Good evening. This is the April 21, 2015 regular meeting of the planning board of the township of Bernards. Please rise for the flag salute. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. In accordance with the requirements of the open public meetings law of 1975, notice of this meeting of the planning board of the township of Bernards was posted on the bulletin board in the
reception hall of the municipal building, Collier Lane, Basking Ridge, New Jersey was sent to the Bernardsville News, Bernardsville, New Jersey to the Courier News, Bridgewater, New Jersey on January 12th, 2015 and was electronically mailed to all those people who have requested individual
notice. The following procedure has been adopted by the Bernard's Township Planning Board. There will be no new cases heard after 10 p.m. and no new witnesses or testimony will be heard after 10:30 p.m. Fran, roll call, please. Miss Alper here.
Mr. Kuchi here. Mr. Hagen here. Miss Kleiner here. Mr. Malay here. Miss Pavini here. Miss Padichi here. Mr. Storo here. Mr. Zax here. Mr. Harris here. Mr. here.
Next item on the agenda is the approval of two sets of minutes. Uh the first being the February 3, 2015 u regular meeting minutes. Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the minutes for the February 3rd, 2015 meeting.
Thank you, Mr. Santo. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Miss Kleiner. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Fran, roll call, please. Miss Alper, yes. Mr. Guchcci, yes. Men was absent. Miss Clard, yes. Mr. Lelay, yes.
Mr. Abstain. Miss Padichi. Yes. Mr. Santo, yes. Miss, yes. Mr. Harris, yes. Mr. Plaza, yes. Thank you. Right. The next minutes are those from
the February 3, 2015 close session. Is there a motion? Mr. Chair, I move you approve the minutes for the close session of February 3rd, 2015. Thank you, Mr. Santo. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Mr. Pichi. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, Fran, roll
call, please. Miss Aler, yes. Mr. Kuchi, yes. Miss Cler, yes. Miss Padichi, yes. Mr. Santo, yes. Miss, yes. Mr. Harris, yes. Mr. Plaza,
yes. Next item on the agenda is the approval of charges against escrow accounts. Tonight we're considering those of Jonathan Drill Esquire March 2015, EKA Associates March 16 through 31, 2015 and John Bolardo Esquire March 2015 is
the motion. Mr. Chair, I move that we accept the charges against escrow as just stated. Thank you, Miss Albert. Is there a second? Thank you, Mr. Santoro. Any discussion on that motion?
Just a brief question for Fran on the um negative balance on two different ones. Um I have sent a letter and they are coming back for a meeting and that they they have a negative balance. They cannot be heard. That's
okay. And what about Verizon? They have also been sent a letter. I I just did. You'll see the date. I just got that bill yesterday. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Santaro. Any further discussion or question on the motion? Seeing none, roll call, please. Miss Alper,
yes. Mr. Kuchi, yes. Mr. Hagen, yes. Miss Cler, yes. Mr. Mle, yes. Mr. Michi, yes. Mr. Sent, yes. Maza, yes. Thank you.
Next item on the agenda is the continued public hearing. Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, Inc. PB12-001 block 9301 lot 224 Church Street preliminary and final site plan approval as we begin that matter.
Okay. Thank you Mr. Malay. Mr. Carluchi anyone else? Mr. Harris will all be uh leaving the day since they are not eligible on the application. Give them a moment. Uh okay. Uh we're continuing now with the
public comment section of the application and we're just going to uh restate that which was uh put on the record at the last meeting just for the benefit of all those in attendance and
those who may not have been here the last time. This is the continuation of the hearing on the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge application for construction of a mosque on block 9301 lot 2 known as 124 Church
Street. Tonight we are in the portion of the hearing which is known as the public comment portion that everyone to the manner in which the planning board is required to proceed.
followed by the objector's evidence and test followed by evidence evidence. recognize. So the way this that person will then be sworn and testify to the fact or just have comments.
Also, the board rules state the board. In that regard, everybody present has a voice and that the whole is so that the board can hear what is on the public. Looks more just react.
social sentiment. So we do ask that everybody be respectful and in so doing you will be given the opportunity to be heard if you want to be testimony and that testimony as well as any exhibit application.
Not sure. Neither of those street and sore capacity or hookups because they are We ask that you place your name addressed in preparing accurate minutes later
your your patience and allowing me to put that record that statement on the record and sure and everything went very smooth as far as we could
Clearly continue tonight. There's one point last meeting it was very hard to we still have a couple things. If you want to leave, please leave quietly.
or I'm sure the board echoes those sentiments. Does anybody else have anything before we begin? Okay, then uh based on where we were procedurally last time, Mrs. Quick, I think you were in the ready, but time permitted you from going, so you you can be first up this
evening. Bring it up. Yeah, give me a minute. [Music] Um, just to say my since last June, identify yourself
has to be in charge of turn that on the beginning. It's on. It's just a statement. I swear you again. Can you identify yourself? Loretta Quick of 114 Church Street, Liberty Corner. And can you raise your right hand? And do you swear that the testimony that
you'll be giving in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So help your God. So help me God. You do? I do. Okay. Mr. Plaza, I've been ready for this since last June and I just discovered it
old PowerPoint in for presentation tonight. However, I am ready to make adjustments. I can use more than half of it and just run through it. But I have four copies as you directed me, Mr. Drill, to bring of the PowerPoint and
it's of my new presentation. So, I can either have my husband cover a few pictures later on down in these hearings if they should go past tonight or I can just address what I do have. It's about four different topics that are pictured
here but not on this PowerPoint. Would it not be your not go then and and be in a position to have your your revised PowerPoint loaded up and ready to go? Well, it's your preference. I just don't want you to feel because you were you
stated you were ready the last time that you have to go now you you have waited a long time. So do what if this concludes tonight? I think that was my foremost concern. Then why don't you step back for now?
We'll see how things are going. If if you're going to be the last one, uh I based on the show with time, I don't think that's going to be the case, but then we would let you go at that point and you could you can make your presentation based on what you have.
Otherwise, I hearing what you just said, I I I would hate for you to feel like you go have everything that you've worked so hard to prepare. So, okay, we'll work with you on that. Assuming that you don't end up going tonight, obviously contact David tomorrow to
remove the old PowerPoint. And just for anyone, if you want anything shown here, the IT department has to screen it first to make sure there are no viruses, but you don't have to submit it way in advance. I think that what's the minimum how many days in advance, Fran?
I believe he can take it about 20 Well, we'd like it a day and a half. So, let's say 48 hours in advance. And just if if you submit it more than seven days in advance, an argument could be made that it's become a that it's a public record and anyone can operate it.
So if you don't want anyone to be able to see it before you show it. understand what I'm saying weeks in advance. That's your prerogative. But if you Don't complain. I'm going show you. yourself for the
record. Okay. Sorry. Uh Paul Zubelake, spell it slowly, please. Z U B U L A K E 82 Church Street. Okay. Could you the whole
has been using once we got logged in. We're good. All right. Not sure this guy. That's good enough. Right. Focus on
Yeah, I can slide it around. Right. I kind of know how to use one of these things. I hope. Right. Hey, France. He wasn't talking directly into it before. So, yeah. I just love this picture. Sells it all.
We see the u [Music] the revision right hand corner. Can I see the revision box at the upper right? I'm sorry. Okay. Here. Can you read that? So this is
that's not the latest 994. What is the latest version of what's the latest version? Can you tell me what it is? December. This is a group effort. This is Tom Quinn's first night using the equipment.
I think they know that, John. Mr. Quinn. Mr. Quinn. How would they know that Mr. Drills only said it three times? Yes. 14. You didn't know this was going to be Mr. Do we have the right plan up there? Yeah.
Looks like Okay, we're 12814. In what sheet? This is Yes, correct. CO3. Let's just see. CO3. Looking at this plan in
this is an inappropriate and felt was a little out of line, but that's okay. It's my opinion. Um, they do have a process. This application
can't just walk in this application. People need to know. Guess what? You can talk about the decision that was made to traffic irrelevant. I'm not going to talk about it. I'm just going to vehemently
disagree with that look at the I guess they plow that road and they do a pretty good to me. It's amazing looked at this situation and said
because of I don't want to say it's a technicality. I I mean you you know this better than me Steuart committee establishes a permitted you. Okay. So, it's
the county doesn't have any public them and and speaking about the traffic because luckily I grew up in a household where my father ran traffic safety in NASA county, New York. I'm going to be speaking to the county
reason. We've had many plans, right? applicant wanted to build a few feet away from the quicks and the abati's property. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed. Let's get the buffers proper. Let's squeeze this thing as best as we can
into this. So, here we are today with the diagram. I know no one wants to hear about this, but it's a public comment. What's this? This back here, right? This is just land. All right. I know the ordinance was is out there.
We we all love this ordinance. Three acres, right? I believe is the number. We know that this property is over that. It's four acres plus. We also know that there's non it's unusable property, right? It's gas line wetlands. We can't
see it. We know when ordinances are written, they have acorage mentioned in the ordinances. Why do they have acorage? Right? Why do they have acorage in ordinances? Common sense, and Mr. Ste testified on
this to me. I actually asked him, isn't it common sense that acreage is put on ordinances because the majority, major majority of the property is usable? So, if you did have this large piece of land on our residential block, maybe this
project could actually fit in where it wasn't a safety hazard to the public land. That's the good news, right? Public entrance. Who's going to enforce these type of situations on the
compliance side on this piece of property? No one's going to comply. Another thing, compact spaces, right? All in here. This is incredible the amount. See, I have an SUV. Everybody in this
the people who are going to use this facility they're going to have mini coopers I guess right so that's a great news so all of these are compacts okay we work our you know I know the
fire department did a fantastic job showing how dangerous is to fight a fire on this piece of property he's concerned about the safety of his crew and the people who are in the property. Good for him. Coming back in here, we had the great
how the fire trucks could fit. Now, this picture unfortunately doesn't show it is a great diagram. It's like the spaghetti lines, right? Truck made over here by like a quarter of an inch if I remember correctly. Something like that. So, we decided that
it's still okay. That works. The truck can fit in. All right. Interesting. I've been parking lots in my life. Uh driveway. I got a little driveway that guess what? When it snows, what happens when it snows? I got a plow. When it
snows like it did the last two years, what happens? I have four spots in my driveway, it turns into two, right? Snows overnight. 2 in the 6 a.m. This lot is going to
trucks removing snow at 6:00 in the morning. We have no idea. It hasn't been discussed. What's going to happen? They're going to plow the snow and what are they going to do? It's going to build up in all these parking spots and our little mini Coopers who obviously can't handle the snow will all be parked
over here. All right. So, what's going to happen? the extra room that we have that truck to get through in the wintertime. Good luck getting that truck through because you know what's going to happen. No one's going to comply with these ordinances regarding the spots and they're going to have an issue there.
I'd like to have the board look at that more clearly. Um, another thing I believe, correct me if I'm wrong on this one, is that these spaces we had testimony on that the car hanging over. So, they we have to reduce the
spaces. And I believe they have to get an exception to reduce the space. Is is that correct? Am I allowed to ask questions or is wasn't that part of the uh that these spaces here to get these to length to make it within
the uh ordinance? They would actually have to get an exception for these spaces to be smaller. No, I'm wrong about that. I believe you're correct about that. Okay. Right. Can I ask the experts? I'm sorry.
Can the experts respond? It's public comments. It's not I was saying you can. Very well. I'll refrain from making any comments. Okay. So, we just got confirmation that the applicant needs an exception for this property that is so small. That's
why they need an exception. Case closed. Should be ruled down even on that. Why do they deserve any exceptions? All right, Mr. Khan, he testified that people are going to visit this
property during lunch. Okay, great. They live from all over New Jersey. That's great. They can come for lunch. His words, not mine. They're going to rush in, pray, and then they're going to rush out. That's another great thing. I can't wait for that. For the rushing in and
the rushing out. That's when I because we always have these rotating amount of people coming in here. My other favorite part of this design is this baby. Now, we can talk about this, right? Because it's inside its
traffic circulation. You want to you can check. Why do I have to listen? We can't talk about this this design and one exit. that street, but I can't. I won't. M
said, I believe he said seven cars, I'm sure they're compacts, can fit in this spot. I have not measured it. Sorry. So, you're going to have seven here who and then you're going to have seven here
that are going to potentially turn right at the same time. So we believe there's could be seven days a week. We have no idea. We haven't been told 100 cars hypothetically. I'll go with
cars. Okay, 56 cars are going to have to get out of this facility one way. That's it. So, what's going to happen? They're going to queue up, folks. That's
what's going to happen. What do people do when they're in a queued up lot? You ever go to a baseball game when it's packed after and trying to get the heck out of there? You do crazy stuff, right? They're all going to be queuing up all in here, back in here.
Maybe the Mini Coopers will wait till the end and then they're going to try to get out of here. And what's going to happen? Like I said, they're going to queue up. And what do queuing cars do? What do they admit? Pollution.
I live north of here. The poor people live next door, the quicks. They live right here. So, we're going to have potentially nonstop, right? Because we have not been told how this there's no restrictions on this facility. It can be used as much as
possible any times at night. All we have is we'll comply. We'll comply. Well, this pollution that is going to be created on this site, you cannot argue this point. It is ridiculous.
for them to exit. and us in the community. Unfortunately, it's going to end up being a lawsuit. No matter what happens here or at the county level, hopefully cooler heads prevail and
the right thing. I can't imagine a situation money is going to go to a lawsuit and at the same time the public including myself has to hire
private attorneys to sue the township. So I'm going to basically be suing myself, right? Because that's what's happening. and everybody in this room, we're going to be if the board rules to go ahead with this and the county
doesn't say no, it's obvious. and stuff. People have talked I guess there's supposedly there's a traffic traffic safety engineer that's going to be hired by the applicant again that again compliance on this whole situation. Can they comply? Who's
going to who is going to be checking on these things? Who is going to be checking if the the traffic safety person is competent or just a parent or whoever and they know what they're actually doing? And in case there is an emergency, do they really know what they're doing? Complant
who is going with fire. looks at this situation and thinks of the people in the community who are the ones who are going to suffer from this particular situation. Try to put yourself in our position. Be put yourself in our
position. You know, when I bought a house on Church Street, which is also known as Route 512, I didn't think that 512 would be like Route 2. And this
So like [Music] test test. We are testing, folks. I don't think we're back on quite yet, but we are testing to see how the system works. Oh, you're running a diagnostic.
Yeah, he's running a diagnostic. So, um, I would suggest just let me say test into this and don't say anything else. I mean, I could I'd love to start giving a lecture at this point, but yeah, we want to hear about the 18th
century. I'd rather hear about the 18th century. We could talk about General Charles Lee. Sorry. Are we broadcasting? Well, right now I don't know if we're broadcasting, but we're Yes, they asked us to put it put everything on. So, what are they going to tell us?
Uh, let me go and find Denise. I'll call her. Just wait. We're not back on the record officially. We are broadcasting, so be mindful of that. But you I appreciate the quiet, but you you can feel free to
talk until we call the meeting back to order. would like some clarification as to what our status is. We are Thank you very much. Byebye. Mr. Jo returns.
Good to go. We just need Mr. Mr. Drill right there. Okay. All right. We're back on the record. Any other member of the public wishing to comment? Mr. B, sir, come for Joseph Abate, 485 Somerville Road,
Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Raise your right hand. You swear the testimony that you'll be giving will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you guide. I do. Fran, this microphone or that microphone? Just in the middle.
No, pick one. That That one seems to be working. testing. That's all. Which whichever one you're closest to. Thank you. Well, I too wish to thank the board for three years of
arduous deliberation and questioning and looking out for us neighbors best you can. I also really want to thank publicly the ISBR for taking into consideration all of the things I've asked them to look at
over the past uh three years and uh they've done their best to try to twist it a little bit to make it happen a little bit better for my family and I the best they can but the fact remains the best they can is probably not good
enough because the reality of it all is is that we're going from a residential home to a house of assembly. And we're going from a little old couple who once lived there
to 107 parking spots that potentially can be filled all the time, every day, five times a day. I just want to let everyone know that I have a complete new respect for the
people that I live among in this town. They are brilliant, educated, driven, wholesome people. And Dr. Chudri, you're included. However, we have to find a way when
everything is done and the neighbors who live two miles down the road have forgotten this have have happened. We have to figure out a way to protect my family, the Quick's family, the people surrounding this from the pollution, from the traffic, from the nuisance,
from the noise. I do know in my heart that Dr. Chory and and his congregation will do their best to mitigate the impact and the nuisance to their neighbors. I know that by by virtue of its existence and its scale,
it's impossible to bring this any closer to a residential home than it than it was. It's impossible. So, I can get upset and lose sleep, which I have for the past three weeks, uh, three months, three years. Um,
I've gotten sick over this. And then I came to myself and looked at myself one day and said, "Don't do that because if you get sick, man, it's not going to change anything. So, let's just try to together as a community figure this out." I'm not asking them to leave. I'm
asking them to make it smaller. I have no problem with people worshiping God. I especially have no problem with the Muslim faith. Many of my friends are from every facet of life in this world. I am completely tolerant and loving of every human
being. So this has never been about a mosque or Muslims, religious tolerance or intolerance. It's always been about I want to sit in the home that I've invested everything in. my dream home
in a town that I raised children in one of the best towns I believe in the country and I really don't want to hear 107 doors slamming. I really don't want to smell the exhaust from even 50 cars
queued up. This is my sanctity. The same way I go and I and I worship my God in church, they're going to come and worship their God in church. But it just so happens that the swarm of beautiful people who
are coming to worship God. Just the footprint of that activity is going to destroy my life, my family, the value of my home, the value of my sanctity. And I'm begging someone to please consider
before I have to make this a repetitive complaint and and have to call the cops and say it's too loud. Have to wash my house and see soot come off on my house knowing that's in my children's lungs. Please build it smaller and be more
responsible to the people you're asking to accept you into this community. Thank you for your time. [Applause] Sir, my name is uh Walter Ruby. I'm from um 65 North Fullerton in Montlair, New
Jersey. Your last name, R U B Y. That's right. You raise your right hand. Testimony that you'll give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth. Nothing but the truth to help you guide. I do. I will.
Well, as I said, my name is Walter Ruby, and I serve as the Muslim Jewish program director for the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, which is a New York-based not forprofit working to strengthen Muslim Jewish relations both here in New York, New Jersey, across the US, and
around the world. And I've been doing that since 2008. I'm also the co-founder together with Dr. Chadri um and and other folks of a body called the New Jersey Muslim Jewish Solidarity Committee uh which is a body of grassroots um New Jersey Jews and
Muslims dedicated to strengthening ties between our two faith communities. And I should point out here that the solidarity committee was founded just over a year ago during a meeting at the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge and that the ISBR has been one of the most
active mosques uh or and andor synagogues in our network. Um but my uh our cooperation with ISBR is not a recent thing. In fact, I've been working closely with Dr. Chadri and ISBR going back seven years to the beginning of our
um the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding work in Muslim Jewish relations. And I can say without reservation that um based on this long interaction that ISBR is a mosque deeply committed to building ties of communication and cooperation both with
the Jewish community, the Christian community, and people of all faiths. In other words, more than almost any other congregation I know, they truly walk the walk as well as talk the talk. Um, so I can speak mostly about uh the involvement of the ISBR with the Jewish
community. Um, since uh 2008, uh, our organization holds an annual event called the weekend of 20 where we link up mosques and synagogues and Muslim and Jewish organizations around the world. Um, and every year the ISBR has been
deeply involved in this work. Um and um both thanks to Dr. Chudri and many of the other enthusiastic and able congregants. Um I al also know that um Dr. Chadri has visited myriad synagogues throughout
the uh metro west area in South Orange, Summit, Morristown, Highland Park, Mount Arlington, and many other places to give lectures telling the true story of what Islam is all about in order to counter half-truths and outright falsehoods about the Islamic faith that are
unfortunately out there on the internet and in popular culture. He serves as as many of you know as an adjunct professor at Rutgers teaching a course on Islam and as a co-author of a textbook entitled Islam and Muslims. Dr. Chadri has served uh also serves on the New
Jersey Attorney General's Muslim Outreach Committee as well as on the interfaith advisory council of the New Jersey Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness. I myself have been invited on many occasions to ISBR uh for example for
ifar celebrations breaking the Ramadan fast together with many interfaith leaders of all the uh faith traditions to discuss um traditions involving fasting and the respective faiths. [Music] Uh excuse me everyone please you you
have the right to object. So, if somebody's making an objection, I'd like to come forward, sir. State your name and address. My name is My name is Paul Witty. Live at 44 Tuxford Terrace here in Basking Ridge.
Spell your last name. W I t I'm placing an objection on the record. I'm not sure of the standing of this witness to testify. It seems that he's being or testifying as to a character witness for Dr. in the ISBR which
Mr. I I just want to confirm. Are are you represented by anyone? Are are you I I'm standing here as a uh I am an attorney but I'm here I'm representing you're not represented by Mr. Simon is what I'm I'm asking. Okay. I just want to make sure of that. So okay. So
uh but but I am a I am a member of the community. Yeah. No, no, no. It's my understanding that that the purpose of these hearings was to allow public comment of the community on the application, not offer character witnesses for either Dr. Chowry or the ISBR, which I believe this witness is
offering testimony as to the character of ISBR and or Dr. Chowry. Okay. Thank you, Mr. We just stand by. Mr. Dr. Rub, do you have a profer as to the purpose of your testimony and why it is relevant that there's been an objection essentially on the basis of relevance
that you're you're providing a lot of information none of which has anything to do with the application that's before this board. I just want to make one thing clear even though you he objected to standing don't go with standing go with relevance. I appreciate that. Okay. So,
okay. I think what I have to say, what I want to share is very very important. I want to share because there's obviously been huge amount of testimony about about uh parking, about land use, about congestion. What I want to say is that this group of people that I've come to
know in this in Wait, hold on a second. Wait, Mr. Ruby, please wait one second. We can't entertain the objection to make a decision if there's too much noise from the public. So, please, let's just deal with this in an orderly fashion. I want to say that this mosque um
No, no, no. Just don't don't get back into your testimony. Tell me what the purpose of your purpose of me is is to say that that this mosque is deeply committed to interfaith understanding and it is and it is an asset to this community. That's what I want. And then unfortunately your comments are
subject to the same restrictions as everyone else's. You have this that you want to say other people wanted to talk about traffic issues. The rules have to apply to everyone. What what you're offering is not relevant to the decisions that this board has to make. So the the objection
by Mr. Witty is is sustained. So do you have any other testimony or comments directly related site plan issues that are in front of the planning board? Site plan issues, not whether they uh offer good services, whether they're good citizen, but issues as to the site plan.
No. No. I may I speak Uh, is there an objection to my objection? Yeah, I I mean I thought we dealt with this another This is between Mr. Witty and and the witness. Mr. Simon wasn't allowed to chime in on other people's objection. Your witness?
No. Then then but I I I think you have missed something that Mr. Zubel put into uh uh into the record without objection. He said, "How do we ever know that this mosque will comply with the restrictions
that this board puts upon it?" So essentially, you're how you ever one second. How are you ever going to enforce where the small cars park? How you ever going to enforce the public entrance? No one objected to that. So the integrity
you didn't if if that wasn't object either, right? So, well, but now it's in the record and therefore the ability of the applicant to comply with the ordinances. If you want to offer witnesses along that line, I'm not offering anything. Well, but then so then you don't have the right to participate in the
objection, Mr. Rayar. This witness speaks for I I respectfully disagree. And so I sus I I you've been heard on the record. I sustain the objection. Uh do you have any other testimony outside concerning My point is I would I would One second. You do. Okay. Then with
respect one other as to site plan the chairman's asking. No. But but hold on one second. Is there a motion by the board concerning the the preliminary ruling I just made? No. Okay. So that is Mr. Santa. Yeah. I I I feel that we've heard from the public on things that are not
directly related that are related to how this will affect the community. Well, do you are you making a motion? Yes. I will make a motion that we allow the testimony to continue. Okay. Is there a second on the motion? Uh there's no second. So the motion
motion Mr. Hagen seconds. Any further discussion on the motion. Okay. So when Fran calls the role, a yes vote is to overrule the preliminary ruling and allow the witness to continue testifying. A yes vote is to allow the
witness to continue testifying. a no vote is that the witness has to stop testifying because on that top on that line on that line because it's on relevancy grounds. Okay, Fran, roll call.
Okay, a yes vote is to reverse my preliminary decision and overrule the objection. I'm writing this down for myself. Miss Albert, no. Mr. Hagen, yes. Miss Kleinard,
no. Miss Pavlini, no. Miss Padichi, no. Mr. Santoro, yes. Mr. Plaza, no. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Santhro.
All right. Thank you, Mr. Wood. Thank you. All right. So, so that objection sustained. If Do you have anything else to offer the board? The only thing I would then uh just would respectfully appeal to you the board that the application by by ISBR to build a new
Basque building in Liberty Corner that you will ensure that you will ensure that ISBR's application is treated with the same respect and would and consideration as would such an application from a church or synagogue. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.
Anyone else? I just was going to go to this side because this section hadn't gone yet. Then Sarah, please come on up. My name Adel Jandel. I live at 371 South Maple Avenue. Can you give me that again, please? Slowly. Adele A D E L. Last name Jandel. J A N D
A L. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear the testimony that you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth? Nothing but the truth to help you guide. I do. I beg the the the the board to allow for this project to go in to allow for my
family, my kids to share my fa my faith with other Muslim people to share my my uh uh heritage my background without people without this uh project I don't have to uh any place to go and I don't
feel uh if I don't have any place to go I'm equal to any other people working in this community please allow this project to go forward. Thank you. Thank you sir. You know, any questions for the witness that just
testified before we move on to the next? Okay. And who's next? Who would like to go next? Ma'am. Sorry, I write really slow. No, take your time. Take your time. I'll rush. Could you turn the microphone toward you? Just
tip it towards you a little more. Yeah, that's better. Thank you. My name Carrie Samuels, 67 Church Street, Liberty Corner. And how do you spell the Carrie? K E R I.
Can you raise your right hand? And you swear the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you die. A few years ago, the Liberty Corner residents came to the Bernard Township Board of Adjustment and petitioned the members to vote against the building of
a new home on Church Street. The applicant was the board of trustees of the Liberty Corner Presbyterian Church. And the new minister wanted to knock down the house that the church owned for the minister's residence, otherwise known as the mans, located 58 Church
Street, block 9302, lot 12, and build a new house on the site. The applicant was seeking a variance for the new construction and argued that a bigger, more modern residence was necessary for their incoming minister.
The neighbors desperately wanted to keep the historical neighborhood the way it is. It had nothing to do with the fact that the applicant was a church. We were not opposed to the minister or the congregation or Presbyterians in general. It was just that the neighbors
didn't want new construction to start changing the feeling of the village along this natural national historical stretch of road. On September 7th, 2011, the board voted in favor of the neighbors and the village of Liberty Corner was preserved for the time being.
Now we have a new applicant who wants to knock down another home and build a house of worship. Will it change the historical nature of this little village within Bernage Township? Of course it will. It seems that Liberty Corner is a very desirable place to be, but everyone
who wants to come there wants to change it by knocking down existing homes and building new structures. The very thing that makes it a desirable destination is at risk every time a new major change is proposed. The town plan, as we all know, specifically states that the character
of the historical villages of downtown Basking Ridge and Liberty Corner should be protected and preserved. But if successful, this new development will change that forever. I live next door to the school. Twice a day, I cannot get out of my
driveway for about 20 minutes. Several times during the school year, there is lots of traffic coming and going for concerts. But no, it's very, very relevant. objection basis. We're now talking about traffic. And by
the way, by the way, the the uh objectors talking about the nature of the village, the nature of the community is as objectionable as what you substained one witness ago. Who is to say that the
nature of the community in terms of value that historic is any more different or the same as religious tolerance? Once you allow a witness I think I think one has underpinnings in the master plan and the other doesn't.
That that's the distinction I would draw. But why don't you stick with your stick stick with the objection at hand instead of you're kind of going back to to the last. an ordinance that dictates the nature of this area because it permits this use. So, a we have a
witness objecting to this use on this site which has already been subject to a ruling of the board and secondly we have testimony going to traffic which has also been subject to decision
by this board. the the objection is sustained to the extent you can't talk about traffic on on church street traffic. I'm not talking about traffic. Okay. May I continue? Um cars are often parked in on the
street in front of my that I'm not that's not traffic. That is use of a of a commercial building next to my property. Ma'am, the impact of cars on Church Street, whether whether moving or not as it relates as to Church Street, internal
circulation within this within the site. Absolutely. The movement of cars, but not the parking of cars. Can I talk about parking of cars across the end of my driveway when I try to go to work because the school people park there? No.
Can I talk about light shining in my windows all night long from from the site from the school? It is it is what I'm talking about is the quality of life that is going to be sustained by the neighbors who are going
to be impacted by this this construction. I live next door to Are you testifying about what you currently are experiencing now? Yes. Can she represent her? No, I'm asking her as a fellow citizen. I don't have a lawyer to represent
and this isn't a courtroom respectfully. She's trying to offer her comment with this has been portrayed to all of us as public comment and yet we're all being restricted by the rules of court when we're not in a courtroom. Well, no. There are sir I don't want to
read that very long statement all over again. I'm reading a portion of the municipal land use law and a provision of that requires to promote the conservation of historic sites and districts. She's testifying about the area where she currently lives. I haven't heard her say anything about
what the mosque will do. You you can't speak for this witness. You you can't do it. And you're correct. Well, that that's fine, but she's going to have to do it on her own. You have you'll have your chance to speak. We we
do have rules as permitted under the municipal land use law. Those laws do impose certain conditions as to materiality and relevance and the rules of evidence. Are they strictly applied like we were in a court of law? No. But these are just very broadly applied
rules. We're allowed to do it. It's it's to create some order. So at at this point I'm going to ask you to to to step back from the podium. But I I will state as Mr. Mr. Drill knows municipal land use law says that the technical rules of evidence shall not be applicable to the hearing.
Okay. That sir, please unless you want this to Okay. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. I I I see a woman trying to offer testimony. That's your your intentions. Sir, please. Everyone, let's please just
take a breath here. We We're going to get through this. Everyone's going to get their chance to speak. No, they aren't obviously. Well, well, you know that you you I I think I said this eight meetings ago when we thought we were getting close. Public comment doesn't mean you you get to stand up and
say absolutely whatever it is you want to say. There are limitations. There are restrictions. We we've presented them on two occasions with a certain amount of specificity. The objection raised as to uh the traffic,
cars, anything involving Church Street, it's already been ruled upon. said you you can't talk about that. You started talking about something else, then somebody else jumped up. There was no objection pending. So, please continue. If there's an objection, we'll deal with it. Okay. My testimony or my comment I want
I mean I my comments are trying to illustrate the impact on the neighborhood on the adjacent residences that this mosque is going to have. And I can speak for it because I
live next door to a similar situation. That's that's that's what my these comments are based upon. I'm trying to tell the Quick family and the bodies what they will have to look forward to. Is that going to be allowed? Objection. What she's testifying to is
the impact of lights from She hasn't testified to anything just yet. She did a little bit. She's telling us what she's about to you. We're going to go through the process. Mr. Mr. Raymore, let her make the testimonial statements and then you'll object if you need to. What you're you don't you don't want to
tell the Abatis and the Quicks what they're going to go through. What you're saying is you want to tell the board what the Abatis and Quicks will go through. Is that your point? Well, or both. I mean, because if your point is you want to tell them what they're going through, that's not Okay. I want to let you know what they're going to go through then
based on your experience living next to a non-residential use. Correct. Please proceed. Thank you. Okay. Lights shine in my windows all night long. Objection. Lights from an elementary school. We
don't know the lumens. We don't know the distance. We don't even know where the elementary school is yet on the record. It has nothing. It is irrelevant and not probative for any purpose on this application with these lights on this site.
Thank you. overruled. It it it might go to weight, but it's sufficiently relevant. Please continue, ma'am. Is there a motion? As cars drive around the back of the school, they shine their headlights in the back of my house.
Um, when it snows, the parking lots get plowed at midnight and often the leaves get blown or the lawns get cut at 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning. One morning last spring, the fire alarm went off at 5:30 and ran for about a half an hour. The fire trucks came and finally after about
45 minutes, they were able to turn the alarm off. It was then 6:15 a.m. And I'm not allowed to talk about a parked car illegally. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. In saying all of this, I am not
complaining. The school was there when I bought my house over 20 years ago. I signed up for the noise, the lights, and the traffic. I signed up for the congestion and the school buses leaving the parking lots and the fire drills and the bells that signal the beginning and
the end of school twice a day, every day. However, the neighbors near the proposed mosque did not sign up to live next door to a commercial building. They have been members of a quiet residential neighborhood for decades and don't look forward to having their routines and lives disrupted. And I don't blame them
for being upset. I belong to a religion that is not well known in this part of the country. Several years ago, my church wanted to build a temple in Westchester County in a residential neighborhood. It was debated and and fought for and against for a very long time and was finally
defeated. As disappointed as the applicants were at the time, they found a more appropriate spot for the temple and everyone was happy in the end. At some point, regardless of the ordinances and the laws, don't you have to take into consideration the desires and rights of the residents that have
made Liberty Corner their home for these many years? I think I speak for all these residents when I say that we wouldn't want any new structure with 107 parking places, not an office building, not a strip mall, not a retail store, not a theater. We don't want more
traffic, more construction, or more congestion. So again, a town board has a decision to make. Do you allow the construction to take place at the expense of the neighbors and the historical nature of one of the last remaining villages in the township? Do
you allow changes to be made that will disrupt and alter the lives of the residents? These residents, myself included, chose Liberty Corner as our home because it is quaint, it is old, and it is historical, and we would like to keep it that way. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Hold on one second.
Are there any questions for Miss Samuels? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Who would like to go next? Mr. Smith. Uh, Cody Smith, 36 Royal Oak Drive. You just sign in on the yellow sheet.
I have done that. Okay. Can you raise your right hand? I swear the testimony that you're going to give in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. So I help you guide. I do. I assume I'm seeing that you have a uh a PowerPoint that you're going to be uh
giving. Correct. And do you have any paper copies of it? Uh yes. So what I'd like to try to do if I could is have this submitted as part of the record. Okay. So why don't you give a copy to Mr. Rayar? Mr. Simon, you want a copy? I would love one.
Thank you. and a copy for me and then we'll have a copy for Fran just to see if there are any objections to it going in at this point into evidence or if Mr. wants to wait and hear the power faces your
Yes. And it may be that parts are objectionable, parts are not. Thankful. I ask you. So we're for now we're going to mark this as A50, pardon me, as P2 for identification only.
And just for the record, this is a paper copy of a PowerPoint entitled Berners Township Planning Board ISBration PB12-00001 public comment Cody Smith dated April 21st, 2015.
Correct. And so what you have is actually the the the slide pages with notes in them. So I have not only given you the slides is all I will show and I'll work off of today but what is actually in here is are note pages where I have some of my comments. Okay. So I can say that if you read
every comment then unless any a particular objection and Mr. Remar objects we'll deal with it. Um and I guess we'll also see if you don't read some of the comments we'll see if he objects to it. But you might as well you present it how you want to present it. Okay. Okay. Well, my my intention was to
not read every single comment necessarily, but if that's what I need to do, I'm prepared to do that. I haven't even looked at it. I don't even know how many words are on a page. So, put it this way. This is an exhibit, so he's he was under no obligation to submit it ahead of time.
I'm not objecting. Well, I think what I would like to do is I I'll go through it the way Mr. Smith goes through it. I'll quickly try to scan what else is on the page. Can you see if you have any objection and and I'll save my objections maybe to the end.
Okay. Okay, that's fine. Um here. Okay. So, so this is the points that I have that I wanted to go through tonight. Um and um if there are any comments or any objections or any
questions as I go through this, by all means, you can stop me. I'll try to stop at the end of each one. And if there's any questions then um feel free to ask or uh wait till the end whatever whatever you prefer. Um so here what I wanted to talk about was the detention basin uh some fire safety ordinance
issues uh parking particularly the parking sizes uh a couple of other things um and then um quick discussion of variances and exception and then and then a couple closing comments. So, uh, to start with the detention basin, um, what I want to go through
here is the background. Um, at present, the applicant has proposed a detention basin in the easterly 50-ft buffer that measures approximately 320 ft in length. My guess 23 feet in width and about 5t in the deepest part of of the basin itself. And I think there's been a lot
of testimony there's a detention basin. It severely limits the planting of vegetation, particularly trees and shrubs. that maybe all that will be there is grass. Um the issue here is the location and the size of the detention basin significantly compromises the stated purpose of the buffer and the
proposed solutions are inadequate in my view. So my conclusion is that a detention basin of this magnitude in the buffer should not be permitted and the proposed solution to add a 265 ft solid uh 6 foot high solid fence on the easterly properly line is inconsistent
with and may violate the township's fencing ordinance. So to start uh this is just a a definition of the buffer taken uh cop copied and paste straight out of the ordinance. Um what it talks about here is natural woodlands uh earth mounds and
and plantings of of screening material. Um just as an aside one of the things I wanted to mention here is I think Mr. Plaz and your cross or your questioning of Mr. back in the June 12th, 2014 minute, there's about 27 minutes in there or 28 minutes of a lot of
questioning about the interaction between the buffer uh screening and and at that point there wasn't a fence proposed. So there wasn't a discussion about fencing. It was just what is a buffer, what is a screen, how do they work? Uh I would just suggest that for that I have it marked here in the
exhibit but starting about six minutes into that meeting till 35 minutes in um there's a good discussion about really you know a refresher on the buffer in the screen. Uh, as an aside in this presentation, um, um, you won't see it here, it is in the notes, but you'll see
it in other slides where I mention the meeting date and the time that it was discussed. And on the file, um, if we need to to talk about it or we need to hear it, I have a lot of audio clips of those sections of the meeting which I reference here. Uh, one of these would
be that 27 or 28 minutes of that meeting. Obviously, you can go to the official audio recording for the meeting itself and pull it up, but I've also tried to put those audio clips and and the references in here. And if there's any questions about those or you have a question about what I've said or what
what was actually said at the meeting, I I think according to Mr. Schly, we'd have the ability to actually play the clip if we need to do that. Um, so anyhow, I think with the the buffer itself, I think the intention of the buffer is as it says here, basically
natural woodlands, earth mounds, planted material. Uh, it's not a a fence or something of that sort. Um, a recap of sort of what I just mentioned about Mr. Steck's testimony, which I think is is relevant, that the buffer operates in two ways. It has a
width feature. um uh and a feature usually in this case in a in a suburban or a urban I'm sorry suburban or rural setting of landscaping to basically separate the property uses um and then that's usually done with vegetation and supplemented as needed.
Uh it's meant to soften the impact of the non-residential land use that's being proposed. Um, and I think the the the key thing here, one of the key things in my mind is that the buffering is the responsibility of the more offensive use or in this case ISBR's
application particularly on the easterly uh property line. It's not the quicks responsibility to fulfill the buffering obligation, but it's ISBR's responsibility to fulfill the buffering obligation. Um on uh the next slide, again, this is
just a lift from the township ordinance itself. Um and in particular, there's been a lot of discussion around B1 and the drainage improvement uh and whether or not the detention basin and perhaps the swale uh constitute drainage improvements that
were um permitted uh within the buffer. And I believe that there was a straw poll done and the board had determined that yes, a a detention basin would be considered a drainage improvement that would be allowed in the buffer. Um, and then the question becomes exactly how
large or how how much of can that detention basin be? Um, a couple of points here that I have on the next slide. Um, does the permitting of the drainage improvement within the buffer mean there's no constraints? I think there's been a lot of discussion
that the ordinance is not clear as to what the size of the permissible detention basin could be. I think Mr. Test Stack testified that it's not a limitless exception. Uh, in particular, I think a lot of it was around the driveway and I have some quotes in here about what he said about the driveway
because at that time it was proposed that the driveway would also be located within the buffer. And as we all know, the the driveway has been relocated outside the buffer. But I think the same concept applies that if somebody at the extreme wanted to fill the entire
easterly buffer as a detention basin, plant no trees, and then run a 6ft high solid fence down the Quick's property line. Would that actually be in keeping with the ordinance? And I would suggest that that would not be in keeping with the ordinance that you can't do that. there has to be some kind of balance
between allowing the detention basin and and still trying to maintain as much as you can the integrity of the buffer. Um, and I'll talk a little bit about how one might try to at least when I was thinking about it, how one might try to think through that. Um, a couple of
other points. I think some of this was was from Mr. sex uh testimony. But in terms of what are the permitted uses within the detention basin, we have the underground utility which would basically be minimal disturbance sidewalk or a bike pack path 4 to 6 feet
wide. Uh crossing of an access road maybe 24 ft by 50 ft or 1,200 square ft um that would use up uh space in the buffer where one couldn't plant trees. And then we have um the applicant's proposed uh drainage improvement which
according to my rough calculation is about 7500 square feet. So there was some discussion about Millington Baptist Church and that they have it a detention basin and I think that was uh 25 ft by 100 ft. Um I did go over there and take
a look at it. Uh it didn't look like it was 25 ft, but even so, that would be about a 2500 foot detention basin that was permitted in Millington Baptist Church in the back corner. From my observation a couple months ago, it appeared like there was adequate screening. This detention basin is three
times the size of what was permissible or allowed at Millington Baptist Church. And I think there was some testimony by Mr. ect that it doesn't really matter where the the the residence itself is located on the adjacent property. Um but
if one was to look at that qualitatively where the houses were located on the lots in Millington Baptist Church is far away from the property line in Millington Baptist Church whereas the quick property is is very close to the property line. So, how might one think about what to do
here? Uh, I coined this the the quick the the quick test in honor of the quicks. Um, Mr. Mr. Smith, I I hate to interrupt, but could you could you just pick the whole thing up? Be happy to.
Did you ask their permission before you coined it that, Mr. Smith? Uh, I did not. I do not have permission. No one else has a copyright on that. Yeah. So what what I I thought maybe a reasonable way to think about this is um
if the quicks were sitting on their patio basically uh what is the level of noise, light and visual reduction that could be achieved uh without the detention basin or a fence. So sort of that would be the standard of if we could do this right as I'll call it the
buffer would be vegetation planted material. we would achieve what we could with the vegetation and planted material and that would sort of be the standard. And then if somebody wanted to put a detention basin in that buffer, how far off of that do you go um in terms of
allowing more light, in terms of allowing u more noise uh before one would say that the detention bas detention basin is actually too large. And my my premise here is that that difference should be negligible. may be
a bit small but basically you would look at that and say what could I achieve without the fence and what could I achieve without the detention basin and then to the extent that you've got to add a fence and a detent uh a fence or other um screening type of materials that isn't vegetation I think the fence
is probably the only thing you could do then perhaps that's a sign that the detention basin is just too large. Um discussion of screening. Again, this is uh sort of right out of the ordinance. Um as a refresher, I wanted to burn some paper. Um and then here on
on the buffering, you know, I think the key here in the buffering section is it says the opportunities presented by existing site features. Um, so I was thinking about this to say, well, you know, if if for whatever reason that 50-foot buffer is all rock, so you can't
plant anything in it, then maybe that's an existing fight site feature which you have to overcome and compensate for and maybe that would allow to put some kind of fencing in or something else because the existing site feature is such that you can't plant anything in it. But in
this case where the existing site feature appears to be completely plantable and the detention basin is the thing that's getting in the way then again it sort of comes back to saying that maybe the detention basin is a bit too too large. Um so again I think I probably covered
this but um I think the screening ordinance the focus of the screening ordinance when I read it is primarily uh focused on on vegetation uh and distance um meaning that again if we can achieve it with with vegetation um and we have
50 feet to plant then that would be the primary way that I would suggest that one should uh achieve the screening um meet the screening ordinance. Um, and then the fence, if necessary, uh, should be consistent with the surrounding area. Uh, I think if you drive around the neighborhood, the only
place that you see a fence like this in the immediate vicinity is perhaps behind the post office or near the Exxon gas station on the corner where it's separating those commercial uses from um from Liberty Corner Farm. But if you drive up Church Street, drive out um
towards Far Hills, uh out towards the hills on Somerville Road or down Minebrook, uh there aren't any 6 foot high solid fences that go for 265 ft. Um and then as I said here, um if there
is a need for it, then the applicant, not the quick, should suffer uh from the visual impact of that. And I think um um the the the what I have here in the fourth bullet is the the testimony from Mr. Khan has been
somewhat inconsistent uh particularly in this area um where he basically had stated when I think I asked him the question first time when they proposed a fence uh at the September 30th 2014 meeting um I'm sorry it's in another
slide I'm mixed up here uh here I think when he we talked to Mr. con about um his testimony. He said that in in that most recent plan, the detention basin was moved closer uh to the parking lot in order to provide more uh ability to
do screening. Uh and then on top of that, uh we propose a or the applicant proposes a 6 foot high solid fence. So, how is it consistent that the detention basin is moved closer to the parking lot to provide for more screening and then a six-ft high fence is added on the
property line? Um, and it just brings up the question of who exactly is that screening for? Is it for the quicks or is it for the applicant? Um, and one other thing uh here on the bottom that uh I thought was interesting is that again when Mr. Zimmerman
testified on April 8, 2014 um and he talked about uh the screening, he said that when he went through the ordinances, he said that the screening requirement had been met. Uh so this was the plan um prior to the driveway being relocated that had the smaller detention
basin in it because since the driveway was uh over in the buffer um and the the front uh detention basin could be a bit larger. But after we the the the detent after the driveway was moved uh out of the the buffer and the detention basin
was screened um at that point in time the six foot high solid fence was added. So, I would suggest that that's a good data point to say apparently the applicant could have met the screening requirement without a fence when the detention basin was smaller under the
previous plan prior to September 2014. Uh, and then the fence was added, which is an indication that the detention basin in my mind has grown to a size that uh should not be permissible. Uh, moving now to the fencing ordinance. again a part of this whole puzzle. Um I
think the fencing ordinance there and I've uh taken the u opportunity to I the emphasis that if a fence is allowed it shall have minimal visual impact on surrounding properties due to the use of unobtrusive fence materials such as dark colored open mesh and appropriate
landscaping. So here um I don't they believe that this fence standing on its own if this was a existing residence and the resident wanted to add a fence uh down the property line that's 6' high and solid um my reading of this ordinance
would say it doesn't meet the uh the requirements of this ordinance. Um and then what I've put here sometimes in these uh hearings we've we've uh looked to what Webster said. So, I've included here uh the definition of unobtrusive
um fence material um and uh whether or not we would think that a six foot high fence would be not obtrusive, not blatant, arresting or aggressive. And it particularly wouldn't be inconspicuous. Um this is um a picture I took last month, I think it was, when I was in
Lake Placid. And this is a six foot high fence. So, walking around the lake, I came across this and I thought about these hearings and I thought I'd share with that with you that um how great that picture looks. That's what the quicks can look at from their back patio.
Um here I think there was a discussion it was it was in a couple slides ago of the ordinance that basically talks about if you're going to put in a fence uh that the post have to be symmetrical and the finish side has to face in a certain direction. I think Mr. at the at the
meeting on September 30th suggested um again based on a reading of the of the ordinance that you would need uh variances or the applicant would need variances if the posts were not symmetrical due to trees that got in the way of planting the the post. Um and um
and the choice that the quicks might be given with respect to which way they'd like the finished side of the fence. Um so it just is a little bit perplexing to me how uh somebody would need variances for um those types of things with respect to erecting a fence. Yet the
whole fence itself that it seems to be completely obtrusive would not require any kind of variance. So in conclusion um on this section um in my view the proposed fence is symptomatic the the fencing is really symptomatic of a larger problem. So we
can focus on the fence and the sixoot high fence and whether the fence is a permissible uh construction or whether the fencing ordinance allows the fence but really what it comes back to is that the detention basin itself is just too large um and it basically impedes the
buffer. Um, prime example here I have is the western buffer. U, so Mr. Abati may not like it, but um, it seems like we have no problem with the western buffer. We have wetlands there which sort of impede what one can do with um, screening in that buffer yet. We're not
calling for a fence in that buffer. Uh, there's been no discussion about a screening issue with respect with respect to the western side of the property. Um, and so again, I think it points to that the the the detention basin is just too large. And uh, so I I
think that the basin should be reduced if it's not relocated. Um, and then if for some reason the fencing was allowed, I think at one of the prior meetings I suggested that the fence ought to be run along the property lot or I'm sorry, along the parking lot uh on the western
side of the easterly buffer so that if there is a fence there and it's going to be obtrusive to someone, again, it's the applicant's responsibility to provide the buffer and to provide the screening and they're the ones that ought to enjoy the obtrusive fence, not the quicks.
So with that, I'll that's all I have on on the detention basin and the buffer screening. If I can stop there, I can keep going. Why don't you continue? Okay. The board has questions to pick up at the end. Um the next thing I'd like to talk about
is fire this fire safety ordinance in the NFPA. Um here, uh a lot of discussion about this. Um at present the applicants proposed to use a parking lots for uh the parking lot lanes for the fire apparatus circulation which I think is
allowed under the the township ordinance. Um the in my view the parking length the parking stall links and the drive aisles widths do not meet the NFPA standards and without redesigning the parking scheme then the exceptions are necessary for both the width of the
parking lot aisle and the size of the parking spaces. So with that, this is the township ordinance. I think uh E1 um means of access for fire department apparatus shall consist of five fire lanes, private street, streets, parking lines,
and the combination thereof. So I think this is the ordinance that clearly allows the parking lot lanes to be used as fire access, which is what the applicant is proposing. Um, one side note on this is I think um, uh, in terms of the township ordinance,
um, it specifically mentions the National Fire Codes Protection Association standards. And I think it should really be what was really meant there is the National Fire Protection uh, standards. I'm sorry, National Fire Protection
Association standards, NFPA standards. [Music] Uh so during these hearings both Mr. Rayar and Mr. Khan have both cited the NFPA standards on numerous occasions. Uh in particular Mr. Rayar has cited NFPA
1141. Uh I won't read you the title regarding the applicant's compliance with the setback requirements. And I have some uh times there. There's a few more times when the NFPA standards were mentioned during these these hearings in my in my notes which I I won't cover here. So I think when it deals with
setback from the roadway um 1141 and the compliance there with particularly chapter 6 has been cited and mentioned well if you go back one chapter to chapter 5 u means of access uh it talks
about vehicles traveling to and from structures. Um it the definition of means of access specifically includes parking lots and section 5.4 four provides minimum lengths for parking slot stalls and drive aisles. And in particular, the NFPA standards call for
18 foot length parking stalls rather than the 18 ft that is currently being proposed. Uh and uh one thing here I quite frankly don't know what to do with is the compact spaces because those are are 16 feet. So, I don't know how that
would uh that would meet with the uh NFPA standards, whether that would um have they all have to be 18 and a half feet or whether one could say there's something different. But having said that, I'm going to address the compact uh spaces in a few minutes. Uh and the other thing that the NFPA standards call
for is part is uh parking aisles. It should be 26 feet uh in width. So, uh I think I've covered this um already in my last comment, but uh the parking spaces in my view, the lengths are not long enough. The parking lot aisles are not wide enough um 2 feet
short on the on the width of the of the parking lane aisles and um at least a half a foot short on the parking length uh parking lot parking space lengths. not considering the compact. So I think we went through it in the
prior meetings where I still believe that the interpretation of the ordinance should be that the NFPA standards govern when the township standards are not more specific. And here I think the NFPA standards call for um uh different size parking spaces and and and parking
aisles. Um, continuing on for a moment, um, the public entrance. Uh, a lot of discussion around the public entrance. Um, one thing I'd like to go back to is, uh,
this slide I think is what sort of piqu my piqued my interest. So, this was a comment that Janet Lake made at the December 2nd, 2015 meeting. Um, and I think it's important. So, I will read it. Now, I've spoken of the back entrance maybe being the best entrance
to meet the township ordinance for the setbacks and the 25- ft fire lane. They told me, which I did not understand at the time, that the back of the building on the mosque is a is actually the prayer room. So, to bring people through that might not be appropriate at all
times. They suggested the side entrance. So this um quite frankly when that meeting occurred and Miss Lake said that I didn't really clue in on it. Um when I went back and I got a recording from Fran and I read the recording that's
what piqued my interest and it's this is why I wanted to talk to Mr. Khan again and bring him back. So when that when my request to talk to him again was was turned down. There was a lot of discussion about Chief Abraham's memo
and Janet Lakes's memo and I had no intention at all to talk about that with Mr. Khan. This is what I wanted to understand from Mr. Khan because at that meeting you know there was a few number of people that were there and Mr. Khan was one of the people at that meeting.
So, I wanted to understand why it was not appropriate uh to enter into the prayer room because that was why um I was trying to figure out whether or not the public entrance was appropriately designated. Um it had nothing to do with the memos
from the fire chief or the fire official or anything like that. My understanding was on the fire service plan that the public entrance should be designated on the fire service plan. Mr. Mr. Hagen had a lot of questions of Miss Lake as to why haven't this why do we need to go
back again? Why is this taking so long? And the comment that Miss Lake said was, "Well, we've never had a fire service plan that designates the public entrance." That was one of the things that that she said. Um, and so I was assuming when we had that discussion and
I was told to hold my questions on the fire on the fire safety issues that the reason I should hold my questions is because Mr. Khan would come back and the public entrance was in the domain of the fire service plant and that was my request to bring him back specifically
to ask why it was that the back entrance to the mosque may not be appropriate at all times. So having said that I think I pieced it together. Um so what I have here at present um the
applicants proposed to use the westward facing prayer hall door as their public entrance. Um the township ordinate requires a setback which we've talked about of uh 20 ft. Um the proposed public entrance currently the only entrance that can meet the requirements.
So if you go around this facility without a redesign um there isn't another alternative. It's only the prayer hall that can be used. So my issue that the proposed uh the proposed public entrance is inconsistent with the applicant's original intention
as well as Islamic and religious practices and significantly impedes the internal circulation within the building calling into question whether the public entrance has been correctly identified. So the prior testimony and existing evidence point to the woodoo room as
being the public entrance. Um, the woo room entrance does not meet the township setback requirements. I think Mr. Khan testified that this entrance is only 8 to 10 ft from the fire lane or the uh the driveway, not the required 20 ft.
So, how do I get there? Um, again, this is just a repeat of the public entrance, the ordinance itself, um, with 5e, which has been a lot of discussion about the 25 ft uh, and the 20 ft. Um here I want to put this in but I don't want to make it the uh the point
of the public ent the point of the discussion is that uh I'm still not sure what the public entrance means whether it's that used by the public or whether it's that that would be used by fire personnel in an emergency. Uh I think and I think Mr. Santoro had some questions about that. Um I think if it's
fire personnel in an emergency then the logical um entrance is the front entrance uh not the back at least in my mind. Um but what we're going to do is go with uh what we have uh in the back. So um in Mr. Khan's testimony when he
was defining the public entrance, he said it's a singular entrance that is used by the public and common sense tells you that two two because any access that is used by most of the people should be the main focus of your studies and the focus of your fire prevention procedures. So I don't know
what most of the people means. to make up a rule and say it's 50%. Um so moving on in questioning that began in response to question asked by Mr. Banish. Um so Mr. Banish at at at the December 2nd meeting um there about
49 minutes in had asked about uh the internal circulation of the facility um and and uh and how that works. uh we had the woodoo um there was a discussion about woodoo and performance of woodoo and Mr. Khan estimated that 10% uh of
the people or the worshippers would perform woodoo. Um I have here that that was never substantiated but I'm not sure that it's that relevant. I think what is relevant is that when Mr. Khan was discussing that um and he was looking at ways that somebody who had to perform
woodoo went into the facility. He acknowledged that there were two ways that somebody performing woodoo could enter the facility. That they either come through the newly designated public entrance that is the prayer hall. Uh or they could come through the southwest door that leads directly into the woodoo
room. What I have here is a screenshot of his drawing. It's It's Apologize, my picture frame is probably a bit too small, but essentially um in the yellow lines with this there's a circle around the woowoo room door. I'm sorry. Yeah, there's a
circle around the woowoo room door and then going in in that way and then on the large blue circle towards the bottom of the picture frame is the circle around the prayer hall entrance and then the the red arrows show uh someone entering in through the prayer hall and then around and into the lobby area.
That's what that kind of uh whatever zigzag line is. So when there was the discussion about those two ways to enter and Mr. Khan um coming to the realization that you could enter directly into the woodoo room. Uh
he coined directly th those those parishioners that need to perform woodoo that entering directly into the woodoo room would be better in his terms. So rather than come through the prayer hall and walk all the way around uh to the woo room entrance um that that a
parishioner would actually walk straight through um the uh the woowoo room doors, the ones that are closest to the road, the 8 to 10 ft uh and and enter the facility that way. But he again he said that that was only perhaps 10% of the of the of the
worshippers who would visit the mosque. So, what what I've done here is I've taken exhibit A1 and I've kind of drawn it out that the blue line is what I believe Mr. Khan's testimony was as to how somebody who needing to perform
woodoo could enter the facility uh and which way they would get in. And then the red line is the other description of somebody who needed to perform woodoo that they would enter right into the woodoo lobby. So after uh the applicant presented the revised plans I think Mr. Plaza you
asked a question of Mr. Rayar and welcomed Mr. Khan to chime in. And if I've uh copied this right, you asked, "Do these changes," meaning the redesation of the public entrance through the prayer hall. Do these changes reflect
what your expectation was as to the actual use of entrances regardless of designation? In other words, upon reflection, was it decided that based on the location of the parking lot and the inability to park out front that people were going to be using this again, the prayer hall entrance, regardless of
designation? And the answer that you received was yes. What this is is an extract from Daniel Lincoln's testimony on November 28th, 2012, in particular on page 65.
Um, and what it discusses, um, if you're coming to a religious service, actually, you would park in the back. Then you would walk into this room here on the left, which is an area that contains shelving for shoes. People take their shoes off in this area, and then they
walk into a two washing areas, which are men's and women's, which are on either side of the hallway. They can walk to the lobby area. And then he goes on um washing facilities for their feet and hands and your face because before making prayer you have to clean yourselves and so
forth. The the point here was that the original intention was always to enter through the woodoo room lobby. It was not to enter through the prayer hall. And the other thing that I was wondering at at one point in time when I didn't
understand this was why was that door that we had questioned if somebody was to come out that front door um and perhaps get hit by fire apparatus and then in the revised design that door was removed. And so I always would I scratch
my head not having put this together and I said why what was that door there for in the first place? Is it is it fire safety where it needed to be there for fire evacuation or was it for something else? And the fact that it was removed in the revised plan seemed to indicate
that it wasn't needed for fire safety. Uh and I think why this door was here was because the original intention which is in again in the November 2012 transcripts is that I think when this was first uh proposed there was going to be drop offs in the U-shaped driveway.
And so if you were swinging through the U-shaped driveway and dropping somebody off here to worship, then they would come into this door that goes directly into the Woo lobby uh if they if they needed to. And then I think this is the real issue.
So the fact is that the Woo lobby is that any worshipper is going to take their shoes off. So, what we have in the woodoo lobby is a series of shoe racks. So, everyone before they pray, if they
need to wash or not wash, fine, but they're going to leave their shoes in the woodoo lobby. And so rather than 10% of the people coming here to worship are going to come through the wudoo room lobby and then wash and then go into the
prayer hall, I think 100% of the people who are coming here to worship are going to be in the woodoo lobby, not the 10%. And what was never talked about in the testimony was shoes in the prayer hall. And that I think is what is one of the
gaping holes here that hasn't been discussed is how do shoes play into this. What I have here um and I have in my stack there is I went to the uh Bernard Township Library and there's a couple
books and if you look on the internet I have some sites on the internet on the next slide but basically there's ample evidence out there that you do not wear shoes in the prayer hall. So the question here is how do we use the prayer hall entrance when you don't wear
shoes in the prayer hall? Are people expected to take their shoes off outside and then walk through the prayer hall and walk back around the long way in my one slide with the blue arrows and and put their shoes in the shoe rack that way? And then when they're done praying, they're going to do the same thing.
They're going to go to the woo lobby. They're going to get their shoes. They're going to come walk back around through the prayer hall and go out through the prayer hall door or our people natural and they're going to grab their shoes and they're going to go right out through the woodoo lobby if they don't come in that way in the first place.
Um and um uh I I can pull it up. Um if there's if there's any if there's any question on this um let me grab it.
Um, what I have here, if if you want it, uh, is I have copies of the books that I mentioned. Um, there's books in both the Bernards Township Library. There's books in the, um, Bernardsville library that I have copies of. Um, there's all kinds of websites that talk about shoes and how
there's a prohibition of wearing shoes in the prayer hall. Um, there's also, um, a website that Dr. Shadri is familiar with. Um it's um Islam and Muslim books. Um there's a pamphlet on that website written by Dr. Shadri and
Robert Dixon Crane that talks about the prohibition from wearing shoes in the prayer hall if you'd like it. I can give you the website. Why don't you just for the record? This is the website that has the the
pamphlet that was co-written by Dr. Cher. Okay. So, give one to the applicant's attorney and the objector's attorney. Leave it with the package for the end. Keep on going. Do you want two? Well, you have another. Yeah.
Thank you. And just for the record, I'm we're going to identify this document at this point for ID only as P3. So, um, can I can I read to you from that pamphlet? You have an objection?
No. Um, one of the things I mentioned there, part one, description of Islamic prayer, um, page seven and eight, um, it's entitled the the place of prayer and removal of shoes. Um,
says people must take off their shoes before entering the prayer hall of a mosque. The requirement can be traced back to the prophet Moses. The current states that when we came to the fire, a voice was uttered, "Oh Moses, I am your Lord. Therefore, take off your shoes.
You are in the sacred valley of Tua." So, I think that it it isn't this isn't just a will comply. I think this is a fundamental problem with the design of the mosque that you can't just put a sign on the door that says go Andrew through the prayer hall. Um like we
suggested on some other things. I think this is a fundamental issue with the religion itself and the religious belief that there hasn't been any discussion about what we're going to do with shoes. The design of the mosque itself obviously with the shoe racks in the woodoo room and the intention was always there that that was going to be the
public entrance. So my suggestion here is that there's probably uh more work that needs to be done. Coming up, sir. Mr. Smith, you have the mic. Very clever. Yeah.
Over overruled. Good job. That was That was good. Yes, sir. First, you have to state your name and address. Yeah. My name is Mo Muhammad. M O H D. That's short for Muhammad. Last name is Muhar. Spell it out. First name.
First name is M O H D like David. Last name is M O H A R E B. And uh my objection is address. Yeah. 96 Baldwin Court Basking, New Jersey.
The objection is about the uh point that uh was mentioned about it's prohibited to pray uh with the shoes. Okay. You can't challenge the substance of his testimony on an
objection. If you have an objection that it's somehow not relevant to the application or some other basis uh that you can object to. Otherwise, if you take exception with the accuracy of what this witness is saying, you'll have
your opportunity to come up and you can dispute that. Yeah. But it's not an object. So far, the testimony that's been offered is relevant and material to this application. So, uh, the objection that you're making that I
think you're making is is overruled. I think what you're really doing is taking exception with the accuracy of of what this witness is saying. So come up later when it's your turn and you can tell us how we got it wrong. I I was trying to say that uh you tell me if this is not uh allowed. I was
trying to say that something is it sirlo you can't justiculate with the microphone. You have to keep it close to your mouth. Hold it close to your mouth. That's all. Don't don't move it around. It's close to your mouth. Close it. Difficult. That's it.
What I was trying to say that the making a point that it's allowed or not allowed. You know, from a church to church, from mosque to mosque, it's different. For me, I pray with my shoes. Okay, that's that's contrary testimony.
You can make that testimony, but not during this witness's presentation. It's not a valid objection. So, I'm going to overrule the objection. I'm going to ask you to take your seat, and then when you have the opportunity, you can come up and give us your your counter testimony. Okay. Thanks. Okay.
Is there a motion? So, please proceed, Mr. Smith. Um, so maybe on that note, um, because yes, when I was looking at it, there is confl there is conflicting um there is uh some conflicting guidance. I don't
know if that's the right word to call it out there about um whether you can pray with shoes on or or not. I think most of the guidance says that you cannot you do not pray with shoes on and if you do you have to clean the shoes and make sure that the the mosque and the prayer hall stays pure. There's a whole bunch of
stuff on it. Um maybe with that um is it possible to submit um as uh evidence the copies of the books that I have? I can pull them out of my binder there that I checked out of the library.
You make copies. You're not going to give us the books in the library. Correct. I don't have five copies of the books. Mr. Ramar, is there Do you have an objection to those books coming in? You want to see them first? Yeah, I I need to see them. Why don't you show them to Mr. Ramar first?
Do you want to you want to reserve that objection to the end of your presentation so you don't break the momentum or do you want to deal with it now? Uh either way. Were Were you planning on reading excerpts from them now? No, I was not. I was going to move on, but uh given that maybe I'll get challenged on this later on, I wanted to
put put more evidence on the record that uh shoes in a prayer hall are are generally not permissible. So, why don't we take a moment and deal with it then if that's your preference. Well, I don't know. Let's start with
I thought there's a whole series of them. There are. Hold on. He says he has copies of five books. It looks like he's getting the cover page of the book, the inside cover that has the Library of Congress number and identifying features, and then the text of the page
that he wants to put in. So, it's an it's an excerpt from the books. It's it's not the entire book, Mr. Correct. Correct. These are um tell you. Yeah. So, let's after you get them handed out, then I'm going to ask you
I'm going to mark them for ID and ask you a couple questions such as where they came from. Let's keep on handing them out. You have one more set, right? Um it's the um the four books I gave you. I have about
uh seven websites from various Islamic websites if you'd like those too. Let's why don't we start with the four books. So the first book, the title is the Everything Understanding Islam book, second edition, a complete guide to Muslim beliefs, practices, and culture.
And the author is Christine Huda Dodge. I'm going to mark this for ID only as P4. Which one is P4? That's this one. P4. Huda Dodge. Okay. The next one,
I'm just reading the title. the complete idiots guide to understanding Islam. And that's going to be P5 for ID only. And just those two I checked out. I have them right here. I checked them out of
the Bernard's Township Library. Okay. So, write that down. Okay. The next one says, "A Muslim primer beginner's guide to Islam, second edition, written by Ira G. Zep Jr. I'm going to mark that P6
for ID only. And the last one, a brief guide to history. Pardon me. A brief guide to Islam, History, Faith, and Politics. A complete introduction by Paul Griev.
That's going to be P7 for identification. Then I'm going to ask you, where did you get P6 or and P7? Those are I did not check them out, but those are both in the Burnersville Library.
Okay. And the purpose of introducing them into evidence is, as I understand it, is on the issue of shoes on or off in the prayer hall. Uh, correct. There's a few things as was one, I think the original intention was never to use the prayer hall as the public entrance. These books don't do
that. The second thing is that the I think the majority of people will use the prayer hall entrance because they will leave their shoes in the shoe. I'm sorry. The majority of people use the woo room entrance because they will leave their shoes in the shoe racks uh in the wowoo room lobby. I I understand the point you're making
and the point is is that um what these are trying to demonstrate is that it's not a simple fix where we redirect people to use the prayer hall. I think there's an issue with people wearing their shoes in the prayer hall. Uh so they would have to take their shoes off uh and carry them through the prayer
hall back to the shoe rack. Right. But I'm what I'm asking is the purpose of putting these into evidence is to show what the Muslim practice is with respect to shoes on or off in the prayer hall. Correct. That's my question. Yes. Correct. Is there any objection to having these
go into evidence? Uh yes. Ander's objection to this line of testimony. I thought I heard the witness say that he was referring to something that Dr. Chry had written. And when I
understood that that was what the witness was referring to, well then that's something that Dr. Chudri had written. And I did not object because that would have a different nature because what
he's doing is basically quoting Dr. Chro. Now it turns out, Mr. Could you just put your mic up? Now it turns out that he's not presenting something written by Dr. Chudri. He's presenting treatises that he finds in
the library. So there's two objections. One is the witness is not an expert in religious practice. He may have had questions for Mr. Khan about where should the shoes be if the
public entrance moved from the front to the back. He may have had questions for Mr. uh Lincoln. Um that might have been appropriate. He might have been able as I think I ask uh Mr. Ste whether you
recognize this treatise or not as a learned treatise. uh he's not asking anybody whether this is an appropriate treatise for anything. So I object both to the line of testimony because he's not an expert and
I object to the introduction of P4 56 and 7 because no one is establishing that these are recognized treatises. We don't know what they are. We don't know anything about the authors. One sec.
Just getting back to what you were discussing about Mr. Khan and Mr. Lincoln, right? Were either Mr. Khan or Mr. Lincoln offered by the applicant as experts on religious practice of Muslims? So none of their testimony should be
construed as being expert relative to the practices and customs in the in correct Muslim faith. I just want to be clear on that. No, I I agree. Mr. Mr. Khan throughout his testimony did start offering certain personal observations and opinions. And I just
want to clarify that those opinions were never intended by the applicant to be expert opinions, not on religious practice, but it would have been appropriate on cross-examination for someone to say, "Well, is what you designed consistent
with religious practice?" I don't remember whether that was done or not. I wasn't even here. But if neither of them was if neither of them was offered as an expert on religious practice and custom, how why would that question be properly directed to them? Well,
as an engineer, you can ask, did you design uh this in conjunction with religious practice or not? It wasn't asked. My point is we don't have a witness here who can say whether these are treatises
recognized to be learned or not. We don't know anything about the authors. We've been in court. We know when when you use a treatise, you can't just present the book and say, "I'm referring to the book." There has to be some basis
established, usually through a witness who says, "I recognize that book." In fact, when the question was raised with the um uh fire chief, uh do you recognize this uh book as an authority?
And the fire chief on one book said, no, I don't recognize this code that Mr. Plaza ruled, well, that's the end of the line of questioning because he doesn't recognize that um source. Now we don't have
anybody to tell this board whether these sources are are accurate or inaccurate. Can you go back to one point? What was the the pamphlet that you described the guide a guide for non-Muslims about what Muslims do and
say in prayers by Dr. Chudri and Robert Dixon Crane? Do you have a copy of that? Uh, I wanted to be careful not to violate copy of the bright laws with the author in the room. So, no, I don't. But wait, wait. Did you quote from that
pamphlet? I quoted from it. We can pull it up, right? Is that when you said this was the heading about that paper that I gave you? Yeah, I have that. Yeah. But but you you previously gave a quote. Yes. About not wearing shoes in the prayer hall and you you attributed it to the
pamphlet. Is that the pamphlet written by Yes. That's on page eight. And I can read you the other part in the back. So, wait a minute. So, I got it. Okay. Uh, first as to you really had a three-part objection, I think. First was as to the
entire line of testimony, and I made a distinction between what Dr. Chry might have written as it was being quoted, right? And then the three objections that were
presenting alleged evidence and alleged sources, he gets it. I get it. That are not Dr. I I get it. But at the beginning of your objection, I think you were saying that you you were unclear at first because you thought he was attributing a direct
quote to a work of at least that Dr. charge your co-author. That's correct. It seems that he did that that you know we could go back but when he was talking about the pamphlet he read us the heading and then he gave us the initial quote. So to that extent I don't object.
Right. But at the beginning of your objection I think you were you were creating the impression that even what he said previously was not attributable to Dr. Chry. If I misheard you sorry but that I think you misheard whatever he attributed to Dr. Chry was coming
directly if he quoted it accurately. We're both on the record so we we don't need to belabor it. So I I I do find that he was directly quoting a work that Dr. Chry co-authored. So I that the objection is overruled with respect to that. Before we do anything other on
that one, just the clean way to do this is you get a copy of what you quoted. Even if you have to submit it after the facts, submit it to the board, submit it to Mr. Ramar, submit it to Mr. Simon,
and submit it to me so that it can be verified that the quote you read came from the pamphlet from J from Dr. Choy. Mr. Do I have permission to Can we get that permission as long as permission? Yes, you do. Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Sh.
I'm not Well, you're overruling on something that wasn't an objection. I'm a little confused. I didn't think that he's not overruling anything. Well, you just said you overruled one thing. I just want to be clear what you're No. Uh, I did hear an objection based on
you initially thought that he was offering a quote. As the testimony went on, you came to the impression uh or you came to the understanding that no, in fact, he was only quoting from these books that were linked. Do it is to if you said that, withdraw it because I I heard it. Also, just to let
you know, let let me state succession. [Music] Okay. Okay. To the extent that he is testifying
to religious practice that is not based on something that Dr. Chudrey said, which Mr. drill now said we will document then he is in effect testifying to religious practice
outside of whatever Dr. George said without being an expert in religious practice and he is now making clear that testimony that looked like it was being limited to something that Dr. Chry wrote
in fact is coming from sources other than Dr. charter and we don't know anything about these sources. So that's okay. I I understand that and and I agree with you for the most part except from the outset Mr. Smith identified the pamphlet and
then immediately started talking about books he had taken out from the Burnersville and and and Basking Ridge Library. So I don't I don't think there was any attempt to mislead that some of the information he was communicating was maybe I didn't hear it correctly. I'll take the blame. I'm not blame but but
now that we know that there are sources for what Mr. Cody was presenting outside of Dr. Chry I'm objecting because we don't know anything about the treatises and Mr. Cody is not an expert on religious practice.
Okay with Mr. Simon we we have to be consistent. Unfortunately you don't have a dog in this fight. So uh you don't wait one second. Do you have an objection to anything, Mr. Smith? I do not. Okay. I I appreciate the cander.
as always. So, so I think what's on the floor objections to P4, P5, P6, and P7, which are the four books, and for the the reasons articulated, the objection is sustained as to those
books because we don't have any information about the authors, whether they're recognized treatises, whether they're accurate. So, it would not be appropriate for us to receive those into evidence and rely on them. Uh, is there a motion by the board concerning that decision?
Okay. So, that part of the objection is sustained. Have we addressed everything? No. Wait, wait, wait. No. We There is now a pending objection to anything that Mr. Cody put into the record
that is from a source other than Dr. chordy because now he doesn't have any treatises and he's not an expert in religious practice. Okay. Except except the initial thing read from the pamphlet co-authored by Dr. Charger
spoke to a prohibition of shoes in the prayer hall. So all that then subsequently happened was a corroboration of that original statement. You strip away these books, you still have that pamphlet which says that. And then the argument which stems from that is I
think appropriate an appropriate point to make on closing as to what this witness believes is a hole in the applicant's presentation. He's pointing out what wasn't discussed which is fair game. Right. The cooperation is gone. The four
books are gone but the pamphlet remains. Annie is going to be submitting it. So what we have marked for ID as P3 which is the website which explains um gives the title we're not putting P this we're not putting this in as P3 once he
submits the pamphlet that will be going into evidence as P3 but but the factual premise of his entire argument is still supported by the pamphlet co-authored by Dr. Chandry. I don't think we're disagreeing. Okay. I I mean to the extent that
we don't even have it so we don't know what he's submitting from Dr. Troy to the extent that Dr. Cardy submits it. I mean, uh, it's quoted accurately. And he's arguing for that, no objection. To the extent that the argument is going
beyond that and relying on facts that are not in the record and not in the excluded pamphlets, then based on what's before me right now, my preliminary ruling as to that third objection is that it's overruled. Is there a motion?
Put it this way. What what do you want the board to do? Okay. What do you want the board to do with his third objection? Because do you want the board to say that there the board's only going to rely on what's in the chargery pamphlet and not the the four books? Because quite frankly, the board hasn't
seen the four books. I'm the only one who has a copy. I'm going to keep them in my records just in case, but they're not going into the board's file. So, do you want the board to do something other than that? I I think I've I've protected the record. I will think the board should rule and uh let's see what the pamphlet
says. There's no other ruling you want the board to make. No, not now. Okay. Because I mean we're we're speculating because we don't know what's in the I thought you wanted the board to do something else. Okay. Okay. So that was the as to the third
objection. It was overruled as my preliminary decision. Is there a motion by any member? Right. Seeing none, that's then the decision on that objection of the board. Just to make it clear, you got to get that pamphlet in. I'll have it to you in the morning. Okay. Um, let me go back to something that was
said because uh when Mr. Khan has been up here, he's held himself out as a practicing Muslim and knowing the faith, representing that the 10% is an accurate uh reflection of who's going to use the voodoo room. He's the response has been a few times that I know because that's
my religion and I practice it. Are we now saying that nothing that he has represented in his as a practicing Muslim should be recognized based on the representation from applicants council? Mr. Khan has no more expertise or authority to speak on
Islamic practice and custom than you. So that's so that's correct. That's your that would be your rule. That's correct. That that is correct. Is is there a motion from any board member on that point? So then I I guess then um what I when
Mr. Khan had testified that 10% of the it may not be relevant because I think basically 100% of of worshippers are going to use the woo room door, but his representation that 10% of people would potentially use that door to perform woodoo should not be recognized.
I I stand by the comment I made two seconds ago. We're not going to beat a dead horse. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Um so in finally in concluding this section um my assertion is the applicant's proposal used the prayer hall doors the public
entrance is impracticable and runs counter to Islamic religious practice. Applicants provided inconsistent and incomplete testimony regarding its identification of the public entrance based on prior uh testimony. The wudoo room entrance fails to comply with the 20 foot uh separation from the road edge
ordinance. And um in my view I think significant questions uh remain uh regarding um what exactly is the the public entrance. Uh just um just a couple comments on uh the fire safety ordinance the clearance
itself. I mean as we all are aware the northwest corners and northwest and the southeast corners uh of the proposed structure uh remain a safety concern. Do you want to take a break or put an air on?
Oh, thank you. Um, so I think um in the uh in the February meeting there was a lot of discussion with uh especially with Chief Appraian that why wasn't something said earlier? My assertion is that when the concerns were raised isn't relevant. The fact is
that there's concerns there. You've had five experts testify that they have or you have through either written or or verbal testimony from five experts. All have expressed a concern. Um and uh I know at the last meeting uh somebody
tried bringing this up and um we didn't want to talk about it, but uh there's quite the the the paper trail for legal exposure if something ever happened there to uh us taxpaying uh citizens of the township. Uh moving to the parking.
Um my assertion here um applicant's proposal has 31 compact spaces and 76 non-compact spaces. The non-compact spaces have 9 ft widths. The compact spaces are permitted for long-term parking are located in what likely is to
be the most heavily used area of the parking lot. Um to me the the the present issues exist is that the basis for allowing the non-compact spaces to be 9 foot widths is not clear. Uh and I don't believe that compact spaces are permitted for short-term use according
to the township's ordinance. Um so what I would suggest is that the basis for allowing the 9 foot widths um be clearer. Um parking at a house of worship it's my assertion is shortterm and it's not longterm. Um, the compact
spaces are not permitted for short-term parking according to the ordinance and I think that exceptions are needed unless the parking is redesigned. So, how do I get there? Um, here is the the township ordinance itself. Just again a copy of that. Um, like to point
out that the township ordinance distinguishes between residential and non-residential. Uh, I didn't reproduce residential here since it's not applicable. Uh it also distinguishes between when something um on an open lot in a garage. Um and it also
distinguishes between short-term and long-term parking. And then as we know if um if the uh the area in front of the automobile will not be used for anything else, then the uh the parking stalls can be shortened by two feet.
Um so there was a memo that was prepared by Mr. Banish and Mr. slide uh regarding uh 9 foot width spaces. Um I'll note that u nowhere in that memo
uh does it address compact spaces. It seems to just focus on non-compact spaces and whether 9 foot widths are permissible versus 10 foots which one might read in the ordinance. Um, and I think the the the point here in this
whole memo is that uh even if one was to somehow conclude that a short-term size could be used for um a um a non-compact space, so i.e. a 9- foot width, that to me does not mean that those spaces are
for short term. And therefore, this memo should not be imputed onto compact spaces to suggest that compact spaces are allowed for a house of worship. Um, so a couple of points that were raised in that memo. Township ordinance does not define long term. I won't read these, but I wanted to talk about each
one of them in the next couple of slides. Um, so one of the things that that Mr. Slide and um and Mr. Banish mentioned in in um in uh in their memo to support the 9 foot width for non-compact spaces was
that the ordinance does not define long-term. Uh well, I think the ordinance does not define short-term either. uh nor does it provide specific time periods for short-term and long-term but clearly the ordinance seems to distinguish between the two. Um
it mentions those words and it gives examples. Uh ordinance provides employee parking as an example of long-term and short term it talks about and I'll try to get more specific on that here in a minute a retail parking.
Um so uh so in Mr. Khan's testimony um it again has gone back and forth as to what these spaces are. Uh in the September 30th meeting when I was questioning him, he asserted multiple times that all the
spaces in a house of worship or short-term. Uh he later in December changed his testimony uh and made up a uh what I'll call made up a a definition of 30 minutes as being long-term parking uh and less than 30 minutes of being uh short-term parking.
I think there was a little bit of discussion earlier about uh parishioners coming at lunch and rushing in and out and I think that he he um he has said that maybe they will be uh worshiping for no more than 5 to 10 minutes. So by his own testimony it would seem and even
by his own um I'll call it madeup definition of short term it seems like these parking spaces could be used for would be used for for short term. Um, this is just some other uh ordinances that I found in other in
other townships, but it seems to be consistent with what we have here about what is a long-term space and what is a short-term space. Long-term being employees and residential. Um, short-term being more visitor uh types of parking. So, what I see in this
township's ordinance is consistent with what I think are in other ordinances that um there is a dist distinction and it seems like um residential and um and um uh employee parking are more viewed as being uh long-term.
Um the second point uh that I wanted to talk about that was raised in the memo was the greater width for retail is probably an acknowledgement that it better facilitates turnover and reduces internal circulation delays. Uh that would seem to be true, but question is so why wouldn't that also apply uh to a
house of worship? Um anytime you have more room to maneuver, it better facilitates turnover no matter what the application uh of the of the use of the parking space is. Um and again here by their own testimony that the applicant proposes I would say a higher turnover,
five services a day, seven days a week. Um and then probably more importantly is that again they have stated that on Friday afternoons they may expand to have two prayer services 15 minutes apart. Um, so cars entering and exiting. Again, I'm not sure how uh with two
Friday afternoon prayer services with perhaps, again, we don't know that this is going to be restricted at all, but if we had 107 cars for each of two Friday afternoon services that were 15 minutes apart, to me would suggest that that is short-term parking.
Um, and I have down here too that with five services a day, seven days a week, it may very well be that there's more religious services at this house of worship than any other house of worship in the township. Um, one of the uh, discussions again in that memo is that the planning board has
not imposed 10 foot width requirements for short-term spaces used for retail. Um, again, um, you know, we don't know why that is. um in that memo had it and never addressed uh you know why relief was granted or if it was even thought about. Um it doesn't tell us give us any
kind of indication as to what the conditions might be for relief being granted or or again if it was even uh discussed as part of those applications. Um I would suggest that what the planning board has done for retail locations. We only have retail locations addressed in that memo that that is not
relevant for a house of worship. Um they're different uses. They're they're different um obviously um in in what the parking space would be used for. Um I'll go back to the ordinance in a minute, but one could argue that the 10-ft uh
spot only applies to retail. I think um maybe if I just cover that. Uh now um if I go back for a minute, interestingly um in number two, it says located on an open lot and used for short-term parking
as retail. And then when we have three for long-term, it says such as employees. So, a literal reading of this would mean that the the retail requirement of 10 feet only applies to retail. And when you have a short-term
non- retail use, the ordinance is not specific as to what to do in that circumstance. Whether you would apply the 10-foot um for retail or whether you would say no, it's more like um uh an somehow it's more like an employee. I wouldn't I
don't want to say it's more like an employee because I don't think it is like an employee, but one might say it's not specific and therefore even though it's a short-term use, I can apply a 9- foot 9 foot width. Um so, um I also drove around and I checked
out other houses of worship, not all of them. Um but it seems quite clear that in the township that nine foot whis are used for houses of worship. Again, not knowing um how we got there, I think I looked at uh at three other houses of worship, and at that point, I stopped um
when they were 9 foot widths. However, with compact spaces, um it's kind of hard to read, but I took one of Mr. Zimmerman's exhibits when he was comparing uh this the applicant's proposed use to other houses of worship in town. Uh and I did go to all those
houses of worship and noted that none of them have compact spaces. Um, so if there is a house of worship in this township that has compact spaces, I could not find them. One of them that was missing was King of Kings on his exhibit, and I added that, too. Uh, and
there are no compact spaces, uh, anywhere to be seen, as far as I can tell. Um, one of the other points in the memo, uh, houses of worship parking needs and characteristics be to bear more similarity to long-term parking. Uh, arrivals and departures are
concentrated. Um, again, if we kind of think about the employee base in the township, I'm not sure that there's many um hourly workers that punch clocks and all get to the get to work on the same time. So, uh, you know, I I'm not so sure that, um, if we're trying to analogize to employee parking here to
say that these are long-term, that that one would look to a house of worship and, you know, four or five services a day and say that that is somehow similar to um to um employee parking because people arrive and leave at the same time because I'm not even sure that that's the case any longer in the workforce.
Um, and again, if there were concentrations and arrivals and departures, that seems to me to be arguing for a wider space, not a shorter space. So, this goes back to perhaps um how one might look at the 9- foot widths if they were um saying that that complied with
the ordinance and didn't require um I guess it would be an exception in this case. Um, one might have view one and say yes, houses of worship are long-term or two, houses of worship are short-term. Um, or view three, which basically says that as I mentioned
earlier, it's not specifically defined in the ordinance that the ordinance is only specific to retail locations and not to house of worships that house of worship houses of worship that will be used for short-term and therefore the 9 foot uh parking width is permitted.
However, when we move over to compact spaces, um again, I don't think that compact spaces are permitted in houses of worship because I do not believe that houses of worship are short-term parking. Um so, a couple points here. Clearly, the ordinance differentiates between short and long-term. Um, I think
the ordinance and its definition of short, I'm sorry, long-term parking is consistent with what other townships have done, at least some that I could find on the internet that specifically addressed uh where when compact the size of compact spaces, I should say, and when compact spaces can be used. Um, Mr.
Khan had at one point asserted that 30 minutes was found in the township ordinances, which um, if it's in there, I sure can't find it. Um I don't think there is any definition of minutes as to when where the where that is. Um five services a day, seven days a week
lasting 5 to 45 minutes in a Sunday school. Uh I think that would be short-term that is not employee like and in and one use per day and and long-term. Um I mentioned multiple services on Friday afternoon. Um common sense uh definition of what short-term
is. Um and um if if if the board was to say that compact spaces can be used here, then I think it would be basically take away the short-term and the long-term distinction because anything would go. Um moving on to a different topic. I think
this was touched on a little bit earlier tonight too about the exception that's been requested for the 31 spaces in the easterly in the easterly row. Um applicant's current proposal has paved spot parking spots that are 18 ft. Um but they're going to propose the wheel
stop which reduces the parking space by 18 in within the 18t parking space. Uh Mr. Sly had made some comments that wheel stops are not good. Um and if the overhang cannot be used and the usable parking space is is 16 and a half uh
feet. So um in the last year or so I've become a parking expert. So, this was after the first snow in November, um, what turned out to be relatively mild. And I saw this car parked and it basically used up, these
are 18t stalls, and it essentially by the time the snow was plowed, we had some other comments earlier tonight about snow plowing. And and I think the chief's own testimony also said that generally what happens when you plow snow is you lose space. Um, here's a what I would consider a relatively modestized car essentially taking up the
full 18 foot stall after a snow plow. And there's a um a pavers in front of that uh parking space. Uh same thing here. This one I thought probably they should take their license away. Um this one um people will do crazy things.
I have an objection unless Mr. Uh Smith is willing to represent to the board that he actually measured these spaces. I did. Okay. So, let's get let's go back then just for the record. I took my tape measure to work one day and I measure from Let's go. It should be in the record.
Slide go back to slide 57. Can you identify where that picture was taken? It's a 400 campus parkway in Floren Park. 400 campus Parkway and Florum Park and you measured
those that space. Uh I measured that row, not that individual space, right? And what was the the 18t length? 18 ft. It says in the caption. That's I understand it says it in the caption. I'm trying to get them to put it on the record.
You measured the caption. Okay. You measured it. Yeah. It's It's right on Look at your slide 57. I was I was looking at I understand. Go to slide 58. Where is that picture taken? That's uh three stalls in front of slide
57 on the same day at the same time. Okay, that's those are also the same location. Those are also 18 foot stalls. Correct. That's the same row. You can actually see the gray car through the windows of the black car. Yes, I can. Okay. Slide 59. Where is that taken?
Uh that's 300 Campus Parkway. in Floren Park. Yeah. And what are the length of those spaces? I couldn't measure it because there was too much snow, but the caption says it was 18 ft. Well, I think everything in the complex
is 18 ft. But but no, I did not measure that row. You didn't verify that row. No, but I can do that tomorrow morning. That's what I'm asking you to do. Can you verify that tomorrow morning? And when you send in the other exhibit, send in an email with the um verifying the distance on slide 59. And then if Mr.
Lamar wants to cross-examine you next month about that, okay, he can. That's fine. All right. Why don't you keep on going? Uh so with respect to the exception, uh these are um this is exhibit EX uh dated
May 20 22nd, 2015. Just some cut and paste I made of blowups of that exhibit to put in here. And again, I think we had a little bit of discussion about it tonight, but just demonstrating how tight the uh the turning radius is for the fire apparatus.
Um this is the uh southwest corner of the parking lot. Uh and again, the blue lines um come close to these are would be compact spaces. Um, so again, if there was somebody uh who didn't park who had had a non-compact car in a
compact space or we had snow that would be abuing up against the the guardrail and the bushes there, uh it would shorten those spaces even more. So even with uh making the turn and and staying right up abudding the curb um there underneath F1, uh there's not much uh
room to maneuver. Um sorry, this is the um this is the Yeah, that last slide is slide 61. Are you now on slide 62? Uh yeah, 61 is right along the row of compact spaces in the uh in the uh south
uh east corner, southwest corner, sorry. Okay. Uh and then 62 is the northwest north, sorry, southeast corner. But again, I think there was an observation made when we were looking at CO3, but essentially again, it there's not a lot of maneuvering here. And these in
particular are uh the spots that um that the applicant's requesting a variance on. Um you mean an exception. Sorry, you're right. Correction, exception. Um so again, with that those those spots
are already tight. If you add snow to that, um it's very conceivable, at least to me, that something somebody could be sticking out the the back of the car could be sticking out into the uh into the drive aisle that I might, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not sure it meets the ordinance
anyway at the 24 ft. These these are these are where the drive aisle is 24 feet. Um so just the observations here fire apparatus mobility is already an issue without thinking about you know again I think these the these uh slide 62 was
run without putting the car out a foot and a half I I didn't catch it but I think at one point Chief Appraian has asked that we rerun the fire circulation with the car sticking out into the aisle and I'm not sure that was ever done. Um, so this this assumes that that car with
the parking wheel stop will get all the way in the in the drive and then there'll be enough room for for file circulation behind it. Um, and uh so I think in in in closing here, I think the exception to me is a safety issue that um there's already no room to
maneuver and um and granting an exception will only make it worse. Uh I'll be done in about five minutes probably. five 10 minutes. Um, take a break for water. It's a great idea.
The room's cooled down a bit, but not all the way. Um, so in terms of sidewalks and apron, there's ordinance 2136 dealing with sidewalks. Um, non-residentidential zone sidewalks shall be installed in areas wherever pedestrian traffic is anticipated to
occur. uh such as between parking areas and buildings between those areas. Um so in particular again the the the um the troublesome spots uh with the design are um the northwest corner and the southeast corner. Um that those
basically ab butt right up against the fire lane. So if anybody was trying to to get to the front uh entrance to the building um you know you'd have to walk out into the roadway in order to do that. Um, you know, I don't know for sure whether or not uh it meets the the
sidewalk um requirements, but you know, you might argue that, well, we've closed down the front entrance as nobody was going there. Um, the one issue with this is is the vested monitor in the back. I think there was some testimony at one point that the vested monitor would be both monitoring the U-shaped drive to
make sure that there were no drop offs as well as helping students get out of the the cars in um in the rear drop off for Sunday school. And I'm not going to get into um in my mind what a disaster that whole thing is with the drop off being next to the handicap spots and an
active driveway, but that wasn't something I was going to get into tonight. But I think that's an issue. Um, so here the vested monitor effectively can't even do his or her job because they can't watch, they can't see with the height of the structure, they can't see the U-shaped drive. And even if they wanted to go up there and
monitor what's going on on the U-shaped drive, there's no access and no safe access up to the front. You'd have to walk out into the driveway to get there. So again, it's just um another symptom of um trying to put too much into this spot.
Um, so that and then on wetlands, I a couple things here. I think um I wasn't going to make an issue about it. I think at some point there was raised that you know there's a there's a township ordinance that you can't uh encroach into the wetlands. Um I think uh when
that was raised and Mr. Ramar objected to it, uh everything that he cited was not that we we we don't meet the ordinance. decided that the board has never required anybody to get a variance for encroaching upon the wetlands. So this to me is just another point of you know what we've gone through with this
whole application is that the ordinances it's very difficult for at least someone like me to follow where sometimes we enforce the ordinance. Sometimes three acres means three acres even if the usable space is this and sometimes we have literal application of what the written words are and it seems to me
like other times we don't even enforce the words. So, it's very hard to figure out which ordinate is and which one we're going to enforce and how we're going to enforce that and interpret it. Um, the the bigger issue or the one thing I think is, you know, I think everybody knows it, but I just wanted to make sure
that we were all on the same page is the whole wetlands discussion and the transition area. Um, essentially this whole project, as has been discussed, has been crammed in here. Um and so there's there's transition areas that have been used uh over to the south side
of the wetlands that hold these whole lined areas are essentially um wetlands transition area averaging um which is permissible uh according to NJ um but you can't average of having a
width of more than 75 ft. um the applicants used all of that up and essentially I think this is again part of the story here of trying to put too much into into what this uh usable space is. So um you know the encroachment as I read the plans is is 2852 feet and then
they've done averaging for 31. So there's perhaps there's some some piece of the plan I don't know how to interpret but but essentially there's nowhere to go. So, all of the exceptions that are being asked for, this the safety features of the fire apparatus not being able to get around the
building, um, all of this is a direct result of trying to put too much onto the piece of land and and trying not to move any clo any further into the transition area and encroach upon it because basically they're out of space. So, so rather than make something that's
safe and functional and usable, uh, everything has to be a fight because there is no there's no cure to fix anything. Uh so just in summary on this part um you know I think literally one might argue there's a need for the a variance for
the wetlands protection and the encroachment. I think the buffers with the detention basin in there um I think that that's too large obviously and that essentially the buffers aren't being effective and that's the whole reason for the need of the fence is because the buffer ordinance isn't met because the
detention basin is just too large. Uh in terms of the exceptions, um I think uh one could argue there's a a need for the sidewalk except uh exception for sidewalks. Uh in terms of the parking spaces, um uh the stall lengths, um one
could argue perhaps 10 feet, but I think you could interpret that ordinance to get it back to nine. But I clearly don't think that compact spaces are something that's permittable permissible for a house of worship. uh on the fire standards themselves. Um I think the parking lots as I we talked about the
NFPA um I think they don't that the parking lots in terms of the uh access the aisle width and the the length of the spaces don't meet the NFPA codes. And then we had the discussion about the public entrance. Uh I'm not going to take the time to go through what when
one might grant an exception um being in practical undue hardship uh because quite frankly I'm tired and out of breath. But I think these are the requirements uh for that. Um so essentially I was hitting on this earlier but I think you know essentially
what what happens is this project I think Mr. Abati mentioned shrink it down. Um I think it's way too aggressive for the usable space in the lot and that's what's leading to all of these compromises and safety issues and as I said here I think it's a jigsaw puzzle where you have to cut the pieces in
order to get them to fit together. So my my final slide in closing um this is something that a quote from Mr. Zimmerman when he testified back in April uh and he sort of summed it all up as to what he saw this. Uh so putting it
all together I think the exhibits in my opinion show that the applicant fits into the township fits into what else has been developed in the township as far as houses of worship are concerned. I think it fits into the neighborhood. I think it will be a good neighbor. The scale of building is very modest. Remember that the membership here is
only 65 members whereas other churches um many of or several of them we know have significantly more members. So it's a modest church a modest I should say house of worship a modest membership. I think that allurs to the fact that there's going to be the same activity
that might be experienced at other houses of worship in the township. So I would beg to differ with a number of the comments in here um when it fits into the neighborhood. I think if you take a drive around our neighborhood, um you can um leave the site, you can go
Somerville Road, up Minebrook, out to Far Hills, down through Church Street, you can go all the way out Somerville Road to the other side of 78. If you go to Chester on the way to Chester, everywhere you'll see a preserve liberty corner sign. So almost every single house in the immediate vicinity has one.
Um I think when Mr. Wah was uh asking some questions of Dr. Chowry a while ago. It doesn't seem to me like at least the people in the neighborhood are very um very thrilled with this development moving in. I think the 65 members, there's been testimony that that's not
the case. Um that there will not be 65 members. We may have two services on Friday afternoon. Um and so I think everything in here um is basically uh just the opposite of what at least the neighbors feel. So, with that, the final thing I'd like
to do is thank Fran and um and David Schly, even though he's not here for all their assistance they've given me in helping uh get documents together. And I appreciate the difficult decision that you have. Um and what I was trying to do here was raise a couple of points for you to consider. Thank you,
[Laughter] Mr. You got to hold on, Mr. because there may be questions for you. Okay, Mr. Ramar, you have questions for Mr. I know I have one objection. Okay, we have to Okay, this is this deal
with P2 because we have to deal with P2. P2. Yeah, this is that's your objection. Yes. Okay. So, let's deal with Okay. I think um except for one slide,
I think, and except for what I've already objected to. I I think it's fair argument that I'll deal with in my summation, but there's one assertion of fact from page 41. Slide 41. 41.
Yeah. Mr. Smith, would you be able to bring that up on the screen? Slide 41. I think so. If not, we have top 41. That's slide 41.
The lower right hand corner of each slide. Yeah, there it is. There it is. Uh I don't know where the five experts come from. Uh that was the memo. I I probably have it in my stuff, but that was the memo where it was Janet Lake and and Chief Afraham were on the from and then there
were the three experts was Miss Pavalini knew well Chuck Bizar. Oh the the committee committ members of the fire the fire committee. So you want him to correct 41. Can we redact and edit?
The board can then write on it whatever it wants to write because I think my objection is accurate. It wasn't five experts. It's an assertion of fact. I'm trying not to overwhelm the board. You know what? Mr. Smith, would you consent to a changing of that text from experts to
fire department members? Fire department personnel. Well, I think it was more than Well, well, they were Well, they were on the committee, the review committee. More than members, I think they were all ex chiefs, I think. Yeah. former chiefs and structural engineers and they all have a specific but you could have it as
the chief Janet Lake the fire official and three committee members. How's that? The the the memoirs but the but the memo identified whatever the title of the committee was. So perhaps we could just conform into that. Instead of five experts,
Janet Lake, Peter Appraamian, and three members of the Liberty Corner members of the Liberty Corner. Liberty Corner. Fire department committee. Fire department committee. Review committee.
I think it was review committee. Mr. Raymon, how's that? That's fine. Okay. So, would that change then? No objection to P2 in. I have no objection. I owe you I owe you um copies of Dr. Chow's pamphlet where it's applicable and I owe you the
measurement for the parking space. But yo, Fran with a copy to me and a copy to Mr. Rayar and a copy to Mr. Simon. Okay. Okay. So, P2 was now in evidence and you can put your tag on it. Now, let me just see if there's any other
leftover. Right. You're submitting the pamphlet. That's going to be P3. Okay. Okay. Anything further, Mr. Rammer, questions or any other objections? Okay. Any questions from anyone else? Miss Pavlei, I just have a question. Mr. Quinn,
Mr. Cody, could you go back? Mr. Cody, I'm trying to follow Mr. Ryar. Mr. Smith, could you go back to the slide where you I think you had it marked as variances where it was the transition area averaging. I just want to get clarification. Yeah, it wasn't um
Or maybe it wasn't marked as the variance was for encroachment on the wetlands, not the transition area. They're good. No, go back. I want the I want the percentage of that. That's what I want. That's right off of um explain that to me.
Um I'm trying to see if I can do it without bringing up an exhibit. Um can we bring up an exhibit? Can we go to CO3? Because are you suggesting that the information we've been given my understanding that is incorrect that they're actually exceeding what they're permitted to do
by the D. I know they're not exceeding it. They're 300 under. So they've encroached by 2,800 but they they've transitioned 32. So got so they're in compliance. Thank you. There isn't any room to maneuver. Thank you.
Above averaging. Okay. Any other questions from anyone for this witness, Mr. Quick? Are we sure he's not a lawyer? No, he's better than a lawyer. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Okay, that's where
we're going to leave it tonight. Uh, what's our next meeting date, Mr. Drew? Let's do some scheduling. The next hearing date is May 19, 2015, but not the entire hearing, I believe.
Frank, correct me if I'm wrong. Um, on is that the meeting where we also want the board to have a work session on the proposed 2015 housing plan, fair share plan? Let me finish my question. Is that the meeting? That is the correct. That is correct. Okay. So, it's my suggestion because I'm
just looking out in the public and probably there's at least 50 people here. So, I know that Mr. Malay for example asked if they could do the housing plan element, fair share plan first and this second, but then all
these people would have to wait. So, again, Mr. Malay get may get mad at me, but I think the board should decide, but it would only be Mr. Malay and those other members who are not participating that would wait if we did ISBR first and
the housing plan element second. This is not my decision. I'm just putting it out there. But you guys should decide which is going first and which is going. How long do you think that work session reasonably? It should be. Well, you might think that I'm crazy, but I don't think it's going to take more than an hour because this is Do you
think I'm wrong? You think it's going to take an hour and a half? Mr. banish your uh thing is not on. I think it's really difficult to estimate how much time that discussion is going to take. I think I I think an hour is optimistic. I think an hour and a half is certainly within the realm of
possibility. It's the sort of subject that could actually take a few hours in a given evening, but I don't think that we're going to need to devote that kind of time to it. The issue is this. If members have questions that require me to give legal
advice and I think that the only way I can give the legal advice is to go into closed session then we would have to empty the entire room and I don't know if you guys are going to ask those sorts of questions or not but that's why again it's up to you but
logistically it makes more sense to do it to do this first Mr. Chair so going along with what Mr. Dill said what has in the proposed schedule is work session to begin at 9:30 p.m. on the master plan.
I think that is the same thing you're saying and I'm just saying Mr. Malay is not here. I'm just bringing to the board's attention that he had something different. Yeah, he had a request. I'm agreeing with you and saying that what don't agree with me. I'm just saying he had a request to have that this is
I think what Fran has now is the proposed solution is is the best choice. Okay. that we start on master at 9:30 which means as you're saying that the ISR will go before that Mr. Malay has been denied
by Mr. Santoro if he's if he's uh if he's listening listening and taking notes. So that's May 19th. The applicant has extended until June 30th and we need some more dates because just by a show of hands, how many more people want to
address the board on this application? 11 12. So we're approximately 20 people. So I think we should just be realistic about this and try to schedule at least two at least two more meetings right now. So
Fran, when's the next available meeting after May 19th? Um July 21st. Um just what's happening in June? What's happening on June 2nd and June 16th? June 2nd. Um
well um I think it fits in with what we were talking about. Um we would need to have a master plan public hearing. Um and that we the when we initially started talking about this, we put that public hearing after the two other
applications that are scheduled on that night. Um we've had a suggestion to reverse that order, but needless to say that does not impact the this application. Just so the applicant understands, the New Jersey Supreme Court on March 10th, 2015 decided the
the uh motion in a litigance rights in the KOA case and that impacts an awful lot of municipalities including Burnham Township and that's what this 2015 housing plan element cash plan is going to have to deal with and it was
not contemplated at the time we were discussing schedules. This is I mean it it has to get done. So what about June 16th? I believe we we told fellowship senior living that they would be on that date.
So let's get So July what is the first available date? July. We also we have another another minor subdivision that's been waiting around to be heard. Um we put them certainly tentatively on July 7th. So the next date for which we have nothing
so far is July 21st. Okay. So if this goes in July 21st that could be the only application on that night. Yes. As of right now. Yes. Okay. So what about August? That is August smoke. August. Nothing is scheduled for August 4th or August 18th. I am aware that we
might not have a full board. Okay. So let's let's just do an informal poll of board members. Are people going to be here on August 4th? Oh, yes. So, two nos, but again,
judging on the fact that there's 20 people, I I don't think we're going to get up to the point of a vote. So, my suggestion is is to make July 21 and August 4 the two dates and get an extension out to the end of September.
do the I tell you what, why don't we also put on in exchange for we have to leave some room for something else. So July 21 and August 4th, but we're asking the applicant that they
will extend till the end of September. We're we're going to give you the entire month. Okay. We're going to give you all of August. Okay. So, extend to the end of September. We're now going to also tenatively give you also August 18th. I would suggest that we have to leave a
gap for something else and do September 8th instead of August 18th. No, it's going July 21. So again, we're going to have other applications, Randy. So we'll see what happens at the time. But okay, you know,
I I think for members of the public, if it's closer together, these people have been Yeah. I think because we're in the public comments section of the application, it makes sense to keep the momentum as strong as we can. Yeah. So again, to be clear, the the hearing on the application is now going to be
extended to to May 19th, which we had before, July 21, August 4, and August 18th. July 21 and August 4 are contemplated as entire meetings. August 18th right now could be a partial. We
don't know. And the applicant has extended out to the end of September. And there's no there's not going to be any further notice. This is the notice being given. May 19th is from 7:30 to 9:30. Yes. Yes. Good point. May 19th is from 7:30
to 9:30. Thank you very much. No further notice. Okay. Thank you. Uh, next item on the agenda, comments from members, Miss Pavini. Uh, Mr. Plaza, I would like to recommend that the planning board send a letter to
the administrator and uh and the assistant administrator, Denise and Bruce, requesting that uh we receive longer arms on our microphones at the tables, an additional microphone for each table, as well as maybe um a pocket
mic for a witness. Terrific. Yeah. Excellent. We have been we have been dealing with these microphone issues for years. All in favor? Second. Anybody opposed? No. Okay. Frank, could you draft that up for our review, please? Thank you.
Listen, I got to defer. Any other any other comments from members? Comments from staff? Is there a motion to adjurnn? So move to second. All in favor? I. All opposed. Hearing none, we're ajour.