And I was just a little bit like we're good and >> call the meeting to order. This is the May 19th, 2015 regular meeting of the Bernards Township Planning Board. Please rise for the flag salute. >> I pledge allegiance 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. Miss Plaza, I am very very sorry, but I
can see that something is not uh recording at the level that it needs to be recorded. >> We're standing by. You'll let us know when we're online. >> Okay. My apologies. to do. >> 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 Bernardville News, Bernardsville, New Jersey to the Courier News, Bridgewater, New Jersey on
January 12, 2015, and was electronically mailed to all those people who have requested individual notice. The following procedure has been adopted by the Bernards 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, please. Ah, we're good. >> Miss Alpert here. Mr. Kuchucci >> here. >> Mr. Hagen >> here. >> Miss Clanet >> here. >> Mr. Malay >> not see Mr. Malay, but I suspect he's coming later.
>> He's recused from the first part of the meeting anyway. So, >> Miss Pavlini >> here. Miss Padichi >> here. Mr. Santoro >> here. >> Miss Axe >> here. >> Mr. Harris >> here. >> Mr. Plaza >> here. Next item on the agenda is the approval of minutes. The March 17,
2015 regular meeting. Uh >> is it the March 17 or the February 17? >> March. >> March. >> Did we also get handed out the February 17? >> We did that last time. >> Oh, so these are just the old I'm
catching up then. Okay. >> Sorry about that. Bear with me. >> There it is. Okay. Is there a motion, >> Mr. Chair? >> Yes, Mr. Santoro. >> I move that we approve the minutes for the special meeting of March 17th, 2015 as submitted.
>> Thank you, Mr. Santo. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Thank you, Mr. Kleiner. Any good? >> I'm very sorry, Miss Kleiner. Were you at Okay, unless I've marked this completely wrong, were you at the March 17th? Just to play it safe, let's have somebody else.
>> Thank you, Mr. Hagen. Any discussion on the motion? >> Seeing none, Fran Ro. >> Um, Miss Albert, >> yes. >> Mr. Kuchi, >> Mr. Hagen, >> yes. >> Miss Pavini, >> yes.
>> Miss Padichi, >> yes. >> Mr. Centuro, >> yes. >> Mr. Mr. Harris, >> I have to abstain. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Is that it? >> That's that that's the role. Those people
>> Well, the other people who she didn't call I assume are abstaining. >> Well, they can't vote. >> They were absent. >> We have enough. >> For example, I believe Miss Kleiner came in late. Yes. Yes. >> So, technically she wasn't absent, but she should abstain because she wasn't here for the whole meeting.
>> Okay. Do you want to abstain and then >> Yes. >> Okay. My apologies. >> Does that clear up the role then? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Because Mr. Plaza was not there. And >> I was here. >> That's correct. >> Miss was not there. >> I just wanted to make sure Miss Kleiner was counted on the role. >> All right. Next item is the approval of charges against escrow accounts. Tonight
we're considering those of Jonathan Drill Esquire for April 2015, EKA Associates, April 16 through 30, 2015, and John Bolardo, Esquire, April 2015. Is there a motion? >> M Mr. Chair,
I move that we accept the charges against escrow as indicated by you. >> Second. >> Thank you, Miss M. Vichi on the second. Thank you. Any discussion on that? Okay, seeing none, roll call, please. Right. >> Miss Albert, >> yes. >> Mr. Kuchi, >> yes.
>> Mr. Hagen, >> yes. >> Miss Clanner, >> yes. >> Miss Pavini, >> abstain. >> Miss Padichi, >> yes. >> Mr. Santoro, >> yes. >> Miss Ax, >> yes. >> Mr. Plaza, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Okay, next next item on the agenda is an
approval of resolution. I'm recused on that matter. So, I'm going to turn the meeting over to Miss Albert. >> Thank you, Mr. Plaza. Uh, the next item on the agenda is the resolution of the uh approval of the application of Donald
and Melanie Richards and Don Ramazado. Do I have a motion regarding that resolution? >> So moved. >> Second. >> Second. >> And just for the record, this is version two dated May 11th. Yes.
>> Thank you, Miss Kleiner. You second. >> Any discussion? >> May we please have the friend the roll call. >> Mr. Kuchi, >> yes. >> Miss Cler, >> yes. >> Miss Pavlini, >> yes. >> Miss Padichi,
>> yes. >> Miss Miss Ax, >> yes. >> Mr. Harris, >> yes. >> Miss Alper, >> yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Miss Alper. Next item on the agenda is completeness review. Finley is Finley Real Estate LLC PB15-00001
block 1801 lot 1 55 South Finley Avenue preliminary and final amended site plan. Uh Mr. Sh, you want to take us through your memo? Oh, we have the Good evening. Did you slip up there? Why don't you counel your appearance, please, for the
Yeah, that they should all work. Raleigh Steinhower of Biso Laughler and Zelli uh for the applicant Finley Real Estate. Good evening. So, Mr. Shaw, you want to take us through it? Where were >> uh yes, I issued a completeness review memo dated May 13, 2015. Uh there's four
items that are listed as deficient. Items number one and two have been submitted. Uh and I believe the applicants here to request submission waiver from numbers three and four. >> Okay. Yeah, that's uh correct. We are seeking a waiver for the wetlands delineation and the uh environmental uh
impact assessment. >> You want to just give us a little explanation as to why you're seeking those waiverss? >> Um for the first um there are no wetlands. This is uh on South Finley. Um so it's all um pavement. There are no uh uh wetlands and um uh the project uh
essentially involves um taking out the existing flower beds and putting a uh outdoor uh patio for uh dining. So, uh, there is no, uh, environmental impact either. So, for debt, excuse me,
>> questions from the board concerning that, >> Dave, for loosening flower beds and putting in pvious coverage, impervious coverage. >> Uh, they're proposing it as a as an open deck, uh, something that would qualify as an open deck, which would not add to
the coverage. Yeah. And you've looked at the tax map. Are there wetlands anywhere adjoining? >> No. No. We're We're pretty much fully There's nowhere that wetlands could possibly be within a pretty good stretch.
>> I mean, the church is on Finley Avenue and they have wetlands. Yeah, they're they're a good distance away. We're we're to talk we're more than we're not within 150 ft of anywhere that could be wetland. Therefore, there wouldn't be a wetland buffer on the property either.
>> What what map or what reference are you relying on to make that determination? >> Just the fact that all the property is is either built on or paved uh building or street. Um there's nothing there >> that could possibly cause and but just
based on your personal knowledge of that >> section right just on personal knowledge and >> does the other than what Mr. Schlaw has indicated does the applicant have any other basis of the knowledge or or or assumption that there's no wetlands or is it consistent with what
Mr. Schlly said? >> Uh it's consistent with Mr. Schlly said. >> Okay. So just for the benefit of the board, Mr. Drill, a submission waiver doesn't have the impact of relieving the ultimate obligation. Correct. >> Correct. So under the MLUL,
>> when the board waves something for completeness, it just enables the obligation to be complete. Generally, the board would not wave something that one of the board experts would need to prepare a report or that the board would need to make a decision. But if you wave
something and later in the course of the application it turns out that maybe an objector comes in or a neighbor or someone with some evidence that there's wetlands there, you haven't waved it from application. You've waved it just for completeness. So you don't lose it
in the the MLUL actually says that just because you wave something, you can request it later. You just can't deem the the application incomplete later because of it. the time clock starts running once it's complete, but you could ask for it later if it turns out there are actually wetlands out there.
So, I'm not weighing in on it's up to you whether to wave it or not. I'm just giving you the legal advice. >> And just to follow up on that, is it consistent? I'll just ask the other two professionals. Is there any expectation that there would be a need for such a thing to weigh in on the application ultimately as you understand it at this
point? >> Not as I understand it at this point, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I mean I haven't looked at the plan, but based on what Mr. Schlly said, it you'd be hardressed to find wetlands in that piece of ground. >> Okay. >> What about the environmental impact study? >> Yeah, >> again, it's my and again, I haven't
looked at the drawing, but if it's all impervious surface now, as Mr. Sly said, I don't know what environmental impact they could possibly address other than removing impervious surface. >> Anything further from the board?
Is there a motion? >> I move, Mr. Chair, that we deem the application complete. >> You wave the two items >> and that we w that we wave the two items and deem the application complete. >> Okay, I'll second. >> That's Miss Albert and Mr. Carluchi.
Thank you. Any discussion on the motion? And just to be clear, the motion's for submission waiver >> for completeness. >> For completes >> for the two items. >> For the two items. Okay, Fran, roll call, please. Okay. Miss Alper, >> yes. >> Mr. Galuchcci, >> yes. >> Mr. Hagen, >> yes.
>> Miss Kleiner, >> yes. >> Miss Bevlini, >> no. >> Miss Padichi, >> yes. >> Mr. Centuro, >> yes. >> Miss Ax, >> no. >> Mr. Dlaza, >> yes.
>> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is the continued public hearing of the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge, PB12-001, block 9301, lot 1,24 Church Street, preliminary and final site plan
approval. And just for the benefit of the public, uh, to give some guidance on this evening's agenda, we have a necessary work session on a master plan element. Uh, we had originally intended on starting that at 9:30. We've run a
little late today, so we're going to move the start time of that to 9:45. So, for the planning purposes and what we can accomplish tonight, we're going to run with this hearing through to 9:45. Uh, are there members that are
Are we losing any members now for the interim on this? Everyone's okay. >> All right. Before we we are in the middle of public comment and we're just going to put on the record the statement we've been putting
on the record concerning public comment on the prior meetings. This is the continuation of the hearing of the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge application for construction of a mosque on block 9301 lot 2 known as 124 Church
Street. And tonight we are in the portion of the hearing which is known as the public comment portion for the public's benefit so that everyone will understand it a little bit about the process. The board has rules that apply to the matter in which the planning board is required to proceed. And
previously, as you know, the applicant, the Islamic Society, presented its evidence and testimony, which was then followed by the objector's evidence and testimony through objector's attorney, Mr. Simon. This is now the third portion of the hearing known as the public comment portion. And there is a rule
that applies to it which states that after the applicant's presentation and then the objector's presentation portions of the hearing, the board shall thereafter recognize public comments by interested parties provided that those making comments are sworn and each such
interested party is subject to cross-examination and questioning. So the way this will proceed is that we will recognize anyone who wants to make a public comment. You will then be sworn and you will testify to the facts which you believe are relevant to the application, whether you're in favor of
it or against it or just have comments that you want the board to consider in deliberating on the application. And once you make those statements, you will then be subject to cross-examination. Also, the board rules state that the board may exclude irrelevant,
immaterial, unduly repetitious evidence and/or disorderly testimony. I urge everybody to please be respectful of each other. Everybody has a voice. The whole purpose of this is so the board can hear what is on the public's mind that's relevant relating to the application so we can fairly consider
what's before us. Please, it is not helpful to us for people to either cheer or clap or make ne negative comments about anything that's being said. We have to consider the evidence. We have to consider the facts within the law that constrains us and people's
emotional sentiments will not help us come to that conclusion. So, we do ask that everyone be respectful and you will be heard if you want to be. All these statements that are provided to the board, as I stated, must be sworn testimony, and that testimony, as well as any exhibits which members of the
public offer, must be relevant and material in order that the board allow it into evidence. The reason we make that point is because there were previous rulings made relating to the application. The board previously ruled on two issues. The first related to traffic on
Church Street and the second related to sore capacity and hookups. What we ruled is that neither of those issues is within our jurisdiction. The board will not consider any testimony or exhibits on the issues of traffic on Church Street and sewer capacity hookups because they're irrelevant and
immaterial as a result of being outside of our jurisdiction. That does not mean they're irrelevant or immaterial to other agencies considering the application or other aspects of the application. But this board cannot consider these issues in the application for site plan approval which is pending
before this board. I urge the public to avoid introducing any irrelevant or immaterial testimony or exhibits because the result will be objections from the applicants council which will have the effect of interrupting the flow of the public's presentations. Members of the public are of course
entitled to submit any comments, exhibits or evidence to the proper forms regarding the Church Street traffic and sore issues. The Church Street traffic issue is before the county planning board and the sore hookup issue will be before the Burnage Township Sewage Authority and the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection. So, you will have an opportunity to address those issues before those two agencies or organizations, but if any comments are addressed to them in this form, we will have to ask you to cease your testimony regarding those issues, they can't be considered.
The board's rules are on the township website, so you can download them. and the citation of the particular rule that I have been referring to is rule 2 col2-3 point a and it's under the section captioned order of presentation another rule that should be read is rule
2 col2-9 which is captioned evidence and exhibits and just picking out two sentences the board must follow case law precedent as to admission of evidence in administrative proceedings and the last sentence of rule 22-9 states The board
may exclude irrelevant immaterial, unduly repetitious evidence and disorderly testimony. >> Miss Floria is going to put out a pad of paper on the table. >> She did. >> She did. That's been done. And we ask uh when you're recognized, you come up and that you please write your name and
address on the pad as that will make Fran's job in preparing the minute minutes easier. And if we ever want to refer to what someone said, spelling of names and addresses will be very helpful. >> Okay. One piece of housekeeping. At the last hearing session
on April 21, exhibit P3 was going to be a either portions or a pamphlet titled Understanding Islamic Prayer, which was co-written by Dr.
Chowry with website information. And there was a back and forth after the hearing between um Cody Smith who was the proponent of that exhibit and Mr. Rayar. Um we also CCed Mr. Simon as the objector's attorney. He had one comment
on it, but this is basically a a um dispute between Mr. Smith and Mr. Rayar on behalf of the applicant and they both reached an agreement. And I guess for the record, what has been admitted now as exhibit P3, the actual document in
the board's file is first an email dated April 20th from Cody Smith to Fran with a copy to me, Mr. Rayar, and Mr. Simon explaining that as a followup to the planning board meeting um
last night, he did some measurements. That's actually not P3. What? Strike that. That's just in the board's file. The the board had asked uh him a couple questions. So, he has an email on the file. What's in the board's file is P3 is a cover sheet that Mr. Smith gave out
that night with the website address of um where he found the pamphlet, understanding Islamic prayer. And then there are portions of the pamphlet consisting of one, two, three,
four, five, six, seven, eight pages. And that is P3. Boom. >> That's it. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Okay. With that, we're back into the
public Love coming. Uh m Mrs. Quick, did you want to go first? You were >> I would appreciate that. >> That's terrific. Why don't you come forward? Yeah, you were next. >> Again, for the record, Mrs. Quit was up last time and then she found out there
was a problem with her PowerPoint and that's when the chairman said she could be first at this hearing session. >> Well, you're getting that set. If somebody else has a question, we're going to call them forward and let them ask it. I just have a procedure. >> You just got to be on the mic though, so I'm not trying to inconvenience you this week. I'm not taking
>> No, no, no, no. >> I just want to ask a procedure. Um, >> you just have to say your name and address, please. >> Barbara Burger, 94 Church Street. >> Thank you. >> Um, a procedure question. Um, does an attorney have the right to object while there's a public comment or is that up
to the planning board to decide whether the public comment should be um, you know, >> dismissed or whatever? I that's why I'm confused because there was public comment and Mr. Raymore was objecting. >> It's the the applicant's attorney has the right to object
>> during a public comment. During the public comment, testimony or comment being offered, >> okay, >> by members of the public, the board then rules on the objection as to whether it's it's valid or not. >> The board rules on it, >> whether it's up. Yes. Okay. Thank you. >> Am I swearing it?
>> Yeah. So, just I've been keeping um numbers. So, you're the 15th member of the public to speak. So, could you please raise your right hand? And do you swear that the comments and presentation and testimony you'll be giving will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you die. >> I do. >> And again, we already know it, but your
name is Loretta. >> Loretta Quick. >> And your address? >> 114 Church Street. >> Miss Quick, I think the best thing to do is probably going to be to take that and hold it. Do I submit anything as evidence now or
wait till after I speak or present? >> Wait till after you present because we don't know if Mr. Ryar is going to have any objections or anyone else and then we'll see where the thing winds up at the end. >> Okay. >> Mr. drill. Chairman Plaza, members of
the planning board, gentlemen, thank you for having me here tonight. Respectfully, I understand and appreciate your service on this board, but I ask if any one of you has actually stood on Church Street near this site, besides the former chair, Mrs. Bianke,
and that was well back in 2012 when plans have since piece by piece been very much altered. Besides Mr. Banish who recently visited the Abatees and Miss Alpert who stopped by on her bicycle the other day. Has anyone on the
board ever walked its soggy lawns? Mrs. Pavini was prompted to offer comments at the March 17th meeting with the Valley Road applicant because she used actually to live on that property. A physical awareness of an area affects one's
perspective. Without having visited the site can a fair decision be made. The site plans only show lines on paper isolated to one lot and do not reveal the location of the mosque with its acreage of asphalt,
its hundreds of feet of swailes, basins, and fences relative to the surrounding residences. I hope this PowerPoint brings you a little bit closer to our neighborhood tonight. Okay, before you do the PowerPoint, I think at this point, why don't we find out what board members, if
any, have visited the site because the the case law says that you're allowed to visit the site. So, if people have actually visited it, I'm not asking you to testify. I'm asking you to indicate by a show of hands, if you visited the site, please raise your hand. >> Awesome.
>> Okay. So, just for the record, every single member who's sitting up here tonight has visited the site >> for the >> Yeah. And there was a >> for the minetses >> there were there was a remember some kind of balloon test for the minetses >> and that's when >> that's when people were out there
>> and at other times also >> that's when Miss Bianke was there several of us that were sever >> and other board members have gone since >> okay >> which also involved a a walk walking tour of the property including around the entire perimeter.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> I'm still going to show you the PowerPoint. We will not. >> I thought you might change your mind. >> Some of my purposes, the rural character of the neighborhood, the impact on the
neighbors across the street, the front yard backyard effect, the drainage and wetlands, the screening trees and fencing, parking on the south side of the property, and nuisances on the quick property. I start with the master plan and ask a
question because it's been of issue whether it's relative to the discussion and the hearings and the interpretation. Does a permitted use summarily negate the master plan? The word permitted appears over 20 times in the master plan. Is the master plan not relevant as
a guiding agent when the board determines whether to grant or deny exceptions or make approvals? I would think that since it's called the master plan, it's there as a resource to implement your decisionmakings. So, I took the liberty of referring to
the master plan, and the first thing I look at in the red is to strive to maintain and enhance community character, protect the integrity of existing neighborhoods, and prevent the intrusion of incompatible new development.
Directly behind me on my property at 114 is the hunter's perch on the English farm. That picture came out a little blurry. It's in a pin oak right off my property in the back and it is actively used by hunters. There are troughs of
corn feed there, rock salts there on and off during the season and it is an active perch. This is a site from the English farm looking to 108 Church Street's backyard. I'm standing right under the perch taking this picture.
This looks directly to my backyard. And this is towards the ISBR 124 Church Street, Somerville Road. All from the English Farm. I point to neighborhood conservation and protection, a building placement
strategy. And this is one of my first points. Um, but actually, no, I didn't want to go here. Sorry. I wanted to speak for a moment about the wild life and the farm paper does not reveal the rural character of the area
or the streets of the animal habit the secrets of the animal habitation. The fact that this plot abuts the historic district of the English farm as clearly established in documents by Mr. Stack is not a matter to be readily dismissed.
This is the English farm's hunting perch. The plan builds a parking lot on open fields where hunters wield weapons on or close to Church Street properties. This is where deer collapse dead with arrows in their ribs, as has happened in
my backyard. In fields where foxes come and abandon their pups, and my husband and I take it to a rescue shelter before the hawks get it, the dough gives birth to her fawn. The hawk the hawk sweeps up rabbits and squirrels. These are fields
where my neighbor Barbara Burgerer calls to say, "Lori, don't be walking the dog back there. My daughter just saw a coyote last night from my backyard." These are fields where the scream of wildlife on the prowl keeps me from going out to my car on some nights.
The English farm is wild and so are the big open yards along the south side of Church Street. And this proposal aims to fill it with the bustle of a public gathering on pavement. Beyond its historical links with the American Revolution resides a more natural area
than one might presume. This wildlife generates from other wide openen green fields in this neighborhood of Liberty Corner. the Algangquin Pipeline, Fireman's Field, Harry Dunham Park, the entire street of the Somerville Road
extension, Shannon Hill Farm, the Fellowship Deaconry, and Irwin Richards Liberty Farm. Now I wanted to go to the front yard backyard effect and I cite from the master plan the neighborhood
conservation and protection a building placement strategy in residential neighborhoods where some homes have been built at the minimum front yard setback while others have been set substantially further back. The results can be a front
yard verse backyard arrangement. In this setting, one resident's front door faces another resident's accessory uses and outdoor living areas in the rear yard, compromising the privacy of
these areas. And I cite the land use. paper does not show that the actual edifice eventual on the ISBR site is not across from my home, but all of its buildings and parking lot activities will be set much farther back from the
road than is my house. Again, Mrs. Pavini, thank you. Just last March 17th meeting stated to Mr. Caster how you disliked having someone's backyard in your front yard when you lived in that area. I will have the activity of an
institutional parking lot and public worship entirely in my backyard and the front entrance and exit in my sideyard off my kitchen door. And then the master plan cites this situation.
This is from my kitchen backside door. It's about as far back as my house is located. And so you'll see that the entire front ISBR property is on my side house and begins my backyard. My my
backyard begins even here at this point. I'm also looking directly across and I've circled Mr. Abate's backyard that is looking onto the front yard of the ISBR site. That's just a little closer up picture
to give you the front yard of the site and Mr. Abate's backyard. I just took these in April May. April May. This is from Mr. Abate's backyard as he looks onto the side house
of the current 124. I don't know how effective trees will planting some trees is going to obstruct this. This is my backyard. And as far as those backyard, was it accessories stated in
the uh building protection? I have swing sets, trampolines. We raised a lot of kids back here. There's a pool. You name an accessory, a patio, it's in my backyard. Croquet sets, volleyball nets, um lacrosse nets, everything's been in
our backyard. I'm probably getting to this later, but since we're on the backyard, I wanted to point out right here. I might go back to this map. Can you write on this?
>> Got to hit the There's a button on top. >> Oh, okay. >> I'm in a blue theme tonight. I just want to point out and I can't believe I turned this map around because through all these hearings I'm like why
don't we turn the map north south east west but it was larger this way. So if we consider ourselves this way turning sideways we're at the southeast corner standing in the north facing this way and my property is at the top of this
picture. Please note the black dots and the last black dot I've circled is where the pipeline begins and the fence ends that is intended the stockade fence that is intended there. I want it noted that my property still extends beyond this
fence for a good 150 ft so that the fence is not a total barrier blocking my property. That fence cannot go over the gas line. that fence um has to stay where it is relative to the gas
line and no trees or bushes can be planted on the gas line which Algangquin mows pretty regularly. Uh once twice a year I I'm not exactly sure. At least once a year. I'm standing at the back of 124 about
where parking is banked. I'm behind its shed and I'm standing in the south side looking towards the north on Church Street. In front of me is the Tanki house.
Just again to get the logistics of the site. This is if I step back into the woods and the woods are fairly sparse here and they can't be thickened because on the other side of the woods the pipeline
continues. So to give you an idea of Mr. Wah's urgency that parking will glare into his windows. I'm trying to prove that the man has a very valid point. If I turn around um from the back of the
woods just to give another perspective. This is looking at the shed from the woods on 124. The shed former dog kennel. I'm calling it a shed on the property that's not to be removed. Then if I turn around at the
edge of these woods again probably in the vicinity of the parking spaces as best I could judge. This is where I'm looking at Mr. Wahhee's house facing the south. If I go through the edge of the woods
from the parking, I'm past the parking now, but it gives you an idea of Mr. Wahi, I believe, saying that his daughter's bedroom will definitely see the impact and feel the impact of lighting on the property of 124.
New topic. Mr. Khan's on-site traffic report states that 107 cars will exit in 10 minutes time. On average, that means a row of cars will exit every 12 seconds towards the Garcia, Patterson, and Tancrei properties whose houses are
situated close to the street. Entrances and exiting would create nuisances 10 times a day. I am not talking about traffic. I am talking about onsite at the exit and entrance at the end of the street. I need to object to this slide
in this statement. In order to distinguish between testimony and argument, I believe Mr. Khan and Dr. Chry uh testified to the heavy uh heavily attended prayer
being the midday prayer on Friday. Uh so it's not Mr. Khan or Dr. Chery or any of our witnesses or any witnesses which actually said that there would be such heavy traffic coming in five times a day
and leaving five times a day and seven days a week. Now the neighbors and the objectors have made that as a point of argument but to refer to it uh as coming from the uh applicant is not accurate.
But portion about the the time it would take to empty the lot. That did come from Mr. Khan, correct? >> Yes. But that was on Friday. >> That was at the Friday. >> I understand. But the the the figure itself I I understand your objection as
to the rest of the characterization. So >> yes, >> the slide purports >> I understand reference everything to Mr. Khan. So the the objection is sustained for the limited purpose uh of it your contention that it
mischaracterizes the entirety of the testimony. >> Yes. And to the extent that that that Mrs. Quick is not pinning it to Mr. Khan's testimony, it's her argument and that's fair. But
to the extent she's trying to tie it to Mr. Khan's testimony as a matter of evidence that's not in the record and not fair. >> Right. Which is why I said you object to her characterizing it as Mr. Khan's testimony and and for that limited p
purpose the objection is sustained. Is there any motion by the board? >> No. >> Okay. You may continue. >> Um I was just going to say that I say on average that means a row of cars. Does that mean Mr. con means it or should I have said on average I
interpret let it go >> let's keep on going >> let it go okay >> excuse me someone notified me that this is not being presented on TV that they can't see them presentation >> we're working on
>> it's a technical item we're working on >> everyone if you look up at the the screen in that corner if you don't see the view of the board up here on the dis and it's not being shown on TV. The board's aware of it as soon as the
hearing started and we called the IT guy and he supposedly is working. >> Sorry about that interruption. >> It's all right. This degree of on-site circulation of entrance and exit would heavily impact neighbors across the
street from 124. The front house windows, the living rooms and bedrooms will take the brunt of nuisances even before and after the vehicles turn onto or out of the street. I cite these have been cited repeatedly the nuisance
ordinances. May I just kind of skim through them just to say the intended uses will comply with the performance standards enumerated below. There's the issue of glare. >> Should I just pass through these a little bit?
>> You you can do whatever you like. You can emphasize them to the extent you want or >> All right, then I will with the red highlight. Exterior lighting shall be shielded, buffered and directed so that glare, direct light or reflection will not become a nuisance to adjoining
properties, adjoining dwelling units, adjoining districts or streets. I emphasize that vibration, the human sense of feeling beyond the property boundary. Odor discernable at the lot line or
beyond. This is not necessarily in houses. I could be standing on my border and the odor could be at my border at the edge of my property in the middle of the woods. Noise uses shall be designed in accordance with those rules and
regulations pertaining to noise levels established by the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection. I might have to pause here just on what I heard you say earlier. I don't know if this applies here or to the DPA, the
Environmental Protection Department, EPA. Um, >> are you talking about the written statement we read at the beginning of the meeting? >> Yes. >> That only applies to sewage issues >> and Oh, okay. >> and traffic on church >> and traffic on the D.
>> Yeah. No, that that's not a that doesn't take everything off the table. Just Okay. >> Just as it relates to sewage capacity and hookup. That's >> all right. Um, I got confused on that. All right. Mr. Khan states, "No test has been done for the impact of noise on the
neighborhood. A consideration apparently deemed unnecessary." This is the NJ D noise ordinance versus nuisance code and the test that applies. I just posted it for documentation and for the record.
Note that the township nuisance ordinances do not refer to house but specifically to lot lines and property boundary though of course houses will suffer too. I want to note no one said this in all
of the hearings. The proximity of the houses across the street from the ISBR plan um to the street 121 is very close to the road. Note the white line where it is. I'm standing um probably on the
shoulder across the street and my husband and I walk past Mr. Patterson's house regularly and I can tell you what Yankee is on second base when I go by. That's the proximity of the house to the
property line. the Tenry House across from 124 also very close to the street and this is where the exit and entrances will be located directly across the street from their houses.
Note by contrast how far back the ISBR property line is and it has that full circular driveway which will have to operate. I thought I'd put aside by a ju justiposition of the two properties to note how close indeed these old
houses are on Church Street to the street. This is the Liberty Corner firehouse from the edge of the property line on the eastern side of 124 or my western
side. My driveway is almost opposite, not directly opposite the firehouse driveway. Whenever a car at night stops in the driveway to exit a fire the firehouse not pulls into the street, the glare
goes directly through my house. >> Objection. Uh this issue arose uh I think maybe at the last hearing with respect to the elementary school. Uh what happens when
someone may stop at the firehouse at night and shine toward Mrs. Quick's property is not relevant to what happens on her side of the street. if and when someone stops at the ISBR site, if and
when it's approved, it's just not relevant. >> Nevertheless, there's glare that comes into my window. >> One second. I have to think about the objection for a second. >> Okay. Sorry, >> Mr. R. I I'm I for me it's a little different than than than that other
testimony and I'm I'm I'm not making a ruling. I just want to discuss it with you to see because I don't I don't know that I agree with you and I'm going to give you a chance to respond further. But Mrs. Quick is talking about an impact of
traffic light headlights in proximity to our home coming from yes a different direction but it's the same general proximity that will exist despite a a perspective difference. It's the same proximity that will exist once
the proposed project if approved is in place. So how how is it not somewhat relevant? I mean, it go it might go to weight and the the board can certainly take notice of the fact that it's an example being given, but why is
it entirely irrelevant? >> Well, first of all, it's opposite her house and across the street, whereas ISPR isn't. Secondly, there's been pages of of of testimony about screening on
our sites. We don't know anything about what screening exists except episodically from simple photographs >> about what screening exists at the Liberty Corner Firehouse. I I don't know how it educates the board about anything
that's relevant to the pending application. Perhaps there's not enough screening at the firehouse. Perhaps the firehouse doesn't comply with its site plan approval. We don't know anything about the firehouse. I think it's tenuous, but for me it's not entirely irrelevant. And given the fact that it's
this is a a land use application, I'm inclined to overrule the objection. Uh the board will put whatever weight on it that it thinks is appropriate. Is there a motion? >> Okay. So, that's the ruling. Please continue. >> Thank you. It's difficult to screen an
exit driveway with a fence or shrubs. A car can't get through them. This is just showing uh again the neighborhood, another angle of the proximity of the houses to the road down Church Street. And I deliberately took this one two
houses east from 100 Church Street. This is across the street from the tennis courts. Actually, I don't know the new residence too well. Um they're formerly the Icely House, but again, you see the proximity of the house in this neighborhood. And I bring this up
because of tree issues. The Iceland's wanted to develop into the backyard away from the street, but there was a sycamore tree there that they were not allowed to knock down. And so they built this addition, which you see in the rear
of the picture right along the street, though they wanted to build in the back. So I bring this up now while I'm on the street, but intend to direct it towards tree removal. on the ISBR property.
Drainage. Again, a drainage regulation here. Um, before I leave off the last point, Joe Abate established that the main public entrance has recently been shifted within full view and earshot of
his back porch, one that he just planned to construct before the 120 property, 124 property went up for sale. I remind you too that from my three rear and side bedroom windows on the upstairs west and south side of my house, a 6-foot fence
is no screening against a noisy and illuminated house of worship and parking lot that has a clear view and earshot from my upstairs windows. I'm sorry. Now on to drainage and design
regulations. I emphasize in the red, the whole ordinance, but in the red, no storm water runoff or natural drainage shall be diverted so as to overload existing drainage systems or create flooding or the need for additional
drainage structures on other private properties. And I will probably refer back to this one, so hold on to it, please. This is my lovely basement. It's wet. We bought a a generator because if those
two sump pumps go, we're under four feet of water without a storm. Just to tell you how wet my property is. On June 12th, Mr. Ramar referred to the Benet Temple and its drive near other residential properties on Whitneack
Road. I actually went here about last June to take pictures because the property was brought up and because of the similarity of the adjacent driveway that was originally proposed on this lot. But I found that I still found um
there's still similarities between the proposal of 124 and this temple and the house next to it. Note the two driveways and the land in between it, please. Mr. Spellelman, who lives next door,
this is at the end of his driveway. And this is >> objection. Uh, what the slide says is Mr. Spelman says what Mrs. Quick is about to do is hearsay.
Can you can you explain the significance of the photo without referencing statements to Mr. Spellelman? >> Um that there's activity Saturday nights driving back and forth that generates noise. And you can see that >> objection that that's coming from Mr.
Spelman. It's not coming from Mrs. Quick. Just because she doesn't say Mr. Spelman says >> well you're now you're you that might be a fair inference but we don't know that for sure. So do you have an independent knowledge of what you were just relating to us or
is that only derived from your >> that the temple has parties? Yes. Do I have an independent knowledge of that? Yes. >> Right. So the facts you just communicated to the board were based on your own independent knowledge. >> Yes. >> Okay. Then overruled. Um,
the screening here is inadequate was my point to prevent noise and intrusion. But I still stuck to these photographs because as I took these last June, I saw that cattails were growing in between the lot. So I'm standing on the
Spellelman driveway looking towards the temple property. I went back to it this year in April 2015. This is again you see the driveway in the left hand corner lower left hand corner that's the Spellelman driveway and then the temple
is to the right this is a ditch in between the properties so you see the grading in the front I went a little closer saw water in the ditch now I got a better picture of my cattails that I had seen a year ago but
didn't photograph well indicating the wet air wet wetness of the area to the degree that cattails grow in it. And then I went to see how well they maintained their drainage ditch on the property and it doesn't look like they keep to the rules at all.
>> Objection. H how is it relevant whether Benet Israel abides by the rules or not? >> Yeah, that's sustained. The photo is fair game because the the property was indicated as an example by Mr. Rayar of
of a similar type of development. So, uh, the depiction of the buffer and the arguments we're making about the buffer is fine, but as to that particular property owner's compliance with with township ordinances, it's not relevant. >> Okay. I just want to go back to no storm
water runoff or natural drainage shall overload the ex existing drainage system or create flooding or the need for additional drainage structures on other private properties. And I hope that this is closely examined and looked at before
approval because it looks like the same thing could happen to me on my property. Next slide. On April 2015, this is the southeastern corner right where I had circled it on slide 26 earlier.
Will the 270 ft ditch along the eastern border turn into this? All right. So, I won't ask that question. But it's an uncanny resemblance what already exists on the property to this
at the temple benai. >> Should I go back to slide 36 on the map? >> What just 45 is the applicant's property? >> Yes. This is 124, the southeastern corner pretty much where the pipeline begins and near to
where the fence will end. I have further pictures of this in a broader scheme. Is there a guarantee that the applicant's grading and paving of the property will not result in flooding to the surrounding properties? Could this development prevent the regional surface
runoff of Church Street from flowing in its westward direction and cause water retention on my property? I keep the sun pumps. I mentioned that the 124 property level is currently lower than 114s. It's
the lowest property on the street from the tennis courts at Minebrook Road and the English farm to the south. Should excavation raise 124 level so as to create its own runoff, is water likely to stop at my property?
The current 114 property has much room for development, which would of course expand imperous coverage on my property. I have a gravel driveway. My driveway is not even paved because I don't want any more imperous
coverage. However, there's space and room on my property for it. The >> objection >> future development of Mrs. Quig's property is not relevant to the current application. That's not what the regulations
>> and it's speculative. >> I quote the ordinance. >> One second. >> What Mrs. Quick is now referring to and she flipped back is existing storm water runoff or natural drainage. Yes, that is relevant.
>> That is relevant. But future development and its consequences for runoff in the future depending on what Mrs. Quick develops is not relevant to this application. >> It's not relevant as a matter of
evidence presented to the board. So I I'll sustain the objection as to that, but it's I I think it's fair game argument, so I'm not striking the comments. >> You may proceed. >> Okay, this is another picture of the back
corner. of the property. I ask these questions. Has the EPA merely done an office review of this site? Has the EPA walked the site and examined the plans up against the actual
wetland designations. I didn't know that so many of you had been on the site. >> For clarific, you mean the D, not the EPA. >> I'm sorry. Correct. >> Okay. >> I mean, it says the EPA, but I assume you mean the D. >> I guess so. Department of Environmental Protection. EPA is a federal agency. It's no jurisdiction.
>> Okay, that's a good >> So it's D. >> My confusion. >> Sorry. >> So has the D merely done an office review? Has it walked the site and examined the plans up against the actual
wetland designations? Has the DP examined the drainage system as adequate in the event that 114 Church Streets should want to add onto the property and consume pvious coverage. In doing so, I
ask those questions. I have not looked at these maps in a long time. Um, Mr. Schlly, could you possibly get them up? um CO6, the most recent one. And now I'm moving a little bit onto
trees. CO6 and CO2. >> Just while while research is doing that, let's just get a confirmation from Mr. Quinn. Can you answer those questions about the D making a site visit? >> Sure. The applicant has obtained an LOI, which is the DP essentially verifying
the wetland boundaries that was established by the applicant professional. >> Does the D do that looking at paper or did they come out to verify? >> Well, I can't confirm it, but in general, most times with the wetland this large, the D actually comes out and
field verifies it. Not always, but most times. Can can that be verified? >> I mean, not tonight, but >> but my suggestion is with the state, >> call get the file number from that D LOI
and just call the D and find out and if you find an answer that they didn't, then bring it to the board's attention. That's an interesting question. Did I turn off the >> No, you're on. Come on. >> I noticed that there's some trees
located in the detention barrier, detention basin that have not been crossed out for removal. So, I was curious how that was going to work. Um, in looking at the map here,
they're very, very close to where the detention basin would be dug out, and I was wondering how the roots would survive some of this disturbance. >> Mrs. Quick, can you mark them on the map so we can see what you're referring to, please?
Some of these are rather large trees and I have pictures of them. >> They're not marked with an X, so I presume they're they're not to be removed, but I don't know how they're not going to be disturbed. >> Mrs. Quick, I think you're mistaken.
>> Am I? >> Those are proposed plantings that you circled. Those are things that the applicant's proposing to plan. Okay. Subsequent to development. >> Okay. My bad. >> Be the ones behind them. >> All right. >> That are going to remain. >> So, can I erase this?
>> I don't know how. Dave, how do you erase that? You need assistance. >> I think you need assistance. You want to go back to the full screen. No tree with a diameter in excess of 4 in DBH shall be removed if located a
distance greater than 25 ft from any construction unless approved by the board. The first priority is to protect all trees on the site whenever possible. The trees should be saved, should be protected with fences, signs, root zones, etc. I find that my husband
cannot wrap his arms around any of these two pin oaks on the property and I don't know how they will survive um this the um detention basin that they are so close to. I don't know how they'll survive that. and I find them specimen
trees. Here's just um an NRCS conservation government site that speaks of the value of Pin Oaks which has the same symbol of our township right behind you folks almost the two oak leaves.
>> Objection. >> Well, first of all, Mrs. Quick is not an expert. Second of all, she's uh presenting a fact sheet from somewhere out of context and she doesn't have the expertise to
discuss it as testimony. >> Who published the the fact sheet that you're >> is it a can you go back? >> Is it from a is it something from a governmental agency or is it >> Yes. Natural
>> Randy, >> United States Department of Agriculture. >> I think we could >> natural resources conservation service a plant facts sheet and I have their website. >> Okay. I I think we could take judicial notice of that being
>> if it's a governmental publication. The board rules say they could take judicial notice of that. Now, the connection between that and these pinnokes, that's it. It might be argument, not expert testimony. I assume that the connection you're making between that and the Pin
Oaks, this is your argument. You're not a tree expert or anything. Correct. >> No. No. Um, >> correct. >> Correct. I am not a tree expert, just a tree hugger. Um, so the the uh pinnokes are beautiful, old, essential to wetlands, indigenous
to the area, very essential to the character of the neighborhood, housing the wildlife, etc., which all of that government site, conservation site speaks of. And um this pin oak will stay on the property. The other two seem
endangered because they are located so close to the retention basin. And this pin oak right on the property edge will stay. The other two are commensurate to this one which is a beauty. I am a tree hugger.
I also bring up the predicament predicament of fences and walls. Fences and fences and walls located in any side or rear yard shall not exceed six feet in height. yada yada. The fence shall have minimal minimal visual impact on
surrounding properties and appropriate landscaping. Um, Mr. Smith brought this up last month and I don't want to belabor the point, but I do want to put some pictures and some thought further thought behind the
words. All fences or walls shall be symmetrical in appearance, shall have posts or columns separated by identical distances. Let me show you some pieces of the property where the the stockade
fence of 270 ft is to be located. You ask me how it's going to go here without a zigzag effect, with symmetrical posting, and with any aesthetic value whatsoever.
How does it go down the line there? >> How does it go between those trees without zigzagging? How does it enhance the beauty of this property line? How is it not a visual intrusion without
aesthetic appeal? The fence will not go here. It stops by this point in the front of the property. Therefore, all the exit and entrance traffic will be right there.
I went down the corner to Dunham Park and Dunham Park has a fence along the first house on Somerville Road that abuts the park. And it seems that the park gave ample protection, both visual
screening and fence screening. The top of uh this tree top was lost to Hurricane Sandy. There's a fence back there. If you can look through the density of the trees, but there's no room for trees to be posted outside the fence because there's
a swale and a basin there. The grass hasn't even grown up. It's just starting now. There's the fence again with pines. You come um you can see the house on the other side amply protected from the bike
path that enters Dunham Park. There's a picture of the fence. I believe Hurricane Sandy took out a tree there, too. This is the back of the property, but all the way down to the street, it's amply protected with screening of nice
vegetation and trees, which cannot be done with this fence on my property. There's another picture of where a 270 foot long stockade fence is to run on the quicks western border. And again, I remind you that six feet of
fencing doesn't help my upstairs windows. There's a fence to cut right through the grass lawns and field uh nature of the area. It would cut right through there, the
whole thing. The fence is to run 270 ft along the western quick property and yet must end at the gas line where construction is prohibited. I kind of said this already. From this point on, it can no longer function as a protection against
nuisances, thus impacting the quick property line for the next 150 ft of the rest of our backyard on the south side. This blue arrow on the right points to a marker on the property. That is where
the fence must end because that's where the eastern property line of the ISBR plan is. and it's where the gas line begins. It's also why the woods are sparse right in this section, which is
why parking in this rear section will um impact probably Mr. Wahhee in the back. There's just no place to grow woods on the pipeline. They are far too scanty. You can see how scanty they are from here. And I took pictures from there
earlier. I also point to the cattails to show the location of how wet this area is, which makes me wonder if the DP walked the site. All right. So, that's right where the
blue arrows pointing. You can see the cattail suspended there a little bit. And that's a closeup. This is taken just in April. As I back up on my property, you can see that there's no protection from
nuisances once there's parking in those woods there because the fence stops at that white post. New topic The drop off and pickup of children was spoken about, but I thought I could shed
some clarifying words on it. So, I did this closeup of the area. It's now evident from the January 2015 meeting that school children are intended to be dropped off and picked up unsafeely. Under the current traffic circulation
plan, instead of cars pulling up along a yellow curbside to drop off children from the vehicle's passenger side at an unobstructed area, the plan intends to drop off children from the vehicle's driver's side or passenger side in
between parked cars that can be backed into the very places where the children are moving. that can be backed that cars can be backed into where the children are by the 17-year-old who testified here a few months ago that
he'll be attending school there. I had 17year-old driving. That's this wrinkle in the forehead. The plan intends to drop off children from the vehicle's driver's side in between parked cars that can be backed into the very places where the children
are moving. The entire ISBR plan for school children is blatantly backwards and unlike procedures of other institution and towns that accommodate children. The township library, the YMCA, St. James Church and School,
Liberty Corner School, the Liberty Corner Presbyterian Church, William Annen, and Ridge High School are all designed with a yellow curbside for delivery of students and children with no obstructions or contiguous parking
spaces within the zone. That was pretty >> That finishes that. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Schlide. >> Did they do this? >> Click to exit >> this. Help me with my pictures. Just while you're the last two pictures,
but it doesn't show more line 14. less comprehensive. That's what she has. She's got she's got this one. >> This is what they did with that to bring this door 25 ft to get this one away.
>> Thank you. So, I don't think we've actually seen this. >> On Saturday morning, the ISBR had a gathering. And again, I thought I'd step out my side door. >> And it's this past Saturday,
>> last Saturday, the >> 17th, 18th, 18th, >> 16th, >> 16th, 16th, 16th. >> 16th. >> Yeah. >> Just to show you what it looks like to have vehicles on there. Again, everything seems so abstract on paper or
without imagining the impact. I was glad to see a a crowd gathered there. Um, so I stopped to take a few pictures. >> Where were you standing when you took those photos? >> Um, just at the edge of my
uh garage. Run it again. This is about right here, the edge of my property. I'm standing in my driveway, the top of my driveway and past my garage.
Actually, I had one right from the back door, but it didn't come out well. Okay. I just want to check >> some more comments, please, if you'll bear with me. >> Thank you, Tom. Over the four calendar years now of these hearings, there are
five interesting points of rebuttal that I would like to reiterate less they go unnoticed among the heaps of words and documents from this application. Lori Carat Sola often questioned the ISBR experts about their plans only to
conclude with this recurring thematic question. So that if you had more acres, this would not pose a problem. A second point, Mr. Ste pointed out that the difficulty of this plan rested in the fact that the original ordinance
required three acres for a house of worship, but that this site, due to wetlands and gas line, in fact only has fewer than 2.2 developable acres. Mr. Hagen then argued if the ordinance
explicitly stated that the land had to be developable. Mr. said, Mr. ST said no, but that it was common sense. Based on my experience from observing this board in action, I thought the matter of this issue of the
wording of the ordinance might have come up for interpretation. Why indeed was Mr. St's issue never brought up for interpretation? Miss Alpert serving as chair one night readily determined the definition of a
county versus township road on the interpretation of what the capitalization of a letter meant in the wording of an ordinance. And this was for an issue as serious as the fire safety of the community. It is written that three acres are
requisite in a zoning ordinance concerning development and land use. Does this not inherently mean that each of these acres should be buildable or developable? I ask again why Mr. Steck's point was not brought up for further
discussion or interpretation before this board. I hope during deliberations in your final decision you revisit Mr. Steck's reputation that this lot does not ultimately render three acres for construction purposes.
A third point Mr. Wahi questioned in one cross-examination of Mr. Khan that, and I paraphrase, so in order to rectify one problem on the site plan, it was simply moved to another area on the site plan. Mr. Wahi
was probably addressing lighting or parking at the time, but his concept frequently applies to the many alterations that this site has been subjected to. What was formerly an exit roadway has been moved to where the Tenretes,
Garcas, and Pattersons will now suffer the brunt end of the nuisances. What was once a front main public entrance to meet fire standards has now been relocated to the rear. Now drop off has changed and in essence endangered
students. Another point to justify the fire safety risks inherent to the ISBR plan and its newly identified public entrance. Mr. Rayar drew comparisons to Riverwalk on Martinsville Road and its rear
accessibility. Upon his cross-examination, Mr. Cody Smith commented that the merchants public entrances were mainly in the front of the building. For clarification, I took a drive. The fact is that there are no doors at all in the
rear of the Riverwalk construct except to one elevator that allows a person access to the building's first floor. The entire back of the building is suspended a full story above a parking lot. Thus, there are no other rear
public entrances at Riverwalk. A fifth point, Mr. Ramar pressed fire chief Appraanian in the February 2015 meeting for a targeted response time in the event of a fire on the ISBR site. I
asked this question of the board. Should the ISBR plan be executed, what's the probability of a prolonged response time in the event of a fire at Liberty Corner School or Mount Prospect School with the
clustered homes in the hills? Does that mean more town houses will burn in the event of a delayed response time? Ladies and gentlemen of the board, the ramifications of this plan are not merely limited to County Road 512 Church
Street, but apply immediately half a block away to the local Town Street, which is Somerville Road. How would the planning board of Edison, New Jersey, having lost their own James Madison Elementary School to a fire one year
ago, April, vote on a proposal such as this one in their township. The ISBR initially purchased 124, intending to add on to the present house there. So, Mr. Chry told us. When this
was not feasible, the ISBR planned to raise the house and develop the site with a degree of moderation. Or so Mr. Chadri told us. Then there was going to be limited and infrequent use of the facility. Or so Mr. Chudrey told us. The
congregation would be small. Or so Mr. Chudrey told us. Then the parking requirement more than doubled. And rather than abandon a bad idea and sell the property, the ISBR hired new professionals who either persuaded them
or agreed with them to forge ahead despite the mounting difficulties of the site and the increasingly vocal protest from the neighborhood. I can't help sensing an attitude on the part of the applicant that it's okay, we can ride
roughshot over this petty citizenry. I understood this explicitly from Mr. Rayar's put up or shut up in his shouted threat at my husband's back at this podium that he would sue us. In Mr.
Chadre's threats to sue the abatees. Even at last March's meeting, I especially noticed a sharp contrast between the tenor of these ISBR application hearings versus that of the parties concerned with the Valley Road
site. What for the neighborhood has been a four-year nightmare for this planning board has been a prolonged trial of judicious patience with nearly a complete turnover of members since the origin of this application.
For the applicant, it has been a display of oburate tenacity and frankly callous indifference to the awful impact this project imposes on the families contiguous to this development. There are eight of us. the Englishes, Quicks,
Pattersons, Abatees, Tancrees, Wahedes, Garcas, and Kenworthies. Consider please all the stress that this plan can inflict in depreciating the whole neighborhood and acknowledge, please the safety hazard which impacts
half the community due to the site's proximity to the firehouse. Consider the inongruity of this plan to the wild rural nature of the environment in but abuing the farm when you deliberate this application.
So far every request for an exception an approval extension has been given the nod for this applicant and many have been needed because the property is not conducive to the applicant's needs and objectives. I want to live next to a
house with a family, not 107 cars five times a day in a black asphalt parking lot. If you should indifferently opt to sustain so many extensions, approvals, exceptions to the difficulties this proposal raises, then we citizens will
think ourselves denied the fair and just protection due to us under the opaces of you, this planning board. That's what equality in this country is all about. My neighbors on Church Street are not the wealthy folk in town. As a matter of
fact, the men are bluecollar workers. Neither my husband nor Rich the heavy equipment operator across the street, nor his neighbor Dave the plumber, nor his neighbor Dave of Jagger Lumber, nor Baboo Singh, the gas station man next
door to me wears a suit or tie to work. We hope that we are not regarded as insignificant because we live on the modest county road and not the well-appointed town houses on a culdeac or the Canterbury roads. Would you want
this on your street? Then why would you judge it appropriate to ours? So because I cannot monetarily compete with a lawyer whose affiliations go up to the US presidential candidates, am I to be regarded differently?
We disparited individuals here did not choose this fight, but were confronted with it and find ourselves up against a formidable institution with apparently very deep coffers. Are we of Church Street to lose this fight to power and money?
I don't want to be schmaltzy, but I've been thinking a lot about this process for four years. Alex Dtoqueville said, "The heart of American democracy resides in the local level of governance. We in this Liberty Corner neighborhood look to
your intelligence, goodwill, and common sense to decide justly and righteously here within the legal parameters of town ordinances for the final vestigages of the integrity of this neighborhood. Is it not within the scope and means of
this township electorate to facilitate Mr. Chadri in his search to establish a suitable place of worship? If he had consulted the township, would the mayor or committee have considered 124 Church Street, a place with wetlands, abundant wildlife nestled
amidst houses, a place that has a gas line easement, a place where you cannot typically walk across without getting your feet wet, a lot too small to meet its needs, a lot where a lovely home already exists, a lot that adjoins the historical district of the English farm
where hunters use weapons just off beyond those trees. a location that interferes with the functionality of the Liberty Corner firehouse. This town has helped corporations, shopping plazas, hotels, clustered communities to establish
themselves. Can we not find a suitable place for Mr. Chadri to build his mosque? Thank you. I was wrong. I appreciate your attention. Mrs. Quick, you can't run away. >> Is there any cross-examination for Mrs. Quick?
>> No, Mr. >> Thank you, Mrs. Quick. Does any other member of the public wish to be heard at this time? Come forward, sir. Is when you come up to the podium, if you could just state your name and address for the record, please. And I think there's a pad there for you to
write it down. Oh, >> thank you, sir. Just your name and address first, please. >> My name is Alex Marcus and I live at My name is Alex Marcus and I live at 16 Lafayette Lane.
>> That's M A R C USU. >> Correct. Can you raise your right hand? You swear that the testimony you're going to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth to help you guide. >> I do. >> My name is Alex Marcus. I live at 16 Lafayette Lane in the Liberty Corner
section of our town. I have spoken to a number of people in town, many of whom, like my family, live within one mile of this project. Many of us are perfectly fine with this project. I am not a member of the ISBR,
but this is America and everyone has a right to be able to worship according to their faith. Denying a group a group of our friends and neighbors a reasonable request to have a house of worship in their community interferes with this right. I have attended several now many
of these meetings. Some immediate neighbors have expressed specific concerns about issues such as parking and lighting, and that is legitimate. In turn, the ISBR seems to have been very accommodating and responsive to requests
by the community and by the board for a whole host of changes. The proposed location is as reasonable a place in our town for another house of worship as any. In particular, being on
two double yellow lines, double yellow line county roads. There doesn't seem to be a problem having a much larger house of worship just a little ways down the road. I think the anticipated attendance that has been discussed has been blown way
out of proportion. To extrapolate from the week's most popular service and just multiply by the number of possible services a week exaggerates reality. Many of the religions in town have daily services. But estimating attendance at
weekday mass or minion based solely on the number of Sunday or Saturday worshippers just doesn't match reality in our community. The number of stopped cars would pale in comparison to the Liberty Corner School
pickup line my wife and I sit on, which is twice a day, 5 days a week, 10 months a year. No one has proposed relocating our school. And no one has suggested a better place in our township for this facility. As I said, I have spoken to a
number of people in town who, like myself, are perfectly fine with this project. I hope the board will approve it. Thank you. >> Thank you. Any cross-examination for Mr. Marcus? >> I know. Mr. >> Anyone seeing none?
>> Thank you, sir. >> Ma'am, testify. >> Yep. Please. Thank you for raising your hand. Again, just please you could first just write your name and address on the pad and then when you're done doing that, you could please just state it for the record.
Hi, good evening. Um, my name is Wayey Joe. I live on number nine Queenberry Way, Basking Ridge, New Jersey. >> What's your last name? >> Z H O U. >> Z H O U. >> Yes. >> And your address again? >> Number nine Queenberry Way in LH in the
hills. >> I live more than one. >> I'm I'm sorry. I'm not catching. >> I'm sorry. >> Queenberry nine. Queenberry. Queenberry. >> Queenberry. Q U E N B E R R Y. >> Can you raise your right hand? >> Sure.
>> You swear the testimony that you'll be giving in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth. Don't put the truth to help you guide. >> Yes. >> You got it. >> As the other gentleman uh he said he live one mile away from where the place that IBR is going to
build. I also live more than one mile away from the place that IBR is going to build a new mosque. So why should I care about what is going on more than a mile away from me? I shouldn't, but I do.
When I heard about the plan that a proposed mosque in Liberty Corner with over 100 parking lots will be built in between the two residential houses in a quiet residential area. I immediately thought about the neighbors that live
next to it. the noise, lights, enormous car exhaust that they will have to face and suffer on a daily basis, five times a day. How could someone bear that? Permit versus plan planning board.
Yes, ISBR has a permit to build a mosque in that size on that lot. But should ISBR build one? Is it reasonable to do so? In my opinion, what people can do and what people should do are two
different questions. Yes, maybe the mosque has a permit to build a 4250 square foot facility, but should it be built on that piece of land? I would say no. I don't want to
repeat the long list of things that Mr. Cody Smith presented last time. He had very thorough research with list of facts. I strongly urge the planning board to consider this matter on behalf of the majority of the people from the
town. This is a time in which we need to make a decision based on all the negative impacts on the lipy corner society and environment instead of solely following what the zoning order say on a piece of paper.
So I also studied the mission statement on the ISBR website. It says the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge is dedicated to providing Islamic religious, educational, cultural and
social services to Muslims living or working in the Somerset Hills and the surrounding areas. providing these services in an open, diverse, inclusive and moderate environment. Um, more
important, it says that to promote interfaith and interfaith dialogue in order to improve relations between Muslims and the people of other faith. I want to emphasize the last sentence is
to improve relations between Muslims and people of other faith. So may I ask the president of ISBR how you are improving the relationships between the Muslims and the people in the community if you
clearly see and hear the voices from the Bernard community that we don't want a facility of that size to be built on that piece of land. I recall the last time a young ISBR member spoke in a
township meeting. I was very happy to see that ISBR has a team of young people who have decided to provide a community services. However, on the issue of building a large facility,
ISBR and the president, you are not demonstrating a willingness to listen to the community and in my opinion, you are not setting a good example to the young generation of your organization. It is also against your statement in
terms of improving the relationship between the Muslim and the people of other faiths. And the number four I want to simply touch the topic of emphasize. We always say that we should empathize with each
other. If any of the ISBR members or the decision makers on the planning board can put yourself in the shoes of the residents of the Liberty Corner, maybe you will feel more strongly uh the huge impact the building of the facility will
have on the daily lives of citizens. The resident of the ISBR used to the president of the ISBR used to be the mayor of this town and I had a chance to talk to him prior to his being elected
to the mayor a long time ago. I felt his passion to serve the community and to improve the quality of living for the people in this town. I was very impressed at that time when I was talking to him. uh please allow me to
ask him a question. Do you think you are making a better change for the majority of the people in the town by putting a mosque at the Liberty Corner? And if one day someone decide to build a 4,000 square foot facility with 100
parking spaces in your backyard, how will you feel? And the next point I'm going to make is the fire safety issue. Uh the future facility is located roughly opposite the Liberty Corner Firehouse. There are a
few facts I would like to emphasize. The building of the facility will impact the fire department response time to the fire as well as the fire trucks responding to the calls and I went to the website of the fire um
company's website. Um it's open to the public. You can also take a look at it. There are a few facts that I would like to state. For five minutes, the best chance for saving lives is 15% of the house destroyed
and 8 to 10 minutes 50% house will be destroyed. 11 minutes 80% of house will be destroyed and 16 minutes 100% house will be destroyed. So based on the existing data from the
Liberty Corner Fire Company, the data shows a significant upward trend of the total cost. That's another fact that the fire company received on a yearly basis. Um in year 2011, they received the 441
calls. 2012 520 2013 445 2014 485 and then for 2015 this year year to date as of March the 1st they received the
104 calls and projected to receive 624 calls. So average between year 2006 and 2010 they received a 360 course on a yearly average and average between year 2011
and 2014 for that four years they received a 473 which is more than 31% increase in less than five years. So, I would strongly urge that since the
fire company is serving more than 1,000 households and business units in this area, we should clearly put a priority of people's life and the uh the property uh of these people as a priority when
they make when you make a decision. And if you cannot prove it's safer or at least as safe as it is now, the plan should not be allowed. And I would also like to urge the planning board members to observe a
service on Friday if you could to feel the traffic zoom in and zooming out of the property in a short period of time. I did. So, so I thought maybe it would be helpful for you to feel how it's going to be real when you when you are
on the property and see so many cars coming and going out in a short period of time. So, I think the mosque will change liberty corner forever and before it goes too far, we should we should stop
it. And I also would like to tell the neighbors that live near that area, you are not a people of eight and you have our support and my support from the hills. Thank you.
Ma'am, excuse me, ma'am. Ma'am, you're not done. Sorry. >> You may be done, but we don't know. So, we have to you have to wait and find out. Does anyone have any questions? >> Uh, I do, >> Miss Pavini. >> I was just wondering where you got your statistics of the fire company serving
more than a thousand households and businesses. >> Okay, that's a good question. Um, I heard from a study, but I should uh find out the real number and I can provide to um their county clerks or somebody. Yes, sure. >> Okay. Thank you.
>> Any other cross-examination for this witness from anyone? >> Okay, seeing no. Thank you, ma'am. Appreciate it. And again, if you could just please write your name and address and then state it for the record when you're ready and you'll be sworn in.
[Music] >> David Tani, 125 Church Street. >> Do that slower. >> David. >> David Tani. >> Okay. Spell the last name. T A N C R E D I >> Okay. Can you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony that you're about to
give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. I hope you die. >> Yes, Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the board. Thank you for your time this evening. I am the owner of the property directly across the street from the ISBR to the north. I've lived there for 11
years. I would like to state for the record that I am opposed to the pending approval of the Church Street Mosque. Currently, there is a single family home on the property and I wish it would remain a single family residence. The proposed building and parking lot is too
large for the current site and too close to residential properties. The ISBR has proven this with the waiverss and exceptions it has asked for. My property will be directly impacted with regard to the following conditions.
The potential for added traffic. The commercial grade lighting that will illuminate a property that is currently very dark at night. The impact. The potential for 107 cars starting their engines, illuminating their headlights in the pre-dawn hours in the morning and the late evening
hours. The noise of the car door slamming and worshippers conversing in the parking lot and in the driveways. the limitations of the ingress driveway will have on the ability to buffer the parking lot and
building from my viewpoint. My front door will have a clear view down the driveway to the building and the parking lot in the front of my house. In addition, I'm opposed to the project due to the following conditions. the impact to the wetlands and the wetland
transition zone. The water retention basin which poses a safety concern due to its depth, the size, potential mosquito control issue, and the close proximity to the street.
The ingress and egress driveway circulation on site may cause a delay in response time for the Liberty Corner firemen both entering and exiting the fire house in response to an emergency. The two-lane egress driveway that is too
close to the neighboring quick property. I would prefer one lane exiting to the east. Um the drainage also raises concerns. There was also talk about added signage along Church Street. I believe it came
from the fire department and we're inundated with signage in front of my house. So, we would not be in favor of any more signage on Church Street, please. The proposal itself is inconsistent with the township's practice of purchasing property with taxpayer money to stop
development and preserve land. For example, the purchase of the English farm development rights and the Sons of Liberty Farm. The concerns of the fire officials with regard to driveway circulation and safety distances are troubling and must
be considered seriously as a condition of non-approval. I would ask this board if it does grant approval the following conditions be written into the resolution of approval. No external loudspeakers or call to
prayer. All exterior lighting to be turned off after the final service of the day. The submitt of a waste management plan with regard to recycling and removal of trash by a waste management company. A tree and shrub maintenance plan to
ensure the constant screening of the property. A maintenance plan for the retention basin. A snow removal plan. Snow should remain on site. Can you just We're trying to take notes. Can you slow down?
You'll start back up with the the tree and shrub maintenance plan. >> Um tree and shrub maintenance plan to ensure the the constant screening of the property. >> Next, >> uh maintenance plan for the retention
basin primarily from mosquito control. That's my biggest concern. Retention bas snow removal. the former owners of the property would have someone come with a snow plow, go around the circular driveway and push it into the street,
push it onto my brum lawn. So, I would ask that this be written into the resolution that they provide a snow removal plan that would either keep the snow on site or have it removed from site to to avoid the snow from being
pushed onto the neighboring properties. And so in closing, I would like the board I would ask the board to vote not to approve this application for the reasons I've stated. Approval of this application by this board will forever change Liberty Corner. Thank you. Thank
you. >> Yeah. Any cross-examination anyone? Thank you, Mr. Tanky. Any other members? More. Okay. >> Your name and address, please. >> My name is Evelyn Drake
and my address is 56 Khill Road in Bernardsville. Can >> you raise your right hand? You swear the testimony that you about to give. We the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth shall help you guide. >> I do.
chairman, planning board members, uh, attorneys and associates. As an active member of the community who has attended most of these hearings, I'm here to express my strong support for
the mosque and belief that it will be a significant asset in the community. I have known Dr. Shawrey and members of his congregation for many years. We first met at the Mayo Performing Arts Center in Morristown during an
interfaith gathering following 911. Subsequently, we participated in several interfaith dialogue groups that built understanding and trust between people of different faiths. We have participated in interfaith Thanksgiving services held in local
churches and synagogues, broken the Ramadan fast together at the current meeting place. Come on, officer. >> Yes, sir. >> Mike Park, 149 Road. I think it was the last meeting, Mr. Chairman, was the same testimony that the uh the board uh
determined was irrelevant, the same type of testimony, basically character. >> Ma'am, are you going to segue into something concerning the the application itself beyond just offering Yes. positive character testimony for Dr. Charger? Yes. >> Okay. Can we get to that aspect of your
presentation, please? So, the objection system is now. >> Okay. With regard to the current application, >> I believe the proposed mosque is reasonably sized for the neighborhood. Several surrounding homes and buildings are larger than it is. Evidence for this
has been testified to by the applicant's architect and is in the transcript. The proposed mosque is 4,200 square ft. Nearby property at 465 Somerville Road is 8,500 square f feet. Uh the Montasuri
school at 361 Somerville Road is 8,100 square ft. 90 Church Street is 4,500 square ft. >> You go slower on these things. Take notes on what everyone says. And >> okay, where shall I? >> You mentioned an 8,500 foot property on
Summerville Road, but you didn't say what property it was. Okay. It's number 465 Somerville Road right behind. And >> what is it? Is it a house? >> It's a house. They did. That's right. >> Okay. Keep then the 8100 ft is what? >> Montasuri school.
>> Objection. Hold on. Come on up. Mr. >> Mr. Chairman, maybe the witness could offer some basis for she quoting numbers like she's not an expert. uh these numbers are like the all the the size of square buildings in town whether this is from the tax maps cuz otherwise she's
not qualified to give the uh uh dimensions of all the property in town. >> Can you provide this was in the testimony? >> Can can you provide the source of >> source of what? >> This was in the testimony in the record here of this hearing. >> But what witness gave this testimony? >> What witness gave these footage figures?
>> Uh I can't recall right now. Would it have been Mr. Khan? >> Well, it's the witness is entitled to argue make arguments based on other evidence already introduced. So,
>> but we'll have to >> you should have someone factch checkck it and if it's not correct then later strike the testimony. If it is correct then let it in. But at this point, if you're not sure then my advice is let it in subject to having it fact checked. >> Okay.
That's that's my >> we'll overrule on that basis. Is there a motion? >> Okay. So, >> okay. I just have a few more. >> I know. But 8100 ft. You say is the Montaseri school where? >> Um at 361 Somerville Road.
>> I'm sorry to go back to this. That that house on Somerville Road. What address? >> Objection. >> What house did you say that was? >> 465. >> 465. The only way we're going to be able to fact check this is if we get all >> it's right behind >> But hold on a second. Yes, ma'am. Come on. Yes, sir.
>> Yes. What's the basis of your objection? >> I think we're comparing apple to orange right now because we're talking about a religious facility versus a res residential places. >> That that's not a legitimate objection. That's an argument, but that's not an objection to the testimony. Okay. So,
that goes to the weight of of what the witness is arguing, but not the So, the that objection is overruled. >> Okay. Where Okay. >> So, 8100 foot Montaser School, 361 Somerville Road. >> Yes. Okay. 90 Church Street is 4,500
square ft. >> Okay. But what is 90 Church Street? >> And I'm I'm rounding to the nearest 100. 100 Church Street is 4,800 square ft
and 114 Church Street. >> 100 Church Street is another home. >> Another home. >> Okay. >> And 114 Church Street you've already heard testimony on tonight is 4200 ft. >> And that's another home. >> Yes.
>> 114 or 104 Church Street. >> 40 114. >> 114. And I just want to be these are you say you rounded them but they're they're pretty specific and attributed to certain addresses. Is it your testimony that you wrote this down during the the
testimony of another witness during these proceedings? >> Um I I learned that these were in the testimony. >> I mean I have I have even >> objection. Put it this way. I think the easiest way to do this is to ask Mr.
Schlly just to fact check it. It either wasn't a testimony or it wasn't. And if it And if it's >> one second, >> you know what? This is what we're going to do because >> Yes. We believe it's in Mr. Lincoln's test.
>> Yeah, but that's, you know, but now you're testifying and it's helpful, but this witness wants to make certain representations or arguments concerning evidence supposedly already before us. Uh, she can't cite us to the particular
witness. So, what I suggest, ma'am, this is not going to be the last evening of public comment. So, I I'm going to sustain the prior objection. Uh, and what I recommend is that you cease your comments this evening and you go and
fact check and figure out where these facts and figures were coming from. Uh, so that you'd be able to tell us that and at that time you can resume your comments. Okay. This won't this won't >> Well, shall I just switch to a different topic?
>> Well, if you do that, then this is your turn. And I'm I'm offering you if this is important to your overall presentation, I'm giving you the opportunity to stop for this evening, go gather that additional information that will authenticate the the facts that
you're prevent presenting to us. Or if you want to cut it out of your your presentation and finish up tonight, that's up to you. >> I'll I'll cut it out and finish up. I'm confident that this is in the record. >> No, wait. But but wait, I got >> I I'm sustaining the objection as of
now, which means that we're not going to consider what you've just told us >> about these other properties and the sizes of them. If you think that's important, I'm not telling you what to do. If you think that's important, you can stop with your presentation now. Go back,
>> do some research and investigation, come back and resume on another date and tell us where you got that information. and maybe it'll come in, maybe it won't. But if you don't if you choose not to do that and proceed tonight, we're not going to consider the testimony you've given us so far. >> Okay. I I think others may bring that
up. >> Okay. So, I'm just >> No, you >> we're advising the board to strike ignore all the testimony starting at the 8,500 foot for 465 Somerville Road going all the way down to the 4200 foot for
114 Church Street. as if >> she never mentioned it. >> It's out. >> Okay. >> You have a question, Mr. >> I'm I'm waiting till you ask if there's or what the board think. >> Oh, you don't you don't have to wait for me to ask. You make a motion anytime you want.
>> Um Okay. I I don't want I want to wait till you finish. >> So, you the ruling. Yes. >> So, so I would object to the the chairman's ruling. Uh because I think it leads us to the wrong road for every witness after this. If they bring up any fact, we could bring up the same thing.
And previous witnesses have brought up that Mr. Khan said this or someone said that. And we did not say, "Show us in the testimony where that was." And I understand as a name. So I think this is a dangerous decision. Um it will stop our progress and make us question every
witness. Um, I think we should take it as a comment from the public and treat it as we look at that and not strike it from the record. >> Okay. So, that's a motion to overrule the chairman's ruling on that motion.
>> Yes. >> Is there a second? >> Mr. Hagen seconds. Any further discussion? >> Fran, roll call. >> Okay. >> Wait, let's just clarify what means what. If if you vote yes, you're voting
to overrule the chairman's sustaining the objection and saying that those five figures are out. So if you're voting yes, >> then they stay in. >> Then they stay in. >> Okay. Fran, roll call, please. >> My apologies. Who did the second?
>> Mr. Hagen. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Okay. Miss Alper. >> No. >> Mr. Mr. Kuchi cannot vote on this. >> Correct. >> Mr. Hagen, >> yes. >> Miss Kleinard,
>> no. >> Miss Pavloini, >> no. >> Miss Padichi, >> no. >> Mr. Centur, >> yes. >> Mr. Plaza, >> no.
>> Okay. So, thank you. The objection is sustained. those five uh pieces of information are stricken from the record. Obviously, they're in the transcript, but they're stricken from the record, meaning the board cannot consider them. Okay. Um my next point is that the site
will not be overlit. The proposed lighting will be the minimum within industry safety limits. Given that the most intensive use of the mosque will be on Fridays from 1 to 2:00 p.m. and Sundays from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30
p.m. The likelihood of light disturbance is very small. The site will not be noisy. The ISBR community has been meeting for worship in the Bernard's Township Community Center since 2007 with no
noise complaints. On a typical Friday afternoon, Dr. Shodri arrives at about 12:30. >> Do I need to state my name? >> Yeah. >> Yes, please. Uh Frank Zhao Z H AO 50
Alder Lane Paskin Ridge New Jersey. >> Uh when you say >> No, no, no, no. What's the objection? What's the legal objection? >> The legal objection that when she said that there's no uh noise or lighting whatsoever during the night. Uh, do you
have a figure that they say how many how many nights that we're we're gonna >> So that's counter that's counterargument. That's not >> No, it's not counter argument. I'm asking for the evidence. >> Yeah. No, you're >> I'm asking for the evidence to support her statement.
>> Sir, then when she's done, if you have questions, you can ask her the questions. But that's not a proper objection to what she is saying, right? This is a little unnatural. It's not like a trial. She's she doesn't have an attorney like some of the other people asking her the questions, eliciting
information. Members of the public just volunteer the information without being questioned. So, you can almost infer what the question would be and and that the subject matter and object to that. What you're proposing as an objection is is not a proper objection. So, you're going
to have to I'm overruling your objection based on the way you characterized it. That doesn't mean you won't have a right to to question her when she's done. Okay. So, >> Okay. >> Please have a seat. Thank you, Mr. Simon. Just do Do you have an objection, sir? >> Just shout it out if you do. So, I know
you're not just trying to get my attention for some other reason. >> Trying to be polite. >> You don't. Please. There's We're beyond that at this point. >> So, because uh Hey, wait a second. Everybody Everybody heard me read the no clapping. I mean, so we're we're beyond following the rules.
>> It is never too late to change, my friend. I promise you that. My objection has to go to foundation. uh this witness is is making a lot of statements and it's one thing to make the statements based on her review of the record or the plans or otherwise but it seems to me that she's making statements based on
information that is told to her from someone regarding impact or whether the plan is a good plan or whether the plan is a bad plan. So >> can you give us an example of of >> I'll give you an example right now. So, so she said that there that the lighting is is based on industry standards and I
don't believe she's a lighting expert who has any independent knowledge of that. >> I mean, I took that as a characterization of of applicants professionals testimony. >> Did she hear the applicant's professional testimony? Was she hear >> it was here?
>> Yeah. And and you know, I think this now goes to a point Mr. Santoro was raising. It's going to cut both ways whether whether a witness is in favor of the application or opposed to the application. This is public comment as
as well as offering other information. It's it's an opportunity for members of the public to argue to us the significance or insignificance of evidence already before us. So I I think we should be careful not to be overly restrictive because that does cut both
ways. >> I'm I'm aware of that. And if you notice, I haven't said a word whether someone is for or against the application for two or three meetings now, but it just seems like that some of the testimony that's being presented by this particular witness at this point has no independent foundation as opposed
to someone telling her what to say about a particular application one way or another. I think with respect to the lighting, there's been, at least the way I understood it, there's been so much testimony uh supporting the lighting in opposition
to the lighting. Uh both the pro and the con. So I that's how I took the the argument being made. Similarly, uh I'm assuming also you were troubled by the statement that there were no noise complaints against the ISBR. I'm assuming that's based on this particular
individual's understanding as to the lack and I don't know what I don't know what relevance that has or >> what's forget about relevance. What's the foundation for that? How how does she know about that? >> She's stating it as a negative. I'm not aware of any noise complaints either. But
I I don't know what value that has necessarily to the application. But again, we we have to be careful to not be so rigid in the application of some of these evidentiary principles that no one can say anything either for or against. So, uh
>> my objections noted. Thank you. >> Thank you. So, it's overruled. >> I have one second. >> Yes. I'm sorry. Is is is there a board motion on the last ruling? >> Okay. Please continue. >> Okay. I I have attended services at um
the Bernard's Township Community Center. So I say this based on my experience of the quietness in the parking lot and um how the services proceed. Um so I was saying that Dr. Shawri arrives to set up the prayer area
and then congregants follow with no rushing or traffic backup at that site. And it is that body that will be um coming to worship at the site on 124 Church Street. They quietly park,
enter the prayer hall with shoes on, walk around a perimeter outside the prayer area to racks where they place their shoes and then prepare themselves for prayer. The ISBR seeks to build a small, locally
supported and maintained facility. The 10 founding families are all members of the ISBR community. Many are medical doctors, attorneys, software engineers, and business owners who contribute to the local economy and have children in
the local schools. The ISBR community has sought to minimize the impact of its mosque on the neighboring properties and to actively find mutually acceptable solutions to issues which have arisen.
It has increased screening, moved the driveway, minimized lighting, and provided the additional parking spots as the board has required. I believe the ISBR community will faithfully monitor all activity at the
mosque and abide by any conditions imposed by the board. The ISB ISBR community will be good neighbors. They have many links in our community and are involved citizens contributing to the improvement of the
lives of children and adults. They support the local women's shelter, serve meals at the veterans association, support the interfaith hospitality network, which provides temporary housing in area churches for homeless
individuals and families, and their children participate in a local interfaith environmental summer camp. I also looked at the ISBR website. Their community is dedicated to providing religious, educational, cultural, and
social service in an open, diverse, and moderate environment. Pardon >> me. Uh, the name is Mr. Parag Dagat at 274 South Finley. >> Assume you object to something. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Can you give me your name again?
>> Parag Dagat at 274 South Finley. Okay. the testimony she's off late providing, how is that related to >> directly to the land use happening at the current location? Ma'am, if you'll kindly explain that. >> No, that's that's not for her. That's
for the >> for for the chair. >> Are are I was giving you a little leeway there. Are you going to tie it into how this is an appropriate >> um use of this? >> It's based on my my statement. I support for my statement that I trust
the community will um faithfully uh monitor their activity and follow all of their um conditions imposed by the board. >> What's that? So on that basis, your
objections overruled. She's limited the purpose of what she was offering. Do you have >> I just I just have a concluding sentences. Um, I want our children to grow up with easy access to each other's homes and houses of worship. I desire to
live in a community which is rich in religious diversity. In recent decades, we've come a long way toward multicultural acceptance, and we now have an important new opportunity. >> Thank you. >> Okay, stay put for one second. Does anyone have any cross-examination for
this witness? None. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Okay. [Applause] That's where we're going to stop public comment for this evening. We're at the 9:45 mark. Uh our next date,
>> our next date is July 21, the entire meeting. And the next date after that is August 4, the entire meeting, and then a portion of the meeting of August 18th. So, there's going to be no further notice. >> No extension.
>> We're good. Okay. July 21, August 4, and August 18th. >> Okay, we're going to take a fiveminute recess while we clear the room. >> That was my question. somewhat of a numbers game to the extent that after the affordable housing obligations were calculated on a
statewide basis and they were then aggregated down to the to the regional level. Then they were further aggregated out to the municipalities. Each town got a number and some towns related to it like it was a quote but quota but frankly it was a planning target. It was
something that had to be achieved. Long story short, the court recently said to um all of us that KA failing to adopt the revised third round rules last
summer or actually last October. And there's a little bit of a story to that. COA dragged its feet. It followed the Supreme Court's order. It prepared new rules. It hired a consultant who had prepared the prior round affordable housing obligations to prepare these
obligations in accordance with the Supreme Court's order. And then they had public hearings. They published the rule. They had public hearings and they scheduled a vote actually two days before the court ordered them to vote and their vote
failed on a tie, meaning that the rules weren't adopted. So essentially what they left on the table were a fully developed set of third round rules that were prepared in response to the court's order to prepare the rules in accordance with the prior round
methodology. >> And I'm not going to interrupt you too much, but on this one I just want to make it clear. >> Yep. >> Prior round, there was a first round, there was a second round, and there's a third round. The first and second round were based on
rules that were somewhat similar but not exactly the same to AMG a court case from 1984. When the first iteration, there are
three iterations of the third round rules here. When the first iteration of the third round rules were adopted in 2004, they were ultimately invalidated by the appellet division in 2007. They were based on growth share.
COA then adopted a second iteration of the third round rules in 2008, also based on growth share. Those were the ones that the Supreme Court invalidated in the 201 >> 13 >> 13
>> September 2013. >> The court then there were a series of motions. That's when the court ordered KA to adopt a third iteration of the third round rules. And the court said COA when you do it this time they can't be based on growth share. They can't be
like the first and second iteration of the third round rules. They have to be similar. The language says not identical, similar to the methodology used in the first and second rounds. >> Then we pick it up where David says, so there's a 33 tie on I believe October
20th, >> 2014. >> 2014. >> So the rules fail and the uh fair housing advocates basically drag KOA back to court. Let's quickly because so I represented the township in
so uh fair share housing center brought a motion in aid of litigants rights >> to the Supreme Court and said since KA did not adopt rules within the time you gave them to adopt the rules you should return all these cases back to court and
the court did that but the court gave municipalities some protection and the court said that there's three I'm this stuff is not in the Now, I'm going to do this stuff and then David can talk about what's in the plan. So, the Supreme Court said there's three classes of municipality in the
state when it comes to affordable housing. >> The first class are municipalities that petitioned for substantive certification under the third round rules and were granted substantive certification. There are 60 municipalities in the state that that are in class one. I'm happy to say
Bernard Township is in class one. Burnish Township is one of the 60 that petitioned and obtained substantive certification off of rules that were later invalidated. Okay. There's a second class of municipality in the state. There's 215 approximately of them. They
petitioned for substance certification but they were never granted substance certification. And then there's the class three that have not done anything with co-order. Some of them are in court and some of them are not. So >> can I ask one question of the 215? Was
it because KOA didn't respond? Yes. Or Okay. Or not that they failed. It's because KOA didn't respond to them. >> Combination of factors. >> Yeah. But in essence, the 60 got their subse certification generally under the second iteration.
Some of them got it under the first iteration of the third round rules, but most of them under the second iteration. They acted quickly. and the others it's a com a combination. So >> yeah, it was it was December I think of 2008 when the appellet division struck
them down and then the musical chair stopped. >> So the Supreme Court said as to this first class of municipality which includes Burners Township. >> Yeah. They said, "Listen, class one municipality should get like a special litigation treatment because
they followed the rules and they got substantive certification." Unfortunately, the rules that they did their plans on were invalidated. So, the our Bernard Township's housing plan element and fair share plan of the master plan is based on growth share
methodology. So, it's >> not worth the paper it's written on. Okay. >> But the Supreme Court said, "Look, we're going to give our decision, even though we're rendering our decision on March 10, 2015, our decision is not
going to be effective until June 8, 2015. And no one prior to June 8, 2015, >> should file anything in court because >> you guys, municipalities need time to develop these plans. we need time to get
the courts geared up for this. Um, and they said, "So, you have from June 8th to July 8th, if you want to file a declaratory judgment action where you're basically, I like to analogize to you're suing yourself. We're going to
file an action. There's no defendant. We file an action in court and say, "Hey, court, we would like the court to review and approve our affordable housing plan." Now the court says you have to give notice of your declaratory
judgment action to a number of entities. Everyone who was involved in the motion in a litigance rights that includes fair share housing that includes the New Jersey builders association. That includes one particular developer represented by one attorney that includes the League of Municipalities
through its attorney. That includes actually me. We're um we're getting our office ready to get a flood of these filings from all over. We're not going to do anything with the other files other than we're going to look at them is to see what people are doing. I'll have a I'll know what different people in the state are doing
just for the knowledge base and one other attorney. They said that when you file a declaratory judgment action, you can also seek a temporary immunity order, meaning the old way it was done prior to the Fair Housing Act in 1985 when when
everyone was in the throws of all this builder's remedy litigation, right? A builder's remedy lawsuit is when a developer files it against a municipality says that the municipality is not in compliance with its Mount Laurel obligations, but then also want sight
specific relief. They want reasonzoning on their property. So the the Supreme Court said if you file a declaratory judgment action between June 8 and July 8, we're going to take a look at what you've done, but for these class one municipalities, they didn't say, but
it's almost like automatic. You're going to get this temporary immunity. Not only can no builder remedy lawsuits be filed against you until the court has had time to review and either approve or tell you what changes you need in your plan, but
you can't you're even immune from um public interest litigation. They call it constitutional challenges where they're not seeking the builder's remedy. So that we can the municipality can go into court, you know, breathe. You're still in a little bit under some
time pressure, but you're not back on your heels. You have some control over your zoning destiny. And the court further said that we understand that when you file these declaratory judgment actions, your existing plans that you got certified substance certification,
they're no good. And so we understand you're going to have to make revisions to them. And so you have five months to redo those plans. The five months, there's some, it doesn't say when it starts to run. So some people I'm conservative, some people say, well you
start it from June 8 when the opinion becomes effective. Some people say no no no no start it from July 8 or start it from when you f why mess around. So if you start the five months from June 8th technically burn the Burners Township Planning Board has until November 8 to file the housing plan element fair share
plan. We and so I'm the planning board attorney. I'm also doing some special council work for the township in this area and I'm working in conjunction with the township attorney John Bolardo and with Dave Banish and with the township administrator. We have our our collective advice is if you don't have
to wait the five months, don't wait the five months. Let's go in with a declaratory judgment action with a copy of the adopted new 2015 housing plan element fair share plan attached as an exhibit because why you know put ourselves under the gun
later if we don't have to. So >> because because the vulnerability there >> the exposure the potential exposure is a constitutional challenge constitutional compliance. So if you have a fair share plan and you're addressing your obligation, you've
essentially satisfied or you are constitutionally compliant at that point. It puts the municipality in the position of being able to say we are now complying with our constitutional obligation very clearly and unequivocally. So with that, we all asked Dave, I'm going to check with the
chairman and that's why we listed this for a work session to see if he can come up with a first draft for work session purposes of what the Burners Township amended housing plan element and fair share plan would look like using not the growth share methodology. And from here Dave's going to pick it up
because what methodology to use, what number do we say we're shooting for? And I let him let him describe the plan recognizing that the plan let us go into court again with the declaratory judgement action with a adopted plan. It may still have to be changed but let us
go in because we can with the plan. It just quite frankly if we can we should. >> But Dave go ahead. >> Sure. Okay. So where I left off was that COA had contracted with Dr. Robert Bashelle to prepare the third
round numbers and he did that. He did that for KOA in the prior round. In other words, uh 1994 he published numbers. They're called the prior round numbers. That's the methodology that the court has embraced and suggested is the correct or a methodology similar to that
is the one that should be used. That's the methodology that he used in >> in the third iteration of the third round. >> The third iteration of the third round rules in 2014. And those are the rules that were left on the table. And when you read his appendices, and if you actually compare the explanations in the appendices between the prior round
rules, those are from 1994, chapter 93, and you compare that to the to the narrative in the appendices in proposed chapter 99 that was left on the table, they are substantially similar and they're very persuasive because the
prior round rules have survived judicial scrutiny. So, we have some reason to believe that these may as well. a couple shortcomings that may be addressed. However, there's also an opportunity, as I understand it, to hire Dr. Bashelle to represent you with your numbers.
>> Let me go into that. Also, that's that's not in the plan. This happened today. So, last week, and this is public knowledge because these letters will be out in the press. So, this is none of this is attorney client privilege >> because it's all being recorded and sent out.
>> Correct. And so, a letter went out today. um saying that uh Dr. Yeah, we get some >> Dr. Michelle has been released by the state by COA from his contractual
obligation and so he has indicated that he's willing to become a you know a municipal expert and do a report which would be a statewide report. the letter. I sent the letter to uh John Bolardo and
to David Banish today. So I imagine that people on the township committee will probably be getting it tomorrow and I'll also send it to the planning board tomorrow. But in essence, if a lot of municipalities get together and pull their resources, they can basically get
a report from him, which look, we don't know what, you know, the actual number is, but we have a feeling it's going to be based roughly on how this third iteration of the third round methodology was based on. And so we feel
comfortable that basing this um amended housing plan element fair share plan as a start because he's gonna it's going to take him between 60 to 90 days to do this >> report. Right now the only other there's only two sets of there's three sets of numbers out there right now.
>> The third iteration of the third round rules which were never adopted but had the three tie those numbers are out there. We know the Burners Township number looking at that. Fair Share Housing Center had a planner named David Kinsey do a report and his numbers are
astronomically high. And the New Jersey Builders Association had another planner named Art Bernard do a report for them and those numbers are astronomically high. >> Fair share housing number for us is 1500. >> Right. Okay. And the third iteration of
the third round rule number developed by Dr. Pchelle is >> not for us. Yeah, >> third round rule number is 932. Actually, it's uh about 919. >> I want to say something about that
though because we're not picking numbers here, >> okay? I I want to make it crystal clear that what what Dr. Kinsey has done and what Art Bernard has done is they have generated numbers that have identified 10 years of affordable housing obligation that exceeds New Jersey's
capacity to build market rate housing in that same period of time. In other words, they're asking for 200,000. >> Well, they're they're taking 25 years >> Yeah. >> and cramming it into 10. Whereas Dr. believes that if you look at the Mount
Laurel 2 opinion, there's language in there that talks about perspective need. It's 10ear period. >> It's a 10-year period. That's right. >> So, so if if Dr. Bashelle were to do a report, it would be incorporated into our element, which would be part of a declaratory judgement action. Is that correct?
>> That'll come along after the fact. >> It would come after, but we >> But this is my question. is are as part of that litigation then will these other groups and experts then >> potentially >> come in and challenge those figures and the court will have to decide which is more credible. >> That's correct.
>> And there's no rhyme or reason as to what those decisions will be because every county or every vicinage will have some a judge assigned to do Mount Laurel. >> Now there's 15 Mount Laurel. Each vicinage has a Mount Laurel judge. >> Depending on who they are and their and their privileges, they're going to get
different results. who's currently sitting within our business. >> I want to just >> Dave, I don't mean to interrupt you. Am >> I correct? No. >> Yes, that's correct. >> There's going to be a separate judge in each visage. There are 15 throughout the state and >> current and we're going to see I mean I
I I think there's going to be a new judge assigned in Somerset County. But I >> right now if you look >> that's going to make a big decision on how they view these these but there's two things going on right now. If you look at the judiciary
website, the Mount Laurel judge for the Senage 13, which is Hunter, Somerset, and Warren, is Judge Coleman. However, it's common knowledge that Judge Coleman is retiring. And it's just rumor on who's going to become the Mount Laurel
judge. So, I don't want to deal in rumor. But again, even though I don't want to deal in rumor, there's another rumor that I heard, and that is that there was a directive put out by the administrative office of the courts, which I've been trying to get a hold of, and I can't. And according to my my
source, which is an attorney who apparently was shown this by one of the assignment judges in one of the other counties, it is asking the Mount Laurel judges to try not to like just go off on their own. And
apparently they also set up a training session for all the Mount Laurel judges, a whole a whole day's training. And this is just ironic. On June 8th, the first day you could file the declaratory judgment action, they're going to have training
for the 15 Mount Laurel judges. And we're hoping that they'll pick maybe a couple test cases that won't be us. And and then the battle will, you know, be engaged there. And by that time, you
know, we're hoping that um >> get some ground rules, >> right? And we'll have a report from Dr. Bashelle and they'll be testifying and they'll be cross-examining cross-examined and it's going to be called. But for purposes of tonight for our housing plan element and fair share
plan, >> we felt that it's better to come into court showing some number even though we don't know what the number is than showing no number. I mean what kind of plan is based on no number. >> Is there no guidance? I mean there's not there are no >> decisions that have been made previously
that would give some guidance to our professionals, our experts. Yeah, there's actually Well, I there's quite a body of decisions that have already been made >> from but from the 80s. In other words, see, >> it's old stuff, >> but the standards are there. So, at
least we have something to guide us, right? >> And and the court and the one thing was about the court's decision, and I don't want to speak for the attorney who may certainly do a better job interpreting it, but it's kind of like Back to the Future. They basically went back and they said when we said in Mount Laurel 2 that you had a constitutional
obligation, we meant it. and the Fair Housing Act hasn't been amended since it basically designated this prior round methodology as the methodology to be used. Well, since that fair housing act hasn't been amended, that's all that's authorized in the law and that's why you
guys have to use it. So, >> defense of the Supreme Court, the court said both in the 2013 decision and it said in in this recent March 10th decision, they said, "Look, we've got nothing against growth share. In fact, they said it's not unconstitutional. They said it's not authorized under the Fair Housing Act." And they begged the
legislature to amend the Fair Housing Act to allow it. If the legislature had amended it to allow growth share, >> those third round rules would be in effect. >> Huh? >> Would have applied. >> Would have applied. >> Can you explain what growth share is? >> Yes. It is one residential dwelling for
every 16 certificates of occupancy issued for residential dwellings. >> One of one. No, excuse me. One of That's right. I got that backwards. For every 16 jobs the municipality have created in your municipality, you owe one affordable unit. And for every four
market rate units created, you want a affordable unit. >> But that no longer applies. That was thrown out. So we're back. >> So now what? >> So now they're assigning a number based on assessing what the statewide need is, aggregating that to the regional level, and then breaking it down to the
municipal level within regions. >> So they're so they're looking at the state as a whole. They're looking at the census data and they're calculating what the statewide affordable housing need is and then they're breaking at that down by housing region and then assigning obligations at the municipal level within each region
>> and basing it on historical levels of growth or or >> No, it's based on projections. >> Yeah. >> Based on Department of Labor, >> anticipated growth census data. First they look at the they they look at the at at the census data and they calculate what the affordable housing population
is out there. And then there are a number of other factors and adjustments that come into play. But they do project how much growth is anticipated. How many affordable housings are going to be how many affordable households are going to be needing housing in the coming decade and that's how they assign the number.
>> So to keep this process moving, what if do we need to make tonight? >> Well, what do you need from this? >> I'm I'm going to cut to the chase on this one. On page 12, there's a summary of what your obligation was that was assigned under the growth share. And
there are two numbers there. And they are um there are 508 units of the prior round obligation, 368 for a total of 876. >> That's not we're on page 12. We don't see that on page 12. >> Right above the chart above the chart. Okay.
>> Right above the chart. And and and the reason we're stopping here is because I want you to know what the town's planning target was under growth share. This is your certified number. The town fully responded to this number and this is the number that's been thrown out.
Now, if we move on to page, >> you say thrown out. Invalidated. >> Yep. Invalidated. >> Which number is invalidated, Dave? >> 876. those two together at the top of the chart. The prior round obligation 508 and the third round gross share obligation of 368 that was the number.
But when gross share was invalidated, those numbers were basically well the court said you have to recalculate them. So if we fast forward to page 15, you're going to look at what KOA's revised or you will see what KOA's revised assessment was for Bernard's Township.
the third iteration of the third round >> third iteration of the third round rules >> which is not >> and it they you'll see that that 87 through 999 number of 58 units remain the same they added 273 for the period 1999
through 2014 and they added another 138 for 2014 through 24 2024 to that okay so that gave us a subtotal of 919 compare that to 876 that's how things have changed changed in a few years. Under KOA's calculations, we've
added 9% because KA calculated the number for the 2014 to 2024 term, but there's another year because a year has passed since they calculated those numbers. >> And I didn't put this in the letter, but when we spoke with Dr. Belle, his
projection is going to be 2015 to 2025. So Dave, you were projecting the future here by adding 9%. >> Okay. So, so it's 876 versus 932. Now, there were some, first of all, the town
has fully addressed that 876 obligation and had some bonus credits left over. >> We have we have that number already. >> You have that number in your municipality already. Not only that, over the course of time, the township committee periodically hears requests
from group home providers, for example, and they look for assistance from the affordable housing trust fund and then then the and and the township committees helped create some affordable housing in town. Actually, quite a bit has happened. There have been some apartment units constructed and there's been group
homes constructed and in act in in in in gross numbers, you meet this 932 unit obligation. Now COA on the following pages on pages 16 and 17 what we've done is we've taken
all of the town's affordable housing projects and we've listed them into two separate categories. First those addressing the prior round and then second those addressing the third round. So the first table on page 16, we
identify a prior round obligation of 781. Those are those two numbers 508 and 273 added together. And then we list all the projects that the town has in existence that are occupied of affordable housing that address that
obligation. Now, under COA's rules, they have a system of bonus credits where they try to incentivize the creation of certain types of affordable housing. So, when you calculate those bonuses and you add them to your affordable housing inventory, you find that the number obviously goes up.
>> Yeah. Mr. One other thing, the March 10, 2015 Supreme Court opinion specifically said in it that trial judges, even though the third the second iteration of the third round rules, the growth share rules were
thrown out, that the court should still try to use COA's other rules that were not thrown out, specifically the bonus credit rules. So the the court is supposed to, you know, use these bonus credits. So
Dave is right on target by including bonus credits. Keep on going, Dave. >> Sure. So after um so the first table is kind of a zero sum game because we want to hit the target units that aren't used on the prior round. If their controls are
effective through the third round or 2024, then those units can be applied toward your third round obligation. So on page 17, the heading on this table uh needs to be corrected. The table reads 2015 third round fair
share plan. It should say addressing the third round, >> not addressing uh >> prior round, >> right? The prior round obligation. >> But David, I thought RCA was thrown out. >> Well, it is. And and we're only using it in the prior round because that's the only place in the rules that it's
authorized. still counting. >> Okay. >> All right. >> You you Bernard Township entered into two RCAs in the prior round, >> right? >> And those units are still credited against Bernard Township's obligation for the prior round. >> The RCA to Philipsburg and all of
the second table. >> No, in the first table that's what I meant. I want to know because >> so they have certain parameters and the parameters are limitations in some cases. For example, um when RCAs were effective, up to half of the
obligation could have been addressed with RCAs. The township's share of RCAs was less than the new calculated prior round obligation. Not more than 25% of the units in your fair share plan can be age restricted units. So that's a cap.
You kind of have to work under that cap. Um at least 25% of the units in your fair share plan have to be rental units. And then there were some uh actually 13% of your units also have to be very low income, but that requirement only
came into effect in 2008. And so we only applied that to the second half of your prior round obligation. But you have it, you've addressed it, you have units in town that address all of that. What happens here on the on the on the table on page 17 is that we carry all the
credits forward from the prior round and we add up the units within the limits that were permitted and the 25% cap on the age restricted units is the one that I'm really want want to call yourself your attention to. You zero out the 151
with 92 units on the ground and 59 bonus credits. there are still 331 surplus units that are potentially available toward the fourth round. Um, which is actually quite a lot. And the and what what what counts for a big piece of that
number is the fact that you've got um Ridge Oak One apartments and they are age restricted. And once you hit your 25% cap in the third round, you couldn't count a whole bunch of units that you have that are affordable units that would otherwise be uh okay to count in
the third round because the controls run right through the third round period right through uh 2024. But um so what this plan does is it makes use of all the units that you have on the ground. There is uh in this included in this plan a couple of new
strategies that um that uh well technically aren't needed to make the number but you're entitled to them. And actually they're the kinds of things that are happening anyhow. One of them is accessory apartments. You know you have zoning standards or you have provisions for conditional use
accessory units. Um in your ordinance they have to be tied to occupancy by a family member. What we're suggesting in here is that you go beyond that and you actually carve out an opportunity for accessory apartments in your ordinance. And the catch there would be that you
can't limit occupancy to family members. It would have to be open to the general public. But where these could be reuseful in terms of creating a second unit within an existing single family dwelling might be to some of the um some of the people who um are aging in place,
want to stay in the house where they are. um their financial circumstances may have changed and they may be faced with choices. Um an accessory apartment could certainly assist a resident in that situation. Now that would require a municipal subsidy under co rules under
any scenario and that's something that we think you should give some consideration to. There are basic accessory assert bas excuse me basic accessory apartment standards that would have to be applied but you could add some additional conditions and the conditions that you have in your
ordinance with the exception of the fact that it has to be occupied by a family member. None of them run a foul of the accessory apartment provisions. That's number one. Number two is a market to affordable um approach or what they used to call a right down buy down. That would be where the municipality would
use funds from its affordable housing trust fund that is collected off of development over time and perhaps as some of the more reasonably priced attached housing stock becomes available, the municipality could acquire it and could resell it as an affordable unit. That's called a market
to affordable. You're entitled to 10 of each of these under CO rules. They're always a good idea to include them and they also address segments of the population sometimes that really could benefit from it. You >> say there are caps and limits on these. You mean
for the entire time period up to 2025 or per per animal? >> Well, actually the cap is that if you put 10 in the plan and you knock the 10 off, you can go back and you can increase that number. Now, in the case when CO is in existence, you might
require a waiver for a strategy like that. In fact, the town has sought uh the waiver from COA and received it in the past to exceed the number of market to affordable units. In this case, given the circumstances that we're in now where the court's going to be granting the permission to the municipalities to
what you can and you can't do, if we wanted to exceed that number, we would have to go back to court and ask for permission for that. >> But these are these are caps in the regulations and and as soon the entire time period >> well >> without a waiver 10 between now and 2025.
>> That's right. That's correct. >> That's similar to what we have for Ridge Oak now. That's that's a waiver. >> Well, no, not so much that I'm aware of. Uh anyway, >> there was some exception for Ridge Oak that's good for quite a while. >> Well, those are extended controls. Um
when John was making mention of the guidance that the Supreme Court gave the trial courts earlier, there were six separate points and they talked about the bonus crediting, but they also talked about the fact that the judges should be flexible in their application of the third round rules and they specifically cited what they call
extension of expiring controls. The controls generally they initially started out for 20-year periods when this whole mess started up a long time ago. Then they were extended to 30 years in subsequent iterations of the rules. So the 30-year control is the standard
now, but as these controls come off because so much time has passed, controls can be extended and the court specifically cited the fact that that's an appropriate compliance mechanism for a municipality to use and that is to extend the controls >> comes off and you lose an affordable
housing unit. If you extend it, it's like you're creating a new affordable housing that we do that right. >> Yep. You have quite a bit of it in there actually. Yes. So, your standing is actually pretty good, and it's very consistent with this
town's history of not just being voluntarily compliant, but completely and thoroughly compliant with your affordable housing obligations. You have a history that goes back well in time to the first round. Actually, I guess it was 1995 when you filed your first or
1985 when you filed your first fair share plan. So this is just a continuum of what this town has always done in terms of addressing its constitutional obligation. In this particular case, we think that the numbers are reasonable. And as I showed you in that comparison, there isn't a wide disparity between the
numbers that you were assigned in chapter 97 and that you were assigned that you were certified for and the updated numbers after the passage of several years. They're fairly consistent. And I think I share John's optimism that we can be reasonably confident that the numbers that come
back from Dr. Rivershell under this opportunity to calculate the number, these are going to be in the ballpark. And even if they're not within 50 units, we can see that there's a fairly substantial surplus here that you have available to address whatever that
number looks like um once we see it. >> Just want to say one other thing. So, so far I agree with everything Dave said. The only thing that I want everyone to keep in the back of their mind is you know there is this John mentioned I mean there is this what
would happen if you know the courts decide that you know we get all we get together and we get Dr. number shell and he gives us a report and we think that his number is right and if the court should somehow think that for example like David Kinsey's number is right um
this plan is not going to meet David Kinsey's number but we don't we we we believe legally a legal opinion planning opinions we believe that number is wrong so we believe here we have a surplus if the number goes up we still have enough to cover that but if it goes up to
Kinsey then we're going to be back to the drawing >> yeah there are some >> if if if the Kinsey numbers UN universally or widespread approved, >> there's going to be major problems throughout the state because uh >> they'll have an amendment to the Fair Housing Act.
>> Well, they may they may uh you know, fair share housing's kicking numbers around like the state obligations, a million units and and things like that and they're trying to they're trying to push that through. I don't know if the 1500 is a bargaining position or if they're going to try to hold to that or
what. It all really depends on to what extent they're going to get involved in these local actions. Now, I don't think they have the resources to go after 55 municipalities or whatever, but I was at
a seminar two weeks ago down at the county where we talked about this and they may go after the big offenders. They seem to have certain towns that they're constantly going after, Cherry Hill and places like that where they just seem to go after them all the time.
Um, they may pick and choose their targets. Uh, the other the other factor that we don't know is who the mouth laural judge is going to be. And I I I'm somewhat pessimistic about who it might be. >> Listen, I I don't think we should talk about that. I think we should stick with
trying to get this work session on the plan. >> My list was sealed. May I have a question for David? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, you're thinking 932 >> based on table >> Yep. >> the table of reconfiguring it on page 15. >> Yep.
>> That might be a a good number. >> I think it's a reasonable number. I think it's in the ballpark. It's, you know, >> Okay. So, let me go further. Okay. On the on page 17, we have surplus units of 331 that you said could be available. So, you're saying that in essence we
could go up to 1,263 if someone said that was our obligation and potentially be have a complant plan. >> Well, no, because we have that 25% cap on age restricted units. >> Okay. >> And the vast majority of our surplus
units are age restricted units. So, we can use a share of them, but probably not all. and be seeking the equivalent of waivers. >> Waver. >> Well, we would absolutely we would be seeking waivers and
>> yes, we'll just leave it at that. >> Okay. >> And then there are other ways to reconfigure this. There's no absolutely correct way. I could reconfigure this and probably make the numbers look a little different as well, addressing different proportions depending on how the rules change. And
in fact, if you look at how the plan was configured, the certified plan, you'll see that it was um >> the 876. >> Yep. The 876 was uh configured to address a different bonus crediting
system that was available in chapter 97 and different mandatory compliance mechanisms that were required in chapter 97. So, it's not so much that any of this is um you know what we're doing is >> we're fitting this into the regulations that are in effect. Chapter 93 is in
effect until September 16th, 2016. >> Right. >> Chapter 97, whatever pieces the court didn't strike down are expiring on June 2nd, 2015. So by the time the township goes into court, this court is relying
on regulations that are in effect at the time that the municipality is petitioning the court. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you. I'm kind of sorry. >> So there's no action needed by the planning board tonight. This was a work session to have you guys go through it
for the first time. If anyone saw anything, if any questions came up, >> you might want to uh >> you know, change things. But I'm thinking other than get that one word on the table, >> they discussed that. >> I think that you're good to go. Friday is the date by which this plan has to be
on file in >> planning board office here. >> Yes. >> County planning board >> and uh Fran is ready notices. Correct. Now, I did say uh
>> when I initially sent this out, I sent you a a copy that did not have any of the bonus crediting in >> and to be honest with you, it's not my forte, but it is and it was a bit of a panic. I'm going to be going back and checking those numbers. And if there are corrections that need to be made made to the numbers, I will certainly make you
all aware of it at the public hearing, but I'll make those changes before the document goes out to the county uh planning board. So we have no further action at this point. >> There's nothing unless someone wants thinks that there's some change that has to be made. This is just a work session.
>> So there's nothing the planning board has to do other than you have to agree I guess to establish a hearing to adopt the proposed amended housing element fair share plan at the Fran. Is it June 2 or June 4?
>> June 2. >> June. >> The June 2 planning board meeting when we're going to have the public hearing. >> Right. So, you want to formally make a motion to set this thing down for the public hearing there. >> Yep. >> It's Tuesday.
>> Just need five. >> Yeah, we can do it. I'll be here. >> He said I think we just need five votes. >> Let's do it. Do we need a motion? >> I make a motion set down for public hearing. >> Who would like to make a move? >> So moved. >> Thank you, Miss >> June second. >> Who's the second? I'll second that.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any discussion? Seeing none for >> I have discussion. >> Wow, that was pretty quick. Mr. Chairman, >> it's not like I speak too much. >> I just want to thank Mr. Banish for providing us this document and making a very difficult subject over many years
dumbed down enough that we can even understand it. >> You're here. >> Yes. >> It's never dumb down enough for me. >> I'm right there with you, Miss. >> Okay. Any other discussion with the city? No. Hearing no. Fran roll, please.
I'm I'm sorry. I'm really not picking up any on any of this at all. >> Okay. What is going >> Just do a roll call. We'll tell you what it was for later. >> We have a motion. >> They're voting to formally schedule the hearing. >> Okay. >> The amended housing plan element fair
share plan for June 2. >> About your surprise party friend. That's why we didn't want you to know. >> Miss Pathi made the motion. >> My my apologies. Miss Plaza. Who made the motion and who? >> I did. Miss Pini made the motion. Mr. Malay seconded. >> I did not hear who seconded it. >> Mr. Malay.
>> Thank you. One person at Miss Alfer. >> Yes. >> Mr. Kuchi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Aen. >> Yes. >> Miss Clan. >> Yes. >> Mr. Malay. >> Yes. >> Mr. Pini. >> Yes. >> Miss Padichi. >> Yes. >> Mr. Santoro. >> Yes. >> I'm going to ask everybody. Miss Ax. >> Yes. >> Mr. Harris.
>> Mr. Plaza. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Thank you again, Mr. P. Well done. One more. >> Thank you. Yes, Mr. >> One more question. Um, >> I wasn't quite clear. After this June 2nd, are we expecting to do something before November 8th
>> or we don't know yet? >> So, just so you understand, when this plan is adopted on June 2nd, >> John Bolardo is going to be filing a declaratory judgement action sometime between June 8th and July 8 on behalf of
the county. This plan is going to be an exhibit to the declarator exhibit. Okay. >> So, we're not waiting at 5 months. It's going right into the declaratory judgement act. >> So, we don't know. We might have to do something, but at this point, we don't know. There's another action. >> Oh, correct.
>> It's going to go for years. >> Yeah. We may be amending. >> The board may be amending this plan later in the year. >> Come back and say this was nice. Thank you. And who knows how long it'll take for them to do that. >> That's right. We don't know, right? >> We're just >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Santoro.
>> All right. Uh comments for members. >> Great. Comments from staff. >> No thank you has a motion. >> Oh to a motion tojourn. >> Thank you. Second. All in favor? I. All opposing. We're a journ.
>> Why could they call it the fourth, third, fourth, fifth? >> This is round.