##VIDEO ID:KMgZKmzpPlA## in accordance with the open public meetings act PL 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the planning board of the township has been provided if everyone could please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance I pledge Al to the flag flag of the United States of America and to the repblic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty for okay um roll call okay uh Robert Thomas asked to be the excuse this evening councilman and barison here Theodore Chase yes Robert Lor here Sammy sioban here Jennifer ragno here Mah Rafi here Charles Brown here Rebecca hbert here Mark Dancy here chairman Rini here um before we get going into the agenda to make an announcement we will only have one hearing tonight um which will be um Macedonia Church of God um there uh all the other ones onx carried to January 15 2025 uh at the board of ed campus we'll see whether that happens or not um Hsu Property Holdings carried to January 8th 2025 no further notification and Rec prep there was an issue with the notification which is why they're not on tonight it's carried to December 24th and notification is needed all right so with that we have no minutes so two resolutions um Hamilton Street Holdings LLC who can vote on that councilman andaris Mahir Rafi and chairman orini cannot vote okay I'll make a motion second Theodore Chase yes Robert Lort yes Sammy shoban y Jennifer ragau Yes Charles Brown yes Rebecca Hilbert yes Mark Dancy yes um and the second resolution Jansen Pharmaceuticals Samy Siobhan Jennifer ragnow Rebecca Hilbert Mark Dancy and chairman Orsini cannot vote Miss a meeting and look what happens i' make a motion to approve second chairman I'm sorry councilman of arson yes Theodore Chase yes Robert Lort yes Mah Rafi yes and Charles Brown yes okay we don't have any discussion items so um we'll open to the public this portion of the meeting is for open public comment on any general planning issue if you have a comment uh for the two witnesses so will be called for Masson Church of God Christ um wait for the meeting to be opened for that particular hearing so so with that I make a motion to open to the public for any general planning comment second all in favor meeting is open for anyone who wishes to comment on anything General seeing no takers move to close second all in favor okay with that we get to our one hearing tonight a continuation of massia Church of God in Christ and Peter is here to represent them good evening Mr chairman members of the board Peter Lanford appearing on behalf of the applicant uh this is a continuation of a hearing that started in June of this year here uh was carried to two weeks ago uh at that time we presented we presented testimony of our site engineer and also our traffic consultant uh I had intended that evening to call our architect but because of uh some confusion he was not here uh so this evening I'm going to move to present the testimony of our architect and I then have to present some planning testimony to justify the variances as the board may recall when we were here in June uh there were some concerns regarding the size of the buildings uh buffering Landscaping uh we made uh significant at least in our opinion significant revisions to the plant to address those uh we also have to you'll hear uh from Mr Johnson eliminated all of the seating in the balcony uh and therefore uh eliminated uh the need for significant parking so uh we will get into that with the testimony of Mr O'Brien uh having said that I have Mr Johnson sworn raise your right hand I'm here Sly swear to tell the the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God yes I will name an address for the record please Larry uh Lawrence C Johnson I trade as Larry C Johnson uh 4A camner Avenue Somerset New Jersey Mr Johnson you can be seated and and also please hold the microphone very close to your mouth because if you hold it away it doesn't get picked up Mr John Mr Johnson is a licensed AR architect in the state of New Jersey in good standing yes okay it accepted thank you Mr chairman Mr Johnson uh you are the architect of record on this project that is correct okay and when did we start this project uh my involvement started in uh 2010 okay and your involvement included meetings with the church to uh ascertain their vision for this property and uh you previously testified at the one of your other hearings concerning the condition of the existing Church did you not yes I did okay uh when we were here at our meeting in June uh the board suggested that perhaps that the building was a little bit large and that there was too much seating within the confines of the building did you make changes to the plan as a result of comments uh of the board members uh yes I did okay and let's go back to this plan set had it up before that was his plan that yeah okay so the the okay the the the plan the the exhibit is part of the plan set that was submitted in conjunction with this application Mr Johnson that is correct okay and first of all the size of the building did you make any changes to the size of the building from the original plant Set uh yes the building was originally it 80 feet deep and there was a 10-ft I'm sorry a 5- foot setback at the rear of the building what I did was to shorten the building to 75 ft and we have a 10-ft setback at the rear of the building okay and and to the rear of the building as was testified to it a prior hearing is land that's owned by the township correct that is correct okay now did you make interior changes to the building uh yes I did all right and if we can roll through the interior of the building Mr O'Brien that is the lower level of the building that's the lower level of the building that is shortened by 5 ft on the main part of the building the vestibule uh Foundation uh remain the same which is 8 ft okay and the lower level was basically a fellowship hall for Gathering Gatherings after the church service correct that and the uh toilet facilities yes okay and the available seating in that lower level has not changed it's not changed no okay let's go to the next level okay that is the main sanctuary right what I uh did with the main part of the building the large rectangle of the building was to incrementally um shorten different parts of the building the uh Lobby I took out of about 18 in then in the main sanctuary I took out about 2 feet and then I took about uh another 18 in out of the um lower kitchen area but then what that helped me to do was to shorten the whole building by at least 5T but not change the functionality of the building okay and when we made our original submission the sanctuary uh area and the fixed seating within the lower level was 183 seats correct yes that's what it is nowadays okay and and that hasn't changed from the original submission no the well let's we're talking about years and years so the original submission you forget years and years ago okay from the one we we started with in June yeah from June we made it um 181 seats okay now but it hasn't changed since the last few weeks ago okay and now we go to the balcony which or upper level which was the subject of discussion uh at the previous hearing uh in the original submission part of the balcony had uh fixed seating did it not we had we had 60 seats in the balcony okay are there other functionalities of the balcony there's other uses of that balcony yes the balcony has the audio visual um space has toilet rooms has an office and of course the elevator that brings people up and then they can circulate to get to the baptismal pool and have two means of egress uh which is in the diagonal corners of the building okay and in the last submission you had put the phrase upper level future seating on your plan correct that was correct and in reality there is no intent now or in the future to have any seating in the balcony that is correct okay so we will amend the plan to remove uh that reference we did it's well okay yours doesn't have okay and the one that's on the screen there okay and in in in addition there was a concern if there was an upper level uh and the area surrounding that upper level uh has had a sort of a railing did it not in the original plan that is correct and did you uh decide to uh give the board a further Assurance uh that this upper level cannot be used for seating yes we instead of a rail around the upper level so we can still maintain the ecclesiastical feel of the building we put in 5 foot high partitions around the perimeter of the upper level and only have openings so that the cameras can film below and film The U uh Services okay and on the screens uh is a draw drawing of the upper level as it's viewed from the lower level is that not correct that is correct okay and I have submitted that uh to I think Mr Clarkin and Mr Healey uh and I think Mr Veno uh within the last couple weeks after you uh prepared that um can we have that marked as an exhibit and I think you have one that we can Mark I have one in my briefcase okay the drawing is dated October 18th 2024 for the record for there's still two references here to Sanctuary seating that's the lower level that's the lower level Lev okay so so just a question um and and I think I I raised this in my email to you regarding this it's saying eliminate the balcony from what I understand the balcony is still going to be there but it's instead of having a railing it's going to have the F five foot partition or wall no the the balcony was within the second level this the balcony consisted of tiered platforms that then had seating in it okay that was taken out the seating was taken out but the second level for the elevator the office the toilets the uh uh room to lock up uh equipment that's all on the second level that's not in the balcony there's no more balcony okay if you go back Mr O'Brien if you can go back to the prior exhibit of the second level can you blow that up or not okay and if you yes scroll over that's so the area that said future seating was where in fact in on the original plan uh was the balcony seating correct that's correct okay and the other functions up on the second level as you just indicated the elevator the bathroom the office uh the audiovisual booth and the stairwell was always in the plan and that is intended to remain cor so so physically it'll be so basically it'll be a walkway so that'll be pretty much means of erress yeah it's it's a walkway it's it's a walkway around the perimeter of the building with a 5 foot high wall if we go back to the next exhibit that 5 foot high wall would go around all three sides so it there would be uh okay it it would basically Encompass all three sides so basically the walkway is for people to either get up or get down if they didn't use the elevator and it looks like there's some other functions in the front um can you go back to the the last exhibit I guess it also provides access to that you know some utility functions and some other things on that second floor so Prov provides access to those yeah and the baptismal pool is on that level okay what what is that that is labeled pool it's a baptismal pool it is yes usually that's on the ground floor that's why we make it different okay and then just last question um the wall this is a permanent wall yes okay you called it a partition previously is it a partition or is it a wall partition the wall well to me a partition is something that can be moved my interpretation is a wall goes from floor to ceiling and or floor to 5T in this case if you want to call it a wall you can call it a wall I it's a permanent structure yeah I think that's what's important it's not something that can be no no it's I think the terminology I was that's why I asked the question because again I partition is something that you know you can move it you know banqu Halls you move the partition and now you double the size of that room that kind of thing so it's a permanent wall yeah and and actually it it functions as a barrier from below so you can't remove it all right so what I'm going to say then is that um because in the previous meeting we were talking about the parking calcs and because that area was open and there was that label that was going to be used for future seating I had to do that calculation where I had to include that as part of the warship area um if that's now going to be enclosed with a permanent wall um that's 5 foot high um you know I would make the Judgment that that is now no longer part of part of the worship area um so the parking requirement on page four of my report where I indicated that would be technically 60 parking spaces required for that area um I would say that goes away um and the parking requirement would then be the 61 spaces for the sanctuary and then the 30 spaces for the fellowship hall so the overall parking requirement goes from um well for the worship area goes from 121 down to 61 and the overall goes down from 151 down to 91 because again the 60 spaces that I had that I I had indicated for the balcony have gone away and just so we can put that issue to bed so we know what numbers we're talking about and then Mr O'Brien can Testify the ordinance requires one space for every three seats So based on the testimony of Mr Johnson this evening and as calculated by Mr Healey there's 183 seats in the worship area which has has a parking requirement of 61 spaces uh as was indicated at the last meeting by uh Mr Troutman uh we have we've removed two parking spaces on the site to provide some screening and buffering and have 36 parking spaces we also have the agreement which is a permanent agreement with the with RPM uh for 25 five spaces is which was a contractual agreement um just I don't know if you're aware Mr Clark and Mr Veno and I are talking about some language modifications to that agreement um it was actually signed by RPM I delivered it to the township but uh Mr Clark Mr Veno had a couple minor revisions so we're working through that so based on those two parking parking locations then we would have the 61 parking spaces which would be sufficient for the worship area we still have the fellowship hall which has 90 seats as reported by Mr Hy and on Mr Johnson's plans uh and by ordinance those have to be counted not withstanding the fact that there was prior testimony from representatives of the church that the fellowship area is not used during worship and is only used by the congregants after worship so that the same people that are upstairs worshiping are the same people that will be downstairs and therefore although we need a parking variance uh it's our position and and Mr O'Brien will go go into it a little further but uh that the actual parking need is uh the 61 parking spaces and if the board recollects back to June uh we testified that we also have the ability to use uh PNC and Mr Clark and ruled that that the board may consider that but it's it's not binding because it's a revocable agreement but that's also available based on the prior testimony so I just wanted to bring the board uh up to date since there's been gaps between the meetings having said that I have you stop you for one sec Pete please sure with respect to the permanent parking easement uh with Franklin Boulevard Commons urban renewal the version that I have indicates in paragraph three that they have the right to terminate the easement that was in in their sole discretion no it was that was the typo that's what we're correcting we have the right to terminate it they as was testified to at the prior hearing when we sold land to RPM uh part of the part of the agreement in the sale to RPM was that they had to provide 25 parking spaces uh because the land that we sold them we were going to use as a parking lot uh but unfortunately with your Redevelopment ordinance we couldn't do that because a parking lot as a standalone use is not permitted in the Redevelopment Zone and you cannot apply for a use variance in the Redevelopment zone so therefore we convey the property to RPM we had a signed agreement with them uh that we would have 25 permanent parking spaces which they agreed to and I've been in communication with them actually I I represent them on a lot of their Redevelopment work uh but that that was one thing that Mr Velo pointed out there were a couple other Corrections that needed to be made uh we actually do have a signed agreement from RPM which we are correcting and as soon as Mr Veno approves the revised language which I sent to him about a week ago uh we will get re-executed but it is a permanent irrevocable agreement and it's going to be recorded yes if the board is of a mind to ultimately approve this application my suggestion to the board Mr chairman would be that the form of the permanent parking easement has to be approved by Council or the board so that we are totally satisfied all right that it's irrevocable uh and cannot be terminated and I think what Mr violo suggested is it it if there was any mod even modification to the agreement it would require approval of the planning board and that was going to be part of the language that was going to be inserted in the into the agreement so that it could not even be modified and Peter just remind us too is that is that limited to in time or are are are those spaces available at any time now well based on based on the prior testimony of the members of the congregation and Mr Troutman the main time main period of time where we may need those spaces is Sundays which is the only time we have a religious Services we have them from 10: to 3: uh the agreement uh and again I don't know which version you have is I have the 930 to 3:30 version plus Christmas plus Christmas right so that's when we would need the parking spaces uh and I think it was testified to at the prior hearings that all of the other events like Bible study during the week or choir practice or any of those events the 36 on-site parking spaces would be more than sufficient to handle uh those small groups that make come during the week for those types of activities so there is only one day that there is any ma major activity and again if the board recollects from two weeks ago Mr Troutman indicated that he did a parking analysis of uh the whole neighborhood uh as far as the availability of parking on Sundays which is again our main worship day uh I have no more questions of Mr Johnson by the way um I'm opening up to the board for any questions Mr Johnson almost like Ted well I I had some thoughts um aimed at reducing the variances required now it may be that the rest of the board will say we're not worried about those variances but I just wanted to bring this up in the Isle wids of the parking lot 24 ft requested where 26 ft are required and of course that becomes important when a lot of people are backing out and trying to get out of uh the lot as would be the case at the end of a service uh the ordinance requirement could be met if the church building were made 4T narrower if the seat rows had to be made one one seat shorter as a result those seats could be redistributed to the shortened front rows maintaining the total seating we've covered the balcony width at the rear my thought was to make it even a little narrower but I think you've uh thoroughly dealt with the possibility of seating there and I asked about pools uh the height Ian could be eliminated by lowering the pitch of the roof perimeter buffering is not really needed towards the south towards paper camner Street or towards Lot 23 which is Township owned and vacant but it is needed towards Lot 12 to the West Beyond which there is a house some buffering is shown on the present plans but not to the ordinance standards and the reason why a particular reason for uh having a dense buffering uh between a parking lot and a house is to avoid affecting the house with the headlights of uh Vehicles entering or leaving the lot now I I don't know that you have any regular use uh in the evening I think at this time of day of course it's dark by 5:00 but uh it's just a possibility to I think there really should be uh buffering pretty close to the ordinance standard which I think is a double row of Evergreens and a stockade fence I think we should do be I'd be satisfied with a single row in a fence or possibly with two a double row but existing trees are shown along the border with Lot 23 and I wondered if these could be saved it's always better to save existing trees when they're not actually within the footprint of the proposed building final thing I have to say is is just a general comment it's unfortunate that the township has resisted all efforts to make make use of Township owned Lots 23 and 24 for additional onsite parking I would think that surely some sort of long-term lease could be arranged but I fear the township manager will have an argument against any such plan as he has had for every other plan uh despite councilman Wright having made efforts along this line have you made any efforts along along those lines when we started the initial hearing many months ago it was discussed at that hearing that we should try to acquire the those lots that are owned by the township I did send a letter to the governing body uh requesting or inquir inquiring as to whether they had an interest in selling those lots uh the problem is that they cannot sell them just to us if they need to sell the Lots they have to put them up for bid for auction yeah I understand that and then if somebody comes in and out bids us and wants to put a house on that lot the township didn't want that to happen so they concluded the best way to do it is to leave it the way it is I never quite frankly made inquiry as to whether they would consider leasing the those spaces for us uh like like I said we pursued other Alternatives uh for parking and and we think we've adequately addressed it but uh you we we follow that inquiry uh the other thing the plan does show Evergreens we can we can the rear of uh of the Evergreens but also Maples which of course are decid we can change them all to Evergreens and we can also put a six foot high fence up if the board recalls that the initial application there was nothing back there because we wanted to maximize the parking and that's why we took out two parking spaces to provide that buffering and and I think the fence will deal with the issue of headlights and also it does shine on the side of the house the house faces uh Booker street so come in um I respect uh t a proposal to address the variance issue for the parking but I would not be in favor for reducing the building by 4 feet to accommodate two additional um what is that 20 24 to 26 to go up to 26 I I think that's a that's a real penalty for this proposed church building I wouldn't do that I we've granted uh many two-way driving hours of 24 ft here so I I wouldn't be in favor of that um also in terms of the building architecturally speaking if the client has stated now that they will not be in exceeding on the second floor um why hold them to a partition wall when a railing would suffice um I I think architecturally it's going to take away from the the the plans that you're trying to do when you could have just maintained the railing so Mark I'm just curious why we need a partition wall when they've stated they're not going to do do it anyway they're going to no longer sit up there right and that wouldn't take away I mean the board I mean that's a decision ultimately that the board can make but yeah you know we've I'd say a few things to consider I mean the history of the application was that it was you know they have the sanctuary down below they had the balcony up above and they had seating then they came back verbally told us they weren't going to have seating but then they had a note that said for future seating with the railing so and then and then so you know they clearly had the intent of having that area for the for the purpose of having seating up there which you can easily do with movable chairs so and and I've advised the board and and warn the board not with respect to this application but frankly every application to not NE to to caution a board not to just rely upon staff's ability to police things like is the church putting seat seats up there on their Sunday service that's impossible to to enforce whereas if they if they're agreeable to a to a change to not have seating up up there and to have you know an actual physical barrier that prevents its use for additional seating I that's a permanent actual physical solution to that issue yeah I I guess my my thinking was um of course these are Church gr people so they wouldn't do this but hypothetically it could be standing room only and 5T most adults can look over a 5ot partition wall so you can still not me except except me except me and you uh we wouldn't be able to to do that but hypothetically it could be done but um I think then that walkway area is too large but we don't have to get into that I think it is really massive if it's not going to be proceeding then it can be shrinked down for an appropriate walkway which would take away the concern yes sir because the roof comes up M you can't walk walk the mic I'm sorry because the roof starts low and comes up you can't walk real close to the wall got it okay okay so you're only walking it only gets to be 7t once it gets a few feet from the wall yeah you didn't show us that cross section no it's on there I don't I don't see that but that would refer to the walkways along the S rather than the area at the rear of the Upper Floor which is what we've been talking about my own thought is pretty close to what youve proposed I thought it could be a little lower so that standing people could look over and and see what's going on but seated people could not so Charles I four and a half ft rather than 5 feet I'll use an analogy for example we've had situations in the past where the board members board members were concerned about the dumpster being on that side of the site and the applicant says oh we'll make sure there won't be any deliveries before 7 a.m. I mean whereas so my suggestion would be if you don't like the location there then make them move it put it over there and put an enclosure around it but don't rely upon their word that 10 years from now they're not going to that that 7 o' restrictions going to be abided by that's impossible to enforce I'm in agreement with you I am so that's this that's the thinking that's where it comes from yeah just didn't see a difference between a partition wall and a railing at the same height that's the only difference and I think architecturally the railing looks better than the partition wall so that's why I was stating that but I'm I'm in agreement with you on that that's all I have and we can decorate that part partition wall it's not going to be just a blank wall great any other board members have any questions for the um architect if not we'll we'll move on um oh yeah I'm Jim sorry go ahead that's okay I don't see any dimensions on the exhibit A1 that we marked into evidence I'd like them to be revised so that we know the dimensions of these walls and the dimension of the openings yes we can do we can do that okay thank you yeah and I would say too that if if the board um was inclined to approve it obviously they have to change their plans including the architectural plans consistent with what they've um testified to sounds good um okay we can probably move on to your planner and then we'll open to the public okay Mr O'Brien somly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth shall help you got [Music] microphone can I have another ID do I do okay Mr you don't need any introduction to the board I just assume any lures haven't changed since we lost saw you no change chairman still in good standing excellent Mark never filed that he threatened floor is yours thank you much M Mr O'Brien uh you have been here at all of the meetings uh that have taken place with respect to this application yes I have and you've heard all of the testimony of the witnesses concerning the use of this facility the intended hours of operation uh and how the building will function is that correct that is correct okay and As You Are aware uh we are seeking certain variances as a result of this application correct okay can you tell the board uh why we are here and what variances we are seeking yes we're seeking site plan approval and the C bulk variances bulk variances are requested for lot area setbacks height impervious cover and parking along with design waivers the existing Church dates back to 1948 and the applicant is proposing to build a new state-of-the-art church U state-of-the-art from Electronics down to Modern HVAC adjacent land has been purchased allowing the site to provide a parking lot the church is a conforming house of worship which is a inherently beneficial use under state law and the township following the July and October hearings the church listen closely to the concerns reduced seating reduced building size added landscaping and removed parking spaces the existing 1948 era Church no longer serves the needs of this growing population there is a 10ar parking lot consists of a curb cut along both Booker and Fuller streets which means everybody pulls in either pulls in or backs in and goes right out into the street there's no no separate parking lot excuse me all storm water runs off the site and there's no Ada parking currently the church sold two Parcels across Booker to the Renaissance project which is in the Redevelopment Zone and thus cannot be used uh by the church for parking or for any other use the current church membership is a 100 members they do anticipate growth and a larger church will help them achieve that goal The Continuous curb cut on both streets will be removed adding 11 parking spaces where there are currently none the 36 Space Landscape parking lot will be created with three Ada accessible parking spaces on it which is a vast Improvement an additional 25 spaces are available on Sundays in the mixed juice building parking lot on Booker PNC as we've discussed uh in our last two hearings has agreed to let overflow parking park over there um as Mr Clarkin pointed out you may wish to consider that um but it's we're not using that towards our parking requirement a total of 61 spaces are available to the church which is Mr Healey has pointed out uh meets the 61 space requirement which is based on on one parking space per three seats in the church Kevin can I just jump in yes previously there was a reference to two parking spaces being eliminated does is the net 36 or is it 34 the net is 3 36 originally it was 38 thank you thank you for the the August's iteration all right section 112-91 of the township ordinance does allow off street parking facilities uh to be counted at half the rate uh for any use that is required whose Peak attendance will be at night or on sunds and the ordinance does say qu uh quote such as such as but not limited to churches theaters or assembly Halls unquote so we believe that also helps us in addressing the needs of the parking the past 76 years that the church has been in existence at this space since 1948 shows that the church members have been extremely flexible in their parking and finding spaces to park particularly since now the fellowship is up to 100 members so they've been using the street the parking lot the adjacent spaces already they're familiar with that Concept in addition the church has two 14 passenger vans uh they transport members to services and as the board knows most attendees do travel with board members excuse me with church members family members friends so there are very very few individual Vehicles going there's street parking in the neighborhood which you heard from Mr Troutman in our last meeting number of spaces are provided and empty according to his counts on Sundays storm water on site will be collected in underground detention Basin uh which is not the case today everything runs off in short I believe these are substantial improvements for the church the neighborhood and the township the master plan does have a goal of providing adequate community services and Facilities to serve the needs of all current and future residents of the township and I believe this application supports those goals in addition to that uh this property is in the rent Renaissance infill zoning District which has amongst its goals uh G improve the appearance of the Carter to provide a positive Community identity L I'm sorry the first one was g l preserve and upgrade existing stable residential areas and S to Redevelopment land occupied by obsolete structures or uses and this application meets those goals as well in terms of the municipal land use law we do meet a number of the goals goals of the ml in section 40 colon 55 d-2 and among them are a for Alpha to encourage Municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in the state in a manner which will Pro promote the public health safety morals and general welfare B secures safety from flood and other disasters G provide sufficient space in appropriate location for a variety of uses to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens and I promoted desirable visual environment and I believe that this application meets those goals by providing an inherently beneficial house of worship a new fully code compliant building will be constructed uh and replace a building that was built long before any of our modern safety codes the religious needs of New Jersey citizens are met by this application and a desirable visual environment is promoted by as you can see the uh beauty of the church uh this is an inherently beneficial use as I've said uh which is a use that is universally considered to be a value to the community because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general welfare in terms of a negative impact from this application as an inherently beneficial use I'm referring to uh what is known as the seek a balancing test you've heard that many times over the years and instead of saying that there's no substantial negative impact instead we go through the seek a balancing test in which uh there are four steps and the first step is to identify the uh public interest and here it's providing a church house of worship two identify the detrimental effects that would ensue should this variance be granted site PL be granted and I can't identify any this is an infill development in a developed area which is called for in the master plan and the Renaissance infill plan new Landscaping throughout the site is proposed a new modern parking lot is proposed as opposed to what's there now this promotes a desirable visual environment item number three is the board should determine whether it can reduce any detrimental effect by imposing reasonable conditions over the course of this application the board has been working with the applicant uh to make it a better application for the township and the members of the church and uh you will continue to do so in your resolution and lastly the board should weigh the positive and negative criteria by balancing the public interest against the public detriment I believe the unidentified uh detriments um are not supported and instead that providing the public interest of a house of worship outweighs any of those unidentified effects Mr O'Brien just a couple quick questions uh the variances that we are seeking are bulk variances is that correct that is correct and your testimony is based on the C1 or C2 criteria uh this is C1 because our lot area is undersized but also too because this is a much better planning alternative I believe and the board has shaped this as well over time so I believe this is a much better planning alternative than what would be allowed under the ordinance now you're familiar with the area surrounding the church property and that is in the Renaissance Redevelopment and over the last couple years there has been uh a significant amount of residential midrise uh development correct there has been yes okay and you heard the testimony of Mr Troutman and also have been to the site uh and it appears that all of that residential development has parking to to handle its needs because there is ample street parking should have become necessary uh for the congregants of this church that is correct okay and and the fact that that around it has come residential development uh does it not also really relate to the need to bring this church into modern times to service the members of the community one would expect that the hundreds and hundreds of new residents in the area uh seeking spiritual care would take a look at this 1948 church and not be terribly enthused at least by appearance of course who seek religious Solace would go anyway but I shouldn't speak to that part this uh building however uh certainly is an attractive one that will bring interest to it thank you Mr O'Brien I have no further questions any questions of the board for Mr O'Brien Jim please because this is an inherently beneficial use under the case La doesn't that relax the standard for assessing uh the positive and negative analysis it does indeed Mr Clarkin okay uh notwithstanding that can you give your opinion that the benefits of this application overall substantially uh outweigh uh any detriments yes I believe that they do and I would also add that this application can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good without substantial impairment of the Zone plan and the zoning ordinance you stole the last question thank you very much thank you Mr so so Jim just question to follow up on your first point there that for understanding of the board when you say it relaxes the standards um what does that mean exactly it doesn't mean that a 10 foot setback or if if it required 15 all of a sudden it becomes 10 the ordinance is the ordinance So when you say relaxed you mean in terms of relative balance in terms of relative balance thank you just wanted to clarify that any other questions of the board for this witness if not um I will make a motion to open to the public for any cross-examination or questions they may have all in favor meeting is now open to the public for any comment on this application and um that means general comments or specific questions of the AR or planner and when you come to the podium if you come to the podium please state your name um an address for the record if you're providing an opinion um I don't think you have to be sworn in it's up to our attorney if you're providing testimony or uh then then we will swear you in pet are these church members that you represent or these are all church members that I represent okay they speak through you well it's a little bit different than a private client I think uh Mr Clarken if it was a private client uh they probably wouldn't be allowed to speak but I think this is a little bit different and I think I will ask them if they want to make statements if it's okay with you Mr chairman to be brief number one and number two try not to be repetitive that's fine I I think we should hear from the public could you raise your right hand please somly swear to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God do could you give us your name and address please Catherine Owens I live at 3 Victoria Drive in Somerset New Jersey please go ahead I I just wanted to stand to just to say ditto to Mr O'Brian because I'm sitting there thinking he's coming off I said he has everything I wanted to say and just to know that you know Macedonia we're a small church but we have a big heart and we do a lot within the community I mean and we have we take care of anybody that comes by we're always friendly our doors are always open I've been there for the last 30 years I've seen there's been about 3 or four generations and several family members and now our children so that's what we want to see this church build not so much for us but for our children and our children's children and when um when he said about the uh Church being there for over 70 years and I think about the i s it it I said if we if I get up there and say that about this church need to be rebuilt it might condemn the church and take it it but it does need to be done because the house of God should be as beautiful as our own home and if that was my house I wouldn't live in there I'm going tell you the truth and God's house should be beautiful much more beautiful than our own home and this is a house of worship this is where the house where prayer I mean we shouldn't just wait till things happen to pray we should pray at all times and we should be able to go into a place and and and and be able to kneel and pray or if you have to sit down and pray where the doors are always open years ago the doors always open now you can't leave them open cuz you may come back and all your stuff is gone your microphon you quit me but you know just to be there be there for people that's the just to be there so I said we're small church but with a big [Applause] heart raise your right hand please Solly swear to tell the truth the whole truth truth and nothing but the truth so help you God so help me God okay name and address please seina Edward uh 304 dillian Court North Brunswick New Jersey 0892 good evening I greet each member of the board in your respective places as a member of Macedonia Church of God in Christ International who happens to serve on the trustee board I stand before you with this testimony in agreeance with my church family my brothers and sisters in support of the building of our new church first off we want to thank the planning board for your time in meeting with us while this is only my third time here I know that this has been quite a long journey for everyone involved I've heard about it and I've read about it Macedonia as one of our church me Mothers would say 127 fullish Street has been a staple in the Franklin Township community and have been serving the Franklin Township community since 1948 about 76 years as such our mission has always been to deliver the word of God and share the hope of Christ as written in the Holy scriptures to the poor the sick the needy and the downcast of Franklin Township through our multiple Church Outreach initiatives including the home and foreign missions feeding the hungry program which have provided hot meals toiletry Essentials food drive providing winter accessories to those in need Street Ministries and Thanksgiving baskets to families in need to name the lease through our education department we held a school supplies Drive providing school bags with supplies to our youth in and around the community we have donated to various organizations much recently to the American Cancer Association we've held music musical programs that that provide deterrence to gangs guns and violence and in the past our vacation bible study that provides wholesome fun and educational activities for children during summer recess we firmly believe that the Macedonia Church have been an asset to the Franklin Township community down through the years there are additional programs at Macedonia that have been a positive impact on the Franklin Township community that to be honest is far reaching Beyond Franklin Township community and spreads to the community around us I'm a witness of that I'm not originally from FR Franklin Township I was actually born and raised on an island and the Lord led me to this congregation and it has changed my life immensely as I mentioned before this has been a long journey and we have have been back and forth with the board and just about everything concerning the church concerning the building of the church church whether it's parking or building size or the variance required variances that's needed in order to comply with the township zoning ordinances we fully understand that in order to build our church yes we will require these variances and we pray and we believe that Mr lanit and those who have testified on our behalf have clearly exped explains the benefits of us building this church I'm going to skip this whole part the community around Macedonia have changed dramatically and as we've seen at quite a bit of our services there are new faces that we meet we are building to accommodate what is to come and as Mr trotman testified to with certainly uh match the character of the community around us in addition at it stands currently our churches does not have the capacity to allow for events that should be held at our church weddings funerals Christmas get togethers to say the least all of this are held elsewhere but again we simply cannot accommodate these events in our current state therefore we need a new church I don't think I can adequately summarize what the building of this n of this new church meant and means to our church family and I intentionally use both the past and present tense in that statement we have members that have gone on to be with the Lord who looked in anticipation for a new building our sister Ora Payne was our church representative and spearheaded this project along with some of our other Board of Trustees members she will not be here to see it to fruition uh but was represented by her daughter at the last hearing she did her part our church mother mother Louise T Richardson would always encourage us every first Sunday to give Faithfully to our building fund and would say she may not be here to see it completed but she did her part and our church mother mother Betty Jean Marshall who passed away on Saturday faithful in her commitment to our church to ensure the church was cleaned and had what we needed when the doors were open she would Faithfully bake cakes to raise money for the building fund and look forward to the new church being built she did her part I have not been a part of this congregation I'm sorry I have been a part of this congregation for approximately 12 years and my contributions pale in comparison to what some of my other brothers and sisters have contributed both spiritually and naturally humbly and unselfishly we can all testify how being a part of this congregation have changed our lives for the better and as such we will continue to reach out and help the community around us that is who we are that's discipleship and again the mission of our church in closing as we have throughout this entire process we pray that we receive a yes and an approval of our application from you tonight to proceed with the next phase of this process again we thank you for your [Applause] time well that's a tough act to follow if anybody wants to try um seeing no one else coming forward and move to close the public portion motion okay all in favor okay um any final board comments before we move to a motion and a vote no okay um let me go ahead and try to frame this motion um so I'll make a motion to approve with the um variances noted um updated uh for the um revised plans um all revised plans will need to have that um upper balcony um correct as was testified to tonight and what it would be um and and with the wall um we will need a um revised copy of your memorandum of understanding with RPM um and satisfactory to the bo satisfactory to the board's attorney approval um I believe Ted made some suggestions to buffering which uh the applicant in uh said they would comply with um the applicant also noted over the course of three hearings that they would comply with all staff reports um except where in the testimony um we discussed it or any any exceptions were made um what else am I missing am I missing any angle the only other one possibly is to require that the 24 passenger vans always be made available we we have no problem with that I will add that and and so that is that is my motion chairman did you add the um that if the RPM agreement were to change that they would need to good point thanks Sammy um yes I'll men that to add that if the if any point in the future the RPM agreement to which you agreed this board attorney will um um review and and and sign off on um changes that is also subject to uh board attorney review you said that was in there in the latest version that was requested by Mr vinolo it it is in the last version I sent to him so it's already covered so as as amended and I think in crafting the resolution we'll have to review the minutes there may have been one or two things said over the previous meetings that reflected in the minutes that will put in the resolution U Mr Lanford did um say again tonight that the fellowship hall will not be used at the same time as the sanctuary um I'm sure there was some a statement to the fact that it wouldn't be rented out to outside parties you know either of the sanctuary I'm sure the sanctuary wouldn't or the fellowship hall wouldn't be rented out the outside I'm sure there are other statements to that we we made I made statements that were part of one of your prior reports that we would have no outdoor activities like Carnival carnivals or fairs or anything else outside uh but yeah we we should review the minutes to make sure we got them all covered yeah ultimately a motion is a motion and not not intended to be all-encompassing resolution which obviously is voted on a second time so um with that um I'll ask Kane a second a second he Christine please call the RO councilman embis yes Theodore Chase yes Robert Lor yes Sammi sioban yes sorry I remember we were supposed to give explanations why we say yes so I wasn't sure if you wanted us you can certainly do that okay so I do agree with much of what was said in terms of um the safety protocols being updated the beautification being updated and the fact that there's an inherent good that comes with this this building of the center and that much outweighs all of the other variances or or restrictions that we had discussed so for those reasons I would approve this application thank you thanks Sammy Jennifer rag now thank you for all that you do for the community yes Mah Rafi yes Charles Brown yes Rebecca Hilbert yes chairman Rini so um my explanation is the following this was actually tough for me um and the reason it was tough was because of a a statement that I still can't Square in my head which is and I believe was given this testimony is given by Miss Edwards in the first hearing we heard seven years of U how many families were in the parish and there was no demonstrable growth so what I couldn't square with that um you know it's not like you went from 50 to 75 to 100 to 150 to 200 and know you bursting it the seams it stayed fairly constant and so the need for such a a large building that would necessitate so many variances um was was hard to square with that testimony um that being said um I struggle to think whatever what other use there would be there or where the church would go um they have to find a larger lot um been in the community for a long time um I do take um you know the testimony that Mr O'Brien gave about the benefits weighing the detriments substantially um I I don't like that many variances but I also struggle to see a better use for this property than is currently there and without a doubt uh for many of the reasons Mr O'Brien stated um I I think bringing the church up to a Modern Standard um it is probably beneficial to the community and I think some that made my some hesitance go away was was the parking the the the the substantial reduction in parking by um reducing um or eliminating any seating in the balcony it's a long-winded way of saying I also vote Yes but I wanted to give an Xmen thank thank you very much thank you for your input your patience and your considerations thank you um we have any other business tonight Christine if not I make a motion to adjourn second all in favor I next meeting is going to be in two weeks right right all right that's the way I came down I know