first it can be widened it's going to increase the traffic flow that's simple we don't need to hear from an expert on that it's common sense and it took 15 minutes to tell tell us a story about a four-way intersection okay let's truncate it down and get get down to Brass tax I'd like to see you widen it up so that you could have a lane if you wanted to go straight across the Wood Lane and a right lane to turn to go uh the opposite way on South through Prospect I would also recommend regardless of whatever the traffic engineer says that you have a no turn on red okay because of traffic all right real simple We just cleaned up three items one two three okay I don't think the Board needs to hear about Aesthetics and whatever if you widen it it's going to be great I'm sure the fire company's going to come to you and say that they're going to have you know an exceptional piece of equipment that they don't want a center barrier because they want to just swing in and get it done so let's just just move along quickly that's the recommendation I would hope that you would accept it all right let's just check with our experts to make sure that that's not going to cause any uh variances or anything of that nature respectfully we should hear all the testimony then come back um Safety First in the vacuum period Safety First in the vacum we agree with you but I having not having heard this for the first time and not turning around to talk to our traffic I just want I if I miss if we're missing something I don't want to say yes and then find out later understood the Count's going to drive the bus you know that agreed and if if the end result is we have to just go back to County with a revised plan it's ultimately going to be their call what they want there we agree but I don't want to turn around and see Scott until the time comes if you don't mind he'll be up soon can I real quick yeah if you have an incident at the light and people are trying to come out and you need Emergency Equipment to go in there you're going to need something as wide as Dr Campbell and Jeff have been saying because you're going to need to be be able to get around there won't be access otherwise right I could turn around and say where's your secondary road so if you're not going to do a secondary that better be wide as he okay that's the simple part of it everybody's benefit the applicant has no issue widening we just want to make sure that the C that there won't be any other issues caused by it the applicant has no issu at all widening okay so yeah we agree okay so site plan let's focus on site plan and we'll get back to that before we finish the the applicant is proposing to construct a uh one-story house of worship so just to address um the uh square footage um on the S plan it says 8689 that is um for the zoning analysis for uh for building coverage that is referring to um the building footprint which goes to the outer to the um outside of the walls and it's 8689 there could be a slight discrepancy with the architect plan which is referring to the floor space which would go by the inside of the walls that would be why there would be a a slight discrepancy just regarding the overall square footage but the statement of operations that has 9,862 is incorrect the statement of operations is is incorrect okay so to go through the plane the the um applicant is proposing a um house of worship there is going to be um full circulation 59 parking spaces EV parking spaces um five are shown on the plan and there are three handicapped spots the applicant um has submitted this to the fire fire is um has approved the circulation in general there are comments that the applicant is able to comply with um excuse me um I do notice in the fire district report they asked that the EV spots be moved away from the building has that been the applicant is agreeable to that yes and I did I don't know if I I can't find them on the plans but I assume there is going to be a good deal of foot pedestrian traffic so because I know the neighborhood I used to live across the street um so if uh if you could make certain that there are interior sidewalks from the Street sidewalk from the sidewalks that are on the street to this to the um house of worship I think that would be very important and for safety sake the applicant could provide that thank you a connecting sidewalk from the uh Street into the into the uh interior okay would you discuss so I'll go through the um the uh grading could you could you go to the next plan to uh the grading and drainage plan sheet number four sheet number four shows the grading and drainage plan there are two basins there was a comment regarding an orifice that is Set uh too high it will be set lower which will require the Basin to be enlarged and there is room um ample room on the property proper to provide the storm the uh the Basin sizing that is required um and that will be corrected um the operation and maintenance will be provided by the owner of the property there is a basin in the front a basin along the side the existing drainage runs off to the rear of the property and the calculations show that all reductions are met and the um a Swale will be provided and sorted and a note will be added to the plan that it will be sorted um in order to minimize any impacts and to lessen impacts um on the neighboring properties um could you go to she sheet um the Landscaping sheet which is uh another three sheets could you scroll to sheet number seven I [Music] believe the applicant is proposing plantings there are comments that the applicant um is able to comp there are comments regarding revisions required the applicant is able to revise the plans and shall provide the buffering and as discussed specifically regarding the sides of the property the applicant as discussed before is agreeable to provide both the buffering screening planting and um a fence um to comply with the ordinance with Section with uh section l 24447 e um 4 L decorative 6ot fence Andor natural vegetative buffer the applicant will provide both the is room to provide both um and and while you're talking about Earth work and you started talking about the stormw management um the stormw management design will comply with all the stormw management regulations and the township ordinance yes and also the technical comments that they're contained within the board professional reports you would agree to address we agree to address yes um Doug mentioned Earth workor and whether it's it Phill or soil import have have those calculations been conducted yet we we we did some preliminary calculations we do not anticipate more than 1,000 cubic feet of uh um soil to be removed okay um can you discuss the sight [Music] lighting could you go to the next page please the applicant is proposing um um lighting pole mounted and and uh wallmounted and the applicant will comply with the ordinance and will revise to ensure that the foot handle is 0.5 minimum and will minimize um as well any effects on the neighboring Properties by providing cut off Shields um uh there was in the introductory comments from the board Professor there was a comment about signage and there is a facade sign that's shown on the architectural plan would you clarify the for the board what's being proposed and whether it'll be ordinance compliant just just real quick the lighting the lighting is it going to be timed are you going to have timers on the lighting the applicant is is is uh able to have timing on the lighting except for the except for the Emergency except for emergenc except for a light uh some wallmounted lighting but yeah as long as it's not going to be flooding resal yes uh signage signage I'll let the that's a wall facade um sign and I'll let I'll let the applicant uh I'll let um the architect discuss that okay um I'm sorry I didn't discuss um could you go back to the um site plan to sheet number three there is a refu enclosure proposed and the applicant will anti it would anticipate to um have refu collection twice weekly by a private hauler the general um the general deliveries would be sometimes there may be deliveries for some um for some bar mitzvas for um for a kidish on shabis there may be some deliveries uh some um it will be an Amazon type um at most an Amazon size truck I'm sorry and like like other oh I'm sorry I'm sorry madam chair we have a comment in our report that was sort of a generality I don't know what that I don't know how you put that in a resolution or how you say that's what you said you're going to do and if there's a problem this is what was testified to the statement of operations has a number of generalities we're asking for some specifics if something's going to have just say so so we can figure out what needs to get done in order to accomplish it or say you know that's not the greatest idea aide in a house of worship please describe in some detail because otherwise I'm not sure how to hit that moving Target when it comes to making comments regarding right we exactly my question we we're and we're ready to do it m my question is exactly that there will be no cooking correct on on site it will be deliveries like we have dealt with in the past and with a warming station correct with a warming there is a warming is that what we're looking for Mr Peters we're going to give let us give you a little more detail madam chair we're prepared to do that would you do that please and you you want to hear the we could give you a brief summary of the overall operation not just that the food but the the sh Services Etc fine go ahead um the Sho sir I'm sorry this uh should have come at the beginning of the testimony to discuss the operations um the uh Sho Services during the week are 6:30 a.m. and ending at 9:00 a.m. there are services in the evening 900 p.m. to 10:30 p.m. presently the applicant does not have afternoon prayer services there may be there may be in the future services in the afternoon shortly before Sunset 15 minutes before Sunset their services typically have um 35 members in attendance that is during the week on shabas there are more um there are more um family members coming and there are in general there is approximately 70 member families there would be each family would have several people to it um they are walking on chabas on the Sabbath in addition to the services there is also a uh a social Banquet Hall a a multi-purpose room for a RIS following services or of our Mitzvah at night for members these um the the social Banquet Hall will be is meant to serve the members um and again the bris would be in the morning following the services and ab mitz will be at night excuse me this there will be no rental of this space there won't be any rental and no weddings it says weddings in the paperwork I have here where so where let's talk about restriction of the uses so so no no banquet halls no weddings no no rentals no weddings no readings okay and no food prep on site yep it says no WS okay continue okay so again the so um signage will be discussed and refu you discussed I think the question I think the question is no weddings means no wedding receptions there may be a service no wedding receptions yes sorry correct I think that I think that's what the little was that is the intent uh to yeah so there will be the the bits for service there will be a a wedding service but there will not be receptions a reception for a wedding there may be a bar mitzvah um Gathering there may be Bar Mitzvah reception not a wedding re for members for members Madam chair again numbers the document was submitted says the applicant does not propose to host events such as weddings or B Mitzvah yeah what as a condition of the approval get the statement revised and resubmitted so it can be part of the record otherwise we're guessing and we're giving the zoning officer yeah a jumble right we we have no issue submitting it a revised statement but we're that we're providing testimony so it's clear tonight what exactly is being propos mad chair good Mr rker because I have things in writing that says entirely different okay so without boxing yourselves into operations religious operations I'm gathering what you're saying is and again I I want to hear this testimony because I don't want you to prevent something that is incremental to the use of the building culturally so there can be a wedding but there will not be the grand reception is that is that your testimony the testimony is there certainly will not be a grand reception and see answer is yes the answer is yes for sure they're they're very likely will not be I don't ever want to be in a position where we're boxing out the ability to hold a cultural or religious service I just understood I I think that's a fundamental principle that this country was founded on I would tend to agree with that clarification okay thank you what about Bar Mitzvah can you does down into subsequent parts or is it just no bar mitzvah no bar mitzvah and bris will be on site and then the the reception if you will afterwards would be on site on site as well no food prep just warming so after a bris they'll go into that reception room and have something to eat and whatever they Ellie could describe better than I have only been to a couple of them and that the intention of this Madam here just so we're clear the reason we're asking these questions has nothing to do with the religion or the use it has to do with the parking absolutely because the end of the day you can't park out on the County highway traffic there Mr so I I I apologize if it sounds like we're picking on Bar Mitzvah or weddings no it's it's the use of the property as it relates to traffic generat I've been to some bar mitzvah that are incredible they've been bigger than a wedding so uh uh we're we're concerned about the number of people who will be parking so the um the ordinance provides for the U main sanctuary and the social banquet hall and it is serving the members and the members will be um conducting the bar mitzvah reception those same members that we discussed praying are are going to be having the barito reception what's the capacity of the dining hall well the just before you get to that the parking requirement in the ordinance is for that multi-purpose room is one space for every 100 square ft um and it's it's about 2,300 F feet so 23 spaces would be required those are taken into account when we got to the 59 spaces that are required so it's the parkings ordinance compliant see what what we're what we're envisioning is there could be more than one thing happening in this facility at a time that's what we're asking if if there is only one thing happening in the facility at a time then the parking would suffice if there are two things happening at the same time then the parking would not suffice yes again respectfully we've learned that and again no definites here when you get to about 2,000 square fet that's the point in time where it's big enough to rent out for other uses and then you get two uses at a time or a use that isn't properly parked for so as as as Ellie indicated at the beginning the description of the bris would be they they would have the bris then they would go over to the room and have whatever social event they have same thing with the bar mitzvah so there will not be two events occurring on site at the same time it's not designed for that it can't accommodate that so we're not in any way implying that that would happen and and what is the capacity of the reception room how many people will it the are it is 150 people you know the husband the wife the kids the applic willing to stipulate to 150 people yes yes stipulate no more than 150 people yes thank you and no two events at the same time thank you excellent and no rentals and no rentals okay um Ellie one other followup well you talked about refu already right on the operations so um I I think you've covered enough except I want to get back to the RVE and the Owen little Doug and Ernie's reports without any level of detail you've reviewed both of the reports I have reviewed indeed I reviewed both reports and the applicant is able to comply with the you're willing as a conditional approval to address all of the comments contained within those reports yes okay yes that's all really big picture engineering any uh questions for this gentleman Mr um with the understanding that the signage on the building will be in Hebrew are we going to have common English signage for emergency purposes either on a a sign out near the road or or some way to identify the building in plain English so that if there is an emergent response that we know that we're going to X building at X location for emergency services the applicant is put on a sign out out front you know or something like that it just just common English to it are are the applicant is willing specifically you're discussing a site ID sign down at the roadway like yes a small sign and and I know our sign ordinances for Clum but in in this case you know whenever we're we're running into you know secondary language I think it's a good practice to have you know so that if we have a paramedic that's coming from somewhere else in the county they're not searching and they're not relying on a GPS to come serve so you're discussing like an address sign an address sign I'm sorry an address an address sign small side identification sign that's all English we could work with the board professionals on the location size Etc yeah and you know good thought I'm not interested in what the the setbacks are and all that jazz I just think it's necessary it's important would that people be able to identify the location specifically paramedics or something like that you know the applicant is certainly willing I don't know if it exactly will fit with all the with the ordinance um but um it may I'm I'm sure we could wait a little on that because it's the applicant is willing the applicant is for sure willing to provide that sorry Mr Clay we we uh have full uh uh something bigger than a York appreciation for the fact that you gentlemen will work together we will for sure thank you I know you said that you would address the issues that were brought up uh by our professionals I just wanted to make sure I know there was an issue with square footage being different in cir so this will be do you know what the official Square footages will be so I so to so um I spoke out um the square footage that is on the site plan is referring to what is calculated for building coverage which the the ordinance defines as going to the outside wall imp you know the the entire Footprints and that's 8,689 689 the architect's number is going to be a little different because that's referring to floor space the definition of floor spaces to the inside so it's 8689 so that that's why there are two numbers additionally um there was a discrepancy a slight discrepancy the P plan had a slightly larger number on the main sanctuary and um the um that will be corrected to match the architect plan this plan has been submitted multiple times to multiple boards and that is probably from an earlier version that should match exactly what the architect plan says for the main sanctuary excellent so the interior square footage would be 8,371 correct okay thank you very much the inside of the walls yeah clarifying that Mr tror if you could use your microphone microphone working it's on thank you sorry back up in there do you have any plans for that there's going to be um there's going to be some Landscaping buffering um otherwise um there's going to be Landscaping there's be Landscaping two spots behind the parking and along the um along the uh property lines okay could do you think maybe you should have put more parking back there a little bit just a suggestion I mean you're kind of tight it would alleviate a lot of the speculation just I was just curious because it seems limited you have a great place to have extra parking how much more parking uh we we we applicant could put not a bad idea I me they could consider it but I mean I don't know how that AFF storm it's just a suggestion not yourself I mean you have the property why not use it thank you should we have a specific number we could look at it okay else good gentl yes consistent with the testimony we're going to call our architect thank you thank you first I apologize forgetting to introduce you earlier all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes I do all right please state your name and spell your last of the record n toally gut gut I'm a licensed architect New Jersey multiple other states the principal of gutan LC Lakewood based firm I are my masters in architecture and NJIT I have testified before the Jackson board planning board and other municipalities these drawings were prepared by my office under my supervision thank you we accept your credential um and Anthony do we have the elev well we'll start with the we start with the floor plan we have the arc set you want to start with that okay good are these identified these exhibits not yet wait not yet okay go ahead you want us talk about that the Architects that so let's talk about the signage while we're figuring out which exhibit we're going to use the there's there's a sign that's forgetting about the freestanding sign that Mr Mr rker suggested there's a sign on the building can you describe whether the sign will be ordinance compliant correct the sign will be ordinance compliant will be less than 80 Square ft we're proposing laser cut aluminum and appropriate and compliment colors and that sign will not be backl there will only be a single [Music] sign um we Anthony you don't have the architectural rendering I saw I saw an email that there is an exhibit yeah there it is thank you go ahead please describe that and we're going to mark this is A3 can you identify the document please Anthony do you have the colored rendering too we don't no okay so let's work with that this is fine so the exteror materials we will be comprised primarily of contrasting dark and light color stucco we're going to have a stone veneer at the base and possibly at the main entrance walls okay and and how about the four sides how will they will they all be consistent or will they have some differing architectural features so the the the front of the building facing south New Prospect and the side the left side of the building facing the driveway and the parking spots will be primarily designed the back of the building which is only visible from the driveway might might be something U more simple like a siding or something and the other side and the back also will be more simple but the the the primarily front and side that has the most um V visual to to the street and to the site will be will be designed with stucco and and stone um Can the building be constructed so that solar panels could be accommodated on the roof if um becomes economically feasible yes absolutely all right and then there's there's A reduced size of there's a reduced U floor plan at the bottom of the plan you want to just run through for the board uh what that represents so this this this is representing being that the square footage would not allow for for non for combustible to be so large without a sprinkler system we broke it up into two different fire areas I could see the left side is the smaller fire area that's going to be the multi-purpose room there will be a two to our firewall in between those two uses with um firewalls fire doors separating them um that wall will go all the way up all the way up to the to the underside of the roof deck and that way these two parts of the building are are considered two different buildings and can be 5B construction without a sprinkler system being that it's only one story and each each part is less than 6,000 square ft that's all we have with the architect Madam chair any questions Mr rker is the applicant seeking at any point to have an emergency generator you might want to ask for the provision even if you're not going to do it ahead of time that's fine yes good suggestion okay thank you thank you anyone else questions thank you very much sir Scott Mr kenel you again yes good to see you all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth the hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please Scott Kennel K NE L with MCD and Ray Associates located at 1431 Lakewood Road manisan accept your credentials and welcome back thank you thank you and Mr for you Mr K your your office prepared the traffic report that was submitted in support of the application that's correct and let's cut to the chasing deal with I what I think the board feels you're the ringer so we can get straight to the point most important issue first of all um you were involved in the county submission and discussions correct I have not been directly involved Ellie was but I will be moving forward with with the uh if if the board grants approval this project the next step is to have a formal sitdown with the county to review their plans our plans such as making the driveway minimum of 30 ft in width if not wider we have to again review that with them with the truck turning plans uh and it's going to be my S suggestion to the engineer earlier was that we should also include the Mika site so we can do the whole intersection and tie everything together based on our discussions from last week uh you heard the comment about widening the driveway do you see any issue with that the county would have with that I do not so we would agree as a condition of approval to submit a proposed widened driveway to the county and seek their approval for that that's correct and what that entails also is modifying their traffic signal layout that they've already designed for the project that's been issued and it'll be modified to accommodate the fourth leg of the intersection and we could make that into a three lane with an emergency Lane maybe in the middle or I what was suggested is a right in right I mean a right out and a straight left right A straight ahead we can discuss that with the county again all right if you would do that just for safety sake and uh I I we know there's going to be traffic going straight ahead I already know who lives there correct and but as Mr rker stated earlier we will discuss with the county and they'll review whether right turn on reds should be permitted and that'll be part of the evaluation a final design thank you and if if you could Mr kenel I'd rather not see a concrete divide or or AG or an apex they're just disasterous agreed yeah uh it should be very similar to what we have across the street so that it provides a generous amount of payement for the the larger vehicles to turn in and out of the site I thank you kindly sir and we agree that we would keep Mr CLE involved with the county application so he could see the revised driveway design yeah he's very familiar with our little pbl on the sports but other than that Scott in terms of the driveway access it will operate safely and efficiently whether it's approved as designed or as widened that's correct I mean we projected the intersection operat level service C for the morning and afternoon and uh that's to accommodate in my opinion what we've used as an overestimation of peak hour traffic in the morning so based on a worst case it'll operate at good levels of service and the site circulation will operate safely as well and accommodate turning radius for um fire fire trucks and refuge Vehicles okay and and I'll also make there was the uh Memo from the police department where they had suggested a southbound right turn lane again this site and i' I've testified previously that the county criteria is any developments within excess of 200 parking spaces we're well below that threshold so um in my opinion it's not wared and but obviously it's subject to the county review but it's unlikely they would uh agree with the right dedicated right turn line at this location that's all we have of Mr K any questions from the board gentlemen nothing there all right thank you very much um so that concludes our presentation there there are two issues that I wanted to bring to the board's attention to be before you summarize no this is not a summary this is just two things for you to consider great thank you first is that as it heard testimony previously there's an existing Sho on site and we do not want to demolish that Shool until the new one is built so we want to propose and that we post a demolition Bond build a new building before the CO's issued on the new building will demolish the old building otherwise they have nowhere to go for the next year and a half where they're building the building that sounds reasonable gentlemen that sound reasonable to you any glitches and the only thing we would have to present I think before Doug answers is we'll show you a phasing plan to show you how this will work so that they could operate construction could occur while the sh services are going including traffic circulation everything yes okay anything else second is they want to be able to start construction before the infrastructure improvements are installed um with the signal the Turning Lanes Etc again no issued until all that infrastructure work is is installed so the Sho will basically operate as it's operating construction will occur but we can't open the new Sho until all the road improvements we've discussed are are installed that sounds reasonable that's a fair all right now we'd like to give the public an opportunity hear that in case they had comments all right thank you anyone in the public what I just have question from Mr Alit about the refu this is just for aesthetic purposes I think it's more practical also if we could shift it over to the far rear corner of the building for circulation purposes I see you have the truck going straight through the main entrance then having to reverse making a right all the way back out now if the truck will go right to begin with pick it up from the bar rear corner it's in my opinion have a better circulation plan aesthetically it's better you don't see it at the front of the building and third you have a warming kitchen right there where you can just dump your garbage right in the refu instead of where smacking the middle pocket there you're asking for it to be placed over here yes move it to the right 10 ft off of the property line same that it is now better looking to the right the um the applicant could move the uh the refu just a suggestion uh the um let me take a look at the uh is that a suggestion the applicant agrees to work with Mr CLE to move the refu facility so it's not to the right rear of the we'll work yes we'll work with Mr CLE yeah thank you it's a good idea because the warming the warming kitchen is over on that side and and Visually pulling into those parking spaces you don't want to be pulling Straight Ahead into the garbage so you know it would look better way over to the right okay yes thank you good idea Mr hel gold star sir yeah all right now hang on and just just to be clear so let's go back to the the um co uh stipulation so the the based upon the phasing plan all right the construction of the new building will not be given a CO until the traffic improvements are fully up and operating and the old building is demolished and the old building is demolished correct right let's let's work on a condition of approval together tomorrow that's fine so we can or the next day or the next day either way now if there is anyone among us who would like to uh ask questions about the testimony not about the project itself but about the testimony so this will be cross-examination questions of the experts that just went do you want to ask questions of the experts just a comment no comments come after that's the next that's the next phase first we have questions about the testimony one quick question you have to swear yeah swear yeah uh do you swear or firm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please State your spell your last of the record Carlos Martins m r TS all right and your address 406 Cain Jackson all right yeah um just because I came late so that there exists already a house of worship right and that's been was approved and everything else that's correct use the microphone please it's recorded they're going to build a new modern one and demolish the old one the old one bigger capacity probably yes yeah and mainly provide parking and provide all the associated side improvements that are needed okay okay that's fine I would just just my thoughts as far as additional parking so as a resident I prefer to see green versus concrete so um you know just my opinion you know thank you thank you sir anyone else with questions of course you do this is clarification all right you swear or affirm to tell the truth to truth nothing but the truth I do all right Jim six Field Drive s EC H you could use the microphone sir thank you I'm trying you know it doesn't like to stay up this High I just have one question uh I think it was the architect was kind of talking about the layout of the building and he made a statement that the front of the building would be facing New Prospect if I look at that I'm not well he he indicated that the the the side facing New Prospect and the side facing the parking will be more elaborately designed architecturally that may be what he meant but he did say the front of the building facing new prosp that's why I just want to clarify that it's not the front of the building that's facing it because again the property is not wide enough to to do a building at one all right well either way those two sides will be consistent with the architectural design that you showed okay I I like I said it was the front of the building thank you all right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name and spell your last of of the record hope Drew d r e w and your address a little bit okay address address your address address I'm sorry to Iowa court here you go okay so this is an active house of worship right now um since 2017 my only concern is I'm wondering when is this all actually going to come into play because uh the construction the safety precautions because right now 140 is being also used as a u parking lot so it's a it's a safety concern right now the um because of the Overflow is so many so many congregants are coming now I think more than was approved with a variance use when it was so it's probably doubled now in numbers because the parking goes all the way in the woods behind the home next door and every you know it's a safety thing I my children Walk on Wood Lane and now they're zipping in out of 140 and zipping out of 140 and they're using going across the grass to one house to another and I just think it should be in consideration of the people that live there that it's just not safe like at all if you're taking a ride onto wood Lan or if in the morning at 7:30 in the morning there's buses um the congregants are all flying into 146 and now 140 going across the Lawns going in the back yard but sometimes they're coming out sometimes they're going in they're backed up on what New Prospect you have buses it to answer to answer your question to answer your question we agree with you that's why they're doing this no I I'm glad and um they would start tomorrow if they could but right we have there's a lot of tech a lot of Hoops that have to be jumped through they probably would realistically my opinion by the spring if they could start sooner they will but we still have to there's a lot of paperwork that has to get done locally we have to get the county approval so I would think by Spring but yes we understand that's why they're doing this this will solve that problem okay well maybe we can compromise and not use 140 as an In-N-Out and just stick to 146 possibly because two is causing an issue if I if I can help you Mr alier would you explain resolution compliance in the depth and the journey so there's there's there's about pages of technical comments that are going to require engineering revisions that we have to submit to the town we still have to get um Soil Conservation approval utilities approvals Which is less complicated and the county approval um so that paperwork will take several months at best at best and that's a perfect world so that's why I'm thinking the spring is more realistic plus the weather at that point you probably can't start construction okay but in the meantime it's being used every day in the meantime if whatever they approval says today they're supposed to comply with I don't know what you're talking about and I'm not doubting you but they have to comply with the zon board approval okay well they hear my concern so maybe they can consider it yeah you you can contact code enforcement I'm not I'm I'm just they can hear 140 should just not be used right now just stick to 146 and just consider until the project is completely constructed and all the safety put in measures from one neighbor to another consider uh right now and just stop using the other parking lot yeah I'm I'm just saying from from a top down perspective what happens is that if if somebody's operating outside the scope of their approvals that's when code enforcement or or zoning the zoning officer steps in and can you know yeah because I don't know if 140 was ever actually got the use variance for use but I think the people in this room have ears thanks and that was the whole point and they're listening to you yes and I'm hoping the ones on YouTube are too also nicely done nicely done thanks so much um sorry you swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name and spell your last of the record Michelle katini c i n25 Hickory Hill Ro Lor you got that no one more time slow down Michelle katini C it I ini 25 Hickory Hill Road are you just speaking to the microphone 25 Hickory Hill Road there you go my question is mainly I've heard a lot of discussion about the traffic on New Prospect um I'm glad to see the lights I see some of my neighbors here a lot of traffic on New Prospect I live in Harmony Farms so just a little bit closer to the microphone if you can coming out of Harmony Farms is like taking your life in your hands and I'm wondering if we can have some sort of traffic monitoring coming out of the neighborhood with the new building which I'm fine with it's going to have a lot of traffic going between County Line and Bennett Mills wherever everyone's traveling from it's really really difficult to make a left out of Harmony Farms neighborhood so what's the I guess the question is what is the plan to you know to keep our neighbors safe there are kids that walk there are drivers I mean I'm not the only one that has a problem everyone has a problem coming out of that neighborhood right so the from the planning board's function um our only responsibility is to make sure that our driveway access point operates safely and efficiently off-site conditions we can't control nor can we impact um if the county were to impose something on us um and they usually get a fee of some sort um in Lee of improvements so if they charge a fee it would be up to County to make those improvements we can't we can only handle our driveway which is all we're legally responsible for but there are traffic issues I'm sure all over the place we just can't address them okay thank you Mr rker maybe you can help uh young young lady if I may one of the things that you can do I would love to know thank you uh is is go to a County planning board okay meeting they're just like this and then you could uh the County planning board will receive this project as well as most other projects and you can petition them and and plead your case and it is valid I I know exactly where you're at and the neighborhood is a busy beehive uh but there the applicants are each charged a fee kind of like a downstream Improvement it's a traffic impact fee or something like that and what that pays for is traffic lights lane lane widening and whatnot in other places and potentially in your case if you petition and you're successful and you write you know a campaign you'll do very well uh we can't solve it here under Municipal land use law not that we ignore it but it is heard very well so that that would be my recommendation is to talk to the you know send an email to the County Commissioners but also look at when those meetings are and attend they're they're very receptive okay that's helpful thank you I just want everyone to be accid for any that that that will be the effective way of dropping the hammer on it okay another another means of doing that just to go towards uh Mr Riker's point so you can contact the Freeholder Department in charge of Roads um so they'll be able to more specifically um yeah and and you might consider doing it with a group of neighbors with with more signatories on there so that they understand this is a neighborhood concern not just your personal concern thank you all yeah anyone else would like to come forward to discuss this project seeing no one else approach Are you standing up for a reason okay nope NOP you sat back down okay seeing no one else approach the microphone or Podium for cross examination I move to close the cross-examination portion of the meeting and we will open up public comment second all in favor all right now anyone who would like to speak generally on this subject yes you've waited your turn very nicely thank you all right please raise your right hand you swear or affirm to tell the truth to hold truth nothing but the truth I do all right please state your name and spell your last of the record m is IB 12 briwood Court um just to go back to what shimshi was saying and coming from a little bit of experience on managing commercial real estate on on moving The Refuge Refuge container to the left all to the right to the right corner all vendors like a straight on run as somebody that man that has that has had to move refu um locations on Commercial properties a few times because of that vendors when they pull into our property they like a straight run at the container instead of pulling around and having the container on more of an angle so it could go around the corner it could go around the corner to the far right that way there would be a straight run just as a a point of consideration on what vendors appreciate most on a property then he has to go out as somebody who has had that experience so then we would we would revise it instead of saying just to the right a right and around that corner so that it would be a straight run would that it would if if it's facing it's still a straight rug if it's facing that it's facing this way then they have a straight one when they make that turn but if it's on this corner and if it's if it's right here instead of right here that doesn't give them that straight how is it going to how they going to exit they they back up back up in front of your sh right and then they're going to make a right all the way around the rear the property if you could pull up the circulation plan for refu you think he'll understand the drive the the the the garbage truck drivers are more d one at the time guys one at the time could you pull up sheet five you'll see the circulation plan as Miss Al has two two way traffic yeah is um I'm sorry the uh next this is fire the next sheet so the circulation show to run into here and then they would continue out that was the intent and Crosses over a lane of traffic to get out as well the way you designed it coming out onto the roadway coming out onto the roadway he has a choice he could go whereever talking about in the driveway he has to make a left and cross over incoming traffic correct versus my way he goes out in one continuous so to clarify did you intend so could you go back to site let could you go back to the site plan please just to show the direction arrows sheet three sheet three cu the arrows One Way exactly the arrow is one way this way was was your intent you wanted to have the truck go like that yes to change the circulation I didn't understand that I thought you wanted the refu over here and they would access it this way change the circulation change the circulation um go right all the way down you can keep it exactly where it was facing the same way but to the right before okay I I did not understand that was your can we handle this in uh resolution compliance yeah let us whatever the best design is we do I I think we're we're we're in the weeds and we don't need to be in the weeds thank you yes ma'am yes ma'am all right I'm back hope true yep again okay what you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth yes all right okay and your name and address of the record hope Drew to Iowa court d r w I hate this microphone okay is there a No Parking On Wood Lane Road I I don't know the answer Scott do you know I asked him but then you can find it so very in reviewing Google on street parking is permitted on Wood Lane Bad Idea yeah because right now you're going to have the mikah and you're going to have across the street and there's definitely going to be overflow parking so if there's overflow obviously they might use the mikah parking lot but if there's two things going on that be something for the mayor May we cannot we cannot make that determination here okay because this road is uh not within our jurisdiction wood Lane's not isn't that is that Wood Lane is is within our jurisdiction yeah you I'm sorry we'll take the good old fashioned Mr rker approach would you agree to post sign to say no parking on the street if the count doesn't stop you from doing it within your property well I don't think you're asking about the county road you're asking about the side the neighborhood Road Wood Lane Road l asking wood Lan Road the Town Council Township Road we'd have to request that from the township okay so miss Drew just to save everybody a lot of time between all these professionals the way to do it because we don't have the authority at the planning board we disagree you have to go to Town Council and exactly express it the way you have and then you can only do this after the the judgment is passed on this application okay State your case and why and I know that they're changing a lot of parking I think they dealt with cooksbridge um this past Tuesday right so it's not out of the realm right that's the venue but I would clearly State your case okay yeah because there's a residential home right there I yeah I know I know every AG with you but again like the uh young lady in the in the back in the uh purple shirt uh purple lass excuse me what I would do gather your constituents your friends do it as an email send it send it to the council president uh M cun yep and also come and speak about it and I think you'll be successful okay good just want to ask thank you okay great it has to be done by way of ordinance just so you no so that that's it we don't have the authority of making ordinances here we agree but we we can't okay great thank you anyone else okay anyone else wishing to speak or comment on this application and public comment seeing no one come forward I move the close to public comment second all in favor I I now Mr Al so thank you um we've received a lot of very good input from the board um tonight which we've agreed to address in full we've agreed to address the technical comments contained within the board reports it is variance free and we'd request that the board Grant the approval with all the conditions that we've agreed to looking for a uh motion I'll make a motion to approve I'll second roll call vote Please Mr marzo yes Mr heler yes Mr rker yes M Rose yes Mr chmer yes Mr weart yes Mr Sullivan yes Dr Campbell let don't say why oh sorry I just want to say this will improve the situation there and this is a much better uh outcome for the neighborhood and for the members of the uh I vote Yes and I appreciate applicants coming in with good material material good drawings good architecturals and uh knowledgeable thank you thank you and [Applause] congratulations I'll entertain a motion to adjourn motion to close second second all in favor I I