Okay. Again, thank you for for your patience. I'd like to call the meeting to order in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act PL1975, Chapter 231. Adequate notice of this regular May 7th, 2026 meeting of the
zoning board has been provided. Board members, applicant professionals, members of the public, please speak directly in the microphones so our recording secretary can properly process minutes. Applicants and professionals, please fill out the
sheet on the table when you've completed your testimony. Uh, roll call, please. >> Okay. And then just remember here in this building, when you're not using your microphone, you have to turn it off. There can't be more than three on
at the same time. Just a reminder. Um, Vasim Verdas asked to be excused this evening. Cheryl Bethia >> here. >> Richard Brokanic >> here. >> Alan Rich >> here. >> Gary Rosenthal. >> Robert Shepard >> here. >> Mike Dy
>> here. >> Kunalak here >> here. >> And Robert Thomas >> here. >> Okay. And also just as a point of reference, everybody here tonight signed the paper that they were either attended the meetings that was concerning this
application or they've watched if they missed a meeting, they've watched the minutes. I mean, they've watched the video or read the minutes or something. So, I have those over here if we need them. >> Okay, moving on to the minutes. Regular
meeting March 5th, 2026. Bob Shepard and Kunal Lakia cannot vote. >> I'll move >> second. >> Cheryl Betheia, >> yes. >> Richard Proanic, >> yes. >> Alan Rich, >> yes. >> Gary Rosenthal,
>> yes. >> Mike Dy, >> yes. >> And Chairman Thomas, >> yes. All right. Regular meeting April 12th. >> Uh, April 2nd. >> April 2nd. I'm sorry. Alan Rich, Gary Rosenthal, and Mike Dy cannot vote.
>> I'll move. >> Second. >> Cheryl Bethia, >> yes. >> Richard Panic, >> yes. >> Robert Shepard, >> yes. >> Kunal Lakia, >> yes. >> Chairman Thomas,
>> yes. All right, moving right down then into our hearings for tonight. Uh, there are Mike, >> there are three applications that that we've been uh considering
simultaneously. Ukrainian Orthodox Church ZBA 20 25008 minor subdivision with variance applicants proposing to subdivide the existing lot into two new parcels 135
Davidson Avenue and then uh that was carried from um March 5th. Then we have Ukrainian church ZBA 0007 D2 use variance preliminary final site plan with a C variances in which the
proposal consists of site modifications associated with the retention of certain existing church and seminary facilities again at 135 Davidson and uh that was carried from March 5th and then Syracuse 1850 Eastern Avenue uh
ZBA BA2509 D1 use variance preliminary final site plan with C variances in which the applicant intends to build a 258,50 foot warehouse also at 135 Davidson
Avenue. All of these were carried from March 5th with no further notification. And uh I believe the applicant has completed their presentation. That is we completed our presentation.
However, at the last excuse me at the last meeting uh three of the witnesses who testified were being cross-examined by members of the public. The cross-examination had not completed. So, I think what we have to do this evening
is complete the cross-examination of uh Mr. Moransky, our planner, Mr. Lotheian, our traffic consultant, and Mr. Winger, who is our architect. >> Okay. Planning, traffic, and the third one,
>> planning, traffic, and architecture. >> Okay. for the public. We were in the middle of open being open to the public to question those three witnesses based on their testimony. Uh therefore, that's
where we will begin tonight. So, if there are any other members in the audience who wish to ask questions of those three witnesses concerning their testimony,
the mic is open. We'll start with the people who have not asked any questions of any of these witnesses. >> By the way, for purpose of the record, I apologize for being late. Have council put their notice on the record. They're here.
Okay. >> Okay. It's open to the public. Anyone wish to question the witnesses? He's He's an attorney. Do you mean him? That's what he's asking me. Do you mean him or do you mean just general public that he's not representing? >> I'm just entering my appearance for for tonight. >> I I believe I've crossed the sand with
all the witnesses. I thought that this portion was >> for the remainder of the uh interested members of the public that were not part of my client's organization. Okay. Yeah. >> Again, last call. Any members of the
public not represented by an attorney who wish to ask e any of these three witnesses questions based on their testimony. This is the time to do that. Oh, then we'll close to the public. I I
believe we have a presentation now from our objectors attorney. >> Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Peter MacArthur on behalf of Svitan NYC. Um, my understanding is that now it is the
time to raise procedural objections. >> I'm sorry. Is Is that better? Yes. >> Okay. It is my understanding that um this is now my time to raise any procedural objections that I may have uh to the proceedings uh that have gone on
thus far. Um a couple of days ago I I wrote to the board secretary and I tried to apparently I I didn't have the correct email for Mr. uh Bernstein, but I was um
raising an issue with the Open Public Meetings Act and um today I was having some conversations via email with the board secretary and uh I did receive the second um
uh shall we say a newspaper notice for both 2025 and 26. Well, I already had it for for 25 but well or for 25 and 26. Yes. But um as a result of that um there was an additional
uh issue that I that came up with respect to this meeting and that is is that the um the notice the for 2026 listed location of the meeting as being at town hall and
not here. And so I had written to Ms. Woodbury and said um and I don't know if she saw the email. It was late in the day. Uh but anyway um I had said that um for the
March 2nd hearing she had provided a u a sunshine notice which changed the location of that meeting to here and I was inquisitive as to whether or not she had a similar notice for today's hearing. >> Okay. So, I do see you sent an email at
2:36 p.m. today. >> I think that's the one. >> Correct. Um, I was already out of the office on the rehab, so I didn't answer it. Uh, as far as the notice for this evening, um, it was done uh, for
digitally because um, in March of 2026, they changed the way that we're doing business. I >> if you need that me to send that to you only because I didn't see this. I can look in here and see if I have it. Uh if I don't have it, I can scan it and get
it to you tomorrow. >> That's fine. >> Okay, >> that's fine. And so we'll hold that obviously in oayance, but I wanted to raise that as well. Um other than that issue, councelor, the open public meetings act issues are now
resolved. Well, um, in terms I'm assuming I I I I I get what I what I was promised and it's in order. Yes, they are, but I I I can't say it's resolved if I haven't seen it yet. I I think you want to see
>> other than the issue you just raised with Miss Woodbury this afternoon. The other issue that you raised which involved the issue of the annual notice and compliance in two official newspapers. You've been provided the paperwork that shows yes in fact they
had been noticed. Correct. I have been provided uh paperwork yes for 2025 and 2026 which indicates uh it it's the annual uh notice of meetings which would seem
to comply with uh section 1046 of the open public meetings act. Um, I've not looked at any case law on that subject, but it would seem to uh take care of it because it takes care of date, time,
location, and all the relevant um um [snorts] requirements of that of that section. Um um you know for purposes you know if there's a future proceeding in this
matter I would like to res I I I have not had a chance since I just saw it today to look at at case law on the subject but it would seem to be resolved. Yes, Mr. um Mr. Hornstein. So with that I'd like to I'd like to move
on. um 10 days before this, actually more than 10 days before this hearing, um you asked for all expert reports and I and Mr. Stack, my planner, uh submitted his report and at the bottom of page five,
excuse me, bottom of page four and the top of page five, he um indicates that there are some uh in his mind some um some notice issues. Um this time not
with the open public meetings act but with uh the municipal land use law. Um the municipal land use law indicates that the date, time, place of the hearing um and the matter to be considered um and identification of the property by
street address etc have to be um made 10 days you know ahead of time of the first hearing and uh and whatnot. And [clears throat] the um excerpt from Mr. St's u report at
beginning at the bottom of page four indicates that the cemetery requires a use variance. No testimony has been provided regarding approval of the cemetery use on proposed lot 109 1.09 as indicated in the board of adjustments
resolutions appended to the applicant's January 5th 2026 planning. If he's reading from Mr. Steck's report and Mr. Ste is here, why doesn't Mr. Ste testify as to his opinion andor conclusion? >> Well, it it is a legal issue
>> which begs the question that we're getting a legal opinion from a planner, though God knows planners would be regularly called upon to give legal advice without a license. Um, I would concur with Mr. Lanfred as to
the issue of having Mr. Ste testify. If you want to raise the legal issues that Mr. Steck raises in his report, then maybe thereafter we can have that conversation. >> All right. So, what you're saying is is that I should hold this objection at
obeyance pending Mr. St's testimony. I can raise it again. >> You're not being precluded from raising it. you're not being procluded from not raising it. But right now, I concur with Mr. Lanford's comment that since it's based in Mr. Steck's report and Mr. Ste
is here to testify regarding it, maybe the best thing to do is have Mr. Ste testify. All right. It it seems that that's fine. I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll proceed in that fashion. Um the other procedural um
issues that I have concern um I looked to see uh some a couple of hearings ago uh the [snorts] um there were I raised issues concerning whether or not we had an authorized contract, a contract purchaser, etc.
under the definitions of the municipal uh land use law. I believe that goes back to November. And uh in response u to that, Mr. Lanfred produced uh a constitution
um and specifically a constitution for the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA. Um and uh I I looked at it and I uh you know to see if it actually if the documentation that was submitted with
that actually follows the constitution provided and I have serious doubts that it does. Um first of all there the minutes the so-called minutes that were produced weren't really minutes. There were summaries, you know, which kind of glossed over in my mind, you know,
multiple nuts and bolts requirements in this constitution. Um, you know, concerning, you know, notices and publications and and and things of that nature. Uh to begin with um uh in Roman numeral
2, the church sober section 3C, where were the lay delegates properly authorized? Next issue, was the sober agenda published in the Ukrainian Orthodox
word? Was it published in the UOC of USA website? Um, and what was it done 60 days prior to the sober? Section five, was a draft resolution for
this transaction received by pre-ober resolutions 30 days prior to the sober six. Section six, was a resolution approved? Published um was was the resolution that was approved
published in the Ukrainian Orthodox word andor the UOC of the USA within 60 days of the sober. Um there doesn't appear to be an indication
that the consistory received the sober minutes uh and uh whether they were printed or distributed to the the council of the metropolia or the parish priests and the the parish board of administration.
Um I also would indicate that's section 10 by the way um of Roman numeral 2. in section 11 uh there was no indication of a quorum being present uh either.
So um next I I I looked at Roman numeral 5 of set constitution. The council of the metropolia was a quorum present um you know with a majority of the members from the metropolia the metropolitan
or the vice chair of the council of the bishops. Section nine. Um, minutes of the of the minutes were they printed and distributed to council members for additions, corrections, or deletions within 60 days?
Was a summary of the session published in the Ukrainian Orthodox word and uh the UC of the USA website. There doesn't uh likewise seem to be or doesn't seem to appear to be mentioned
of the um you know or was there consistory uh actions um you know when it is their responsibility to administer uh you know a sale such as this?
Next in in section 10 were the parishes involved? Was the parish involved in this? Um um don't they have a right to uh you know to sell you know property which is which is in you know this uh [clears throat]
under under their you know u jurisdiction. Um it shall be under the management of the uh you know the the board of the parish board of administrators. It says uh you know to me it appears that they were left out. Um, no mention of any of
the summary documents. Uh, from the summaries that were provided, appears that this was pushed through. Um, reading this constitution and its mandatory language, it doesn't appear that all constitutional requirements
uh followed here. The action taken by the sober in the metropolia did not authorize this contract. If it's not properly authorized, there is no contract, which means there's no contract purchaser, which means there's no applicant and no application. You've heard me make that argument before back
in November. and uh per the definitional sections of three and four of the U uh UL MLUL and your own definitions in your ordinance um
you know you you the Franklin Township ordinance has the same terms as the as the MLUL. Now I am not here to argue that the action of the sober or the council of the Metropolia should be overturned. I'm well aware that this board does not have
that power. That is for a court under a different you know uh you know different time and a different place to decide. What I am asking you to do is to interpret the definitions of your zoning ordinance which you have the inherent right to do
um and find under these facts that you don't have a contract purchaser. Um [snorts] that that essentially concludes that that objection. Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, uh, this
board has the authority to gear site plan applications, use variance applications, bulk variance applications, subdivisions. The board, this board does not interpret
contracts. This board does not review contracts. Uh after the hearing, the first hearing when uh council raised this issue, I provided to uh this board uh by way of a submission all of the
paperwork that the uh church provided to me uh indicating that they did have the authority to sign the contract. If you recall, Mr. Lanssky testified at one of the prior hearings and he's the attorney for the church that the church has the
authority to uh sign the contract. Uh I think the last statement that was made by Mr. MacArthur is accurate. This board is not this board's concern. We have an application that was signed under oath by the archbishop uh saying that they
have the authority to uh sign the application. I think the board has to hear the application. If Mr. MacArthur or his clients think that the contract is uh either void or voidable. Uh there's a there's a courthouse up in
Somerville where uh he can uh litigate that issue, but it's not to be litigated here. >> Respectfully, uh Mr. Lanford. Uh this this is a a it is a limited uh municipal land use law issue because
we're dealing with that the definitional sections of not only the municipal land use law but this you know this this uh this zoning ordinance. these um the definitions are the same as to who a
developer is and who a contract purchaser is. It it is a municipal land use law issue. And if we if we don't have that, if those definitions aren't met, we don't we don't have we shouldn't even be here. We shouldn't even be here.
>> Mr. Lanford, for purpose of the record, when was when were these documents provided? They were provided by a submission after the first hearing. Uh, and I don't have the exact date.
>> Actually, I think it was the second hearing, Mr. Lford. I wasn't involved in the first hearing. >> Okay. I'm sorry. The second hearing. >> Yeah. >> Got an approximate date. One of you >> I'm sorry. >> Either one of you have an approximate date on when that was. >> The second The second hearing was in January. So, it would have been sometime
in January. >> Okay. four months beyond my office whe not the time to raise the issue. And I'm getting the feeling, Mr. MacArthur
that were engaged I'm not I'm not sure whether it's Hail Mary or gotcha between the adequate notice issue that's been apparently on your plate for two plus months and now this which is apparently on your plate for four plus
months at some point if you want my office to render an opinion to my client you can't come to a board meeting and ask me to render an opinion to my client in the absence of knowing what the issue is. So, if you are going to make the
request that you want a legal interpretation, assuming this board is even interested in my legal interpretation, you're going to have to put it in writing. You're going to have to allow Mr. Lanford to respond. And then and only then am I going to issue an opinion. But short of that, I'm not
going to advise this client to suspend this hearing on the allegations you've placed before relative to contracts that were in your hands for four months that you're now here apparently trying to stop the hearing from either continuing
or finishing tonight. So, I would suggest if you wish to raise that issue, you can do so at the end of your presentation in terms of whether or not you're going to put it in writing and how we're going to deal with it. Otherwise, anything else before you call
Mr. Stack? >> Mr. Bernstein, when I was here in November, I I stood up here and I and I asked and I asked if this was the appropriate time to lodge procedural objections and and I was I was told that
it was not. So, I respected your your uh you know, your hearing process and now it's my turn and I'm being told I I I I can't I can't raise anything. >> No, I'm not saying you can't raise it. I'm saying to you that if you want an answer,
you want me to advise my client, you cannot come to a meeting on the night of May the 8th and ask me to render an opinion based on nothing before me and nothing to advise the client. So, I would be more than happy to submit all
of what I've said in writing. Mr. Ste has already put it in writing. >> I'm not Mr. Ste's report is not in evidence before this board any more than anybody else's report is before this board is evidence until there's testimony regarding same. So if there is
material in Mr. Steck's report you want this board to be aware of, put Mr. Ste on and let's deal with it. That's fine. I I I can I can uh I can do that. So that that uh concludes my procedural objections
and I wanted to call a couple other witnesses uh before Mr. Ste if you don't mind. >> I only suggested Mr. Ste because you had raised his report as an issue. If you want to take others before him, it's well within your purview.
Let me consult my client for a minute, please. >> Mr. Bernstein, I'm going to call Peter Stick. Sorry, Mr. MacArthur. >> I I would suggest for comfort and otherwise, Mr. Sten, you are more than welcome to come to the table here and
make your presentation. I don't think Mr. Lanford will attack. >> It'll be nice to be able to spread out, Mr. Bernstein. Peace. You're on. Raise your right hand, please. Testimony, you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I help you God.
>> I do. >> State your full name. Spell your last name for the record. Indicate by whom you were employed and your credentials. Uh, my name is Peter Steek, stk. Uh, I'm a with offices at 80 Maplewood
Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey. I'm a licensed planner in New Jersey, licensed in 1976. Uh, my license is still in good standing. Uh, by way of background, I have a
bachelor's degree in civil engineering. uh masters in city and regional planning. Uh in terms of experience, [clears throat] uh I was the planning director for the township of Montlair for just short of 10 years. I was an associate planner
with two consulting firms, [clears throat] Malcolm Castler Associates and Alvin Gersian Associates. Um I'm a member of the League of Municipalities Land Use Law Drafting Committee. Um, and I've uh been
self-employed uh for the past 20 some odd years and been [clears throat] accepted as an expert witness in uh approximately um 230 municipalities in New Jersey as
well as in uh superior court and tax court. >> I would ask that Mr. U Ste be qualified as a professional planner. >> We accept his qualifications. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr.
>> Mr. Ste, uh can you please uh tell the board what what you did in preparation of your testimony today, what you reviewed, and um what other actions did you take in order to be able to testify today and issue your report? >> Yes. Um,
by way of preparation, I uh reviewed the application materials that have been submitted. Uh, as the board is aware, I was present at the last hearing, and I did listen to the, uh, YouTube videos of the September
18th, 2025 hearing and the November 6, 2025 hearing. Uh I've toured the property on uh at least two occasions um and uh reviewed the master plan and
re-examination reports and uh I again I was present at the last hearing and I was present earlier this evening when there was a discussion on procedures and as a result of that I produced a
report [clears throat] that's uh dated planning that's titled planning evaluation of three applications. It dated April 24th, 2026 and it was uh as directed delivered to
the municipality uh on that date and I I guess I'll go through the report. >> [clears throat] >> Um so um I did examine carefully the planning
testimony that was presented by Mr. Moransky. Um, and to jump the gun on this, um, in my opinion, um, there has not been substantial credible evidence that would
justify the relief sought. And I think that there are procedural issues having to do with what was in the public notice and what the extent of the subject property is. Um, so I'm now talking
about the bottom of page one of my report where I understand the applicant is phrasing this as three separate applications. And it is alleged that the first application is a two lot minor
subdivision that was phrased as an as of right subdivision. Um, I'll talk about this later. In my end, it's not an as of right subdivision because what it does is
lessen the amount of land that's associated with the church facility. And since that's a nonconforming use under [clears throat] the raspberries's case, the church is that non-conforming
use is intensifying because the land is being diminished. The subdivision is being phrased as a separate application unrelated to anything else and fully conforming. It is not fully conforming
because [clears throat] it triggers a D2 variance. And frankly, if it was an separate application that had nothing to do with anything else that was going on, only the planning board could hear it. The reason it's here is because it's
connected to the at least as a minimum the D2 variance uh for the smaller lot that's housing uh the uh church facilities um as well as um [clears throat]
the cemetery. Uh the second application [clears throat] is the one that is the intensification of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church because the land land area is being reduced
and uh [clears throat] uh I think the applicant acknowledges that that's a a D2 variance. The third application uh is for the warehouse use uh that is on one of the subdivided
lots. And as you know, it's not exclusively a warehouse use because there's a access driveway through the warehouse lot to get to the church facilities as proposed in the subdivision.
Um but it is not a permitted use. So that part of the application is the D1 Medici case. Um and uh the applicant I think acknowledges that that is uh a D1 case.
Um I did carefully [clears throat] uh listen to the testimony of the applicant's planner which followed essentially his January 5th, 2026 planning report.
And uh I'll just I guess summarize what I heard him testify. As you know, he uh referenced past resolutions affecting this property. Uh those resolutions that were in the appendix to his report essentially
talked about the cemetery that's on the subject that was proposed for the subject property. Those resolutions indicated that there was an approval of an a cemetery that was proposed to be to be expand excuse me was proposed and
then because of the lapse of time um there was a request for certain extensions. I think there were two rounds of extensions. Um those extensions are over the last based on what the applicant has submitted.
um the that approval for a cemetery has lapsed. And so uh one of the issues is because that's a non-conforming use in the zone uh to reestablish a cemetery on the
subject property or part of the subject property or what the applicant calls the subject property uh involves testimony and a use variance for the cemetery. Um the uh the applicants
uh planner talked about uh the subdivision being fully conforming but that's only on the dimensional standards. Again, uh that application would not be before the board but for
the fact that it triggers a D2 variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use. Um when Mr. Mor >> hold on ju just for a moment. The the use what is triggering the D2? Is it the
intensification of the of the uh church facility or is it the or is it the the um the cemetery? >> They're two separate issues. The applicant hasn't really presented any
testimony about the cemetery. >> Right. I got that from your report. >> Yeah. In my opinion, the applicant needs to apply for a cemetery because that approval seems to have lapsed. >> Yeah. But that's fine. But why does it have to be part of this case?
>> Because there's a cemetery on the plans that the board is asking your approval from. Okay, that's a good answer. So, so, so then the
but then the the the what you're talking about now is the intensification issue. >> There's a case called uh raspberries, not spelled the way the the fruit is. And uh basically there was a
[clears throat] a property that had a nonconforming use on it and the applicant wanted to I think it was a two family house. The applicant wanted to subdivide some of the property from that two family house. It was an oversized lot and and the
applicant said I'm not touching the lot the the house. I just want to subdivide some of the vacant land off the house. And the court ruled that because that house was nonconforming to take property away from it is the same as kind of expanding the two family
house. It makes it more intense because you're taking away the buffers and the setbacks that are surrounding it. So there are two I'll call them D1 variances that are associated with this application. One is the cemetery which
no one has talked about so far which I think is a defect and the second one is this uh uh the in the D2 which is uh the in effect intensification of the church use because the applicant is saying it's
the same activity but I'm shrinking the land substantially around it and the courts have said well that's the same as intensifying the Okay. So, that's where the D2 comes from. >> Yes. Yeah. >> All right. See, I'm still troubled by
the idea that somehow you I didn't see anything in in the paperwork or in anything in which they said that they wanted to get a variance for the for they want to get a variance for the cemetery. Obviously, the pre-existing
uh allowances uh had expired, but I don't I still don't understand why the cemetery is is you make trying to make it part of this application. >> Well, it's it's on the plan. So, if you
approve the plan, there's a a hatched area on the plan that shows where the cemetery is or supposed to be. the applicant in my opinion this is a defect that the applicant is not a the fact that the applicant didn't apply for it
doesn't mean it the applicant doesn't need the variance I think it's a defect in the application that the applicant is ignoring that >> okay thanks >> you're welcome uh so uh one of the other issues [clears throat]
is that when Mr. Moransky testified. He says, "Well, the core activities of the church, even though the property is being reduced, the core activities are still going to be accommodated." And why? Because we're going to use an
adjacent lot across the river, we're going to put some of the the stuff that's happening on this property related to the church, we're going to do on the other property. Now, that affects the other property.
you are now adding uses across the stream. And in the last hearing and two hearings ago, the applicant testified, "Oh, there's a foot bridge across the river that connects the two properties, so you can get there without going on
the street." Um, and that's the cemetery that's proposed on the subject property, it seems to me, is intimately related to the cemetery across the stream.
Uh in fact when when the earlier approvals were discussed for the cemetery which have lapsed, it was talked about that we have, you know, so many grave sites uh across the stream and we're running out of space. So we
want more space and presumably this is all one cemetery. And again, it it not only abuts one another, not only are the properties under the same ownership, but there's a pedestrian bridge to walk from one to the other that connects them. And
one of the issues that I'll talk about in a minute is that this application really involves not only uh the property that's in the public notice, lot 1.06 in block 469.
In my opinion, it involves the property across the stream, lot 2.01, because they're integrated. And in fact, the applicant is taking some of the uses that are on 1.06 and saying, "I'm going
to put them in the building across the stream." That changes that application. That nonconforming use across the stream is being changed. So, um, I I'll summarize that in a moment, but
but there was a reference to the social building on lot 2.01 and again under the propertyy's under the same ownership as the subject property. Uh, Mr. Moransky and again, this is in the
record. Um he testified that the warehouse use was particularly suited uh because it was the property is closed to 287. There are no residential uses in the area. Uh they're going to use executive
drive for truck generated traffic. and he cited certain purposes of the admissible land use law a GH and I first of all um because this that's the Medici part of the application the applicant does have to show that it's particularly
suited and proximity to 287 probably applies to 20 properties. you know, it's it's a generic feature of this part of the municipality and so not particular to this property.
It might be a basis for reszoning in the future, but it's not a particular factor of this property. Actually, it's generic to all the properties uh on this side of of 287. What does that
comment that it's does that mean it's it's less suited for a warehouse because it's generic? Is it does have the location? >> If it's generic, the solution is reszone it. You know, if if you if you found a
property, let's say that was steeply sloped and it turns out that all the properties in the area steeply sloped, that doesn't meet the Medici standard in my opinion. >> What would resoning do to that warehouse prop potential warehouse property to
make it more suitable in your opinion? Well, if it was supported by your master plan and if it had zoning that permitted the use, I wouldn't be here. But we have a master plan that says no
new warehouses and we have related instances of intensification of a church use. So there are other variances that are triggered. This is not just a warehouse in isolation. It is the applicant by
this subdivision is encouraging a nonpermitted use a warehouse and is encouraging intensification of the church neither of which are permitted under your zoning. That's why they came to the zoning board to get a variance.
>> That's and and ultimately they have provided the proof that they were suitable sites for the for those I have provided evidence that they think it's suitable and I'm trying to present
evidence that I disagree, if I may continue. >> So, you're going to disagree with after the fact with several other approvals for warehouses that are right there in the same area. >> As you know,
there is never a precedent set for a variance. And in fact, if you revisit the uh each property is unique just because you gave it to someone on the other side, what's strange about the approval
on the other side of executive drive is that the applicant testified, oh, we're thinking of new regulations and we're going to comply with what regulations you're thinking of but not yet adopted. that wasn't challenged but in my opinion
that doesn't constitute pro medici proofs. Uh if I continue maybe I could an we'll answer some >> I I will say it was enough for the board due to the fact that it does fit into the master plan even though warehouses
at the moment are not permitted. It it suits the goals of the new ordinance that will be eventually passed that eliminate makes them uh located provides for them to be located close to 287,
keeps them off of local streets and roads and out of residential neighborhoods. So, proposed zoning and proposed master plan amendments are irrelevant to these proceedings. We don't know they're going to be adopted
and they're not the law today and it's not the planning principle. >> Okay, that's fine. But that's your opinion. >> That's a fact. >> That's your opinion, too. >> As of this year, >> that they're not to be considered. >> Mr. Steck, let me just ask you a question. Mark Healey over here.
What what what the chairman is referring to is a master plan re re-examination master plan update that the planning board adopted in January that that makes recommendations to allow warehouses in different areas
of the town. Are you aware of that document? >> Yes. >> If you'll let me finish my testimony, I think I'll cover that. >> Okay. Um well we'll see. So one of the issues um that Mr.
Moransky said in terms of his you know negative criteria again he says don't worry some of the church functions are going to go on lot 1.02. Uh he he said that the uh don't worry because the uh we have
front yard loading that's substandard in area and the driveways the to the loading areas uh are in the front yard. Uh but the executive drive may be vacated and
he's suggesting that then those variants disappear. Well, it's not vacated as of this evening, as far as I know. And my recollection is that when you uh vacate a public road, I always thought that half of it went to each of the budding
properties. Now, there may be some special circumstances here I'm unaware of, but in all the experience I've had, when you vacate a public road, each side gets half of the rightway. That's the normal situation, which means
the facts for this application have changed. There's different land areas now. There's more area to have landscaping if you're going to vacate it, etc. So, um, Mr. Moransky pointed out that um, in the
BI zone, it did permit warehousing. Well, that's true except the law changed and the master plan changed. Uh Mr. Moransky neglected to reference the master plan amendment that says we do
not want new warehouses anywhere in the BI zone. So, here are my planning conclusions. Uh I and I'm now at the bottom of page four.
Uh my understanding from the applicant's paperwork is that the prior approval for a cemetery use uh on the subject property has lapsed. They asked for two
extens extensions. No more extensions were asked for. Um there is and yet the site plan shows a substantial portion of the new northerly
lot uh lot 1.06 to be in cemetery use. In my opinion the applicant because that's not a permitted use in the zone. The applicant should have said in the public notice, we're reapplying for a cemetery
and the applicant should have provided evidence um that that can be meet the statutory criteria for a use variance. The second point and I'm pa on page five now is that I believe that lot 2.01 01
uh has to be part of the application. And that's because in the testimony, the applicant says, "Don't worry, I'm going to put some of these church functions across the stream in in the social building there." We
have no evidence about how big that social building is, how many parking spaces are associated with that social building, where traffic goes to service that social build building. None of that information is on the record.
And yet that's cemetery, I understand, that's being shown on the site plan is essentially part of the larger cemetery across the stream. And in fact, there's a pedestrian bridge referenced by the applicant that
connects the properties. So what that means is that the applicant hasn't number one referenced the extent of the application, which is both properties. The applicant has not put that in the
notice that tells the public uh what is about to uh be reviewed. and the applicant didn't draw the 200 foot notice line from both properties. If they're part of the subject application, you use both to draw the
notice line and the applicant hasn't done that. Um, I understand that you've adopted a new re-examination report that says we recommend that the governing body make
three categories of land uses, make warehouses again, conditional uses. We don't know that the governing body is going to adopt that. And the most important fact is that the re-examination report is not the master plan. When you're addressing the
negative criteria, the statute is not no substantial impairment of the re-examination report. It's no substantial impairment of the master plan.
This evening, the master plan says we do not recommend new warehouses in the BI zone. That's the policy as of this evening. As you know, the re-examination report is a separate section of the municipal
land use law. And by the way, it doesn't even require a public hearing as the master plan does. The fact that you're recommending some changes in the future doesn't mean that it's the law and that's not the test of whether the
negative criteria are satisfied. The negative criteria talk about the master plan. The last amendment to your master plan said we don't want new warehouses in this area and here we are proposing a warehouse.
Mr. Moransky did not mention that the planning board on January 18th, 2023 updated its master plan. It amended it and it said that we want to prohibit
future warehouses. That's a fundamental defect in in my opinion flaw in his testimony. Uh one of the observations of the applicant's planner is that there are no residential uses in the area. Well,
first of all, if both lots are involved in the application, meaning lot 1.06 and 2.01, if if both of them together are part of should be part of the subject property,
then there's a whole row of single family homes that abut um to the northwest. But they're also residential components to the church facility. There are seminarians there, retired priests
there. There are people living on that property. There are residential uses in the area that are going to be directly affected. When I read the resolution of Executive Drive, um it was
it assumed that across Executive Drive was this church area, which was the fact at that time. And it said that the applicant should use its best efforts to have Executive
Drive uh vacated. And again, what's unknown to me is why that when when that road is vacated, if the governing body chooses to do it, and I I didn't see any uh notice in the
newspaper that an ordinance had been adopted that vacates the road, but my recollection is that usually vacation means each side gets half to the center line. Uh that's an unknown feature at the moment. uh but it does uh change the
nature of the application. Um just zooming in at the moment on the warehouse development. Um there were a number of observations.
First of all, I find it highly unusual. Let's say someone is traveling north um on Davidson. They're probably going to use the traffic light to get into the site because it's a hightraic area. And that means that someone going to the
church is going to drive into the southern part of the subject property, the warehouse development, be faced with uh loading and unloading trucks on the 35 loading bays, go around 19 trailer
bays, go around to the other side of the site, and then enter the church property. >> That's your >> because >> are you involved that doesn't >> the applicant is proposing that there be
that the church has the right to go through that warehouse property and someone in my opinion what if they travel south on Davidson they're going to go right into the property but someone going north during any of the rush hours is going to have a tough time
they would logically in my opinion use the lighted intersection that's the safe way to cross opposing traffic And that person now has to go, you know, I guess I could put it this way. How many times going to religious services have you gone through a warehouse project to get
to the services? That's not good planning in my opinion. >> You're making a big assumption. We're making a big assumption that it has to happen that way and that that that's not exactly typical
of what's likely possibly likely to happen on day. >> It's not typical to have people will go where their GPS tells them to go. >> Well, but these will be regular presumably attenders of it. And if it's if the easiest way is to use that
lighted intersection, common sense tells me people will do that. Um, one thing that simply hasn't been addressed is that the church is supposed to have
the majority of its parking to the rear of the building. The new parking arrangement for the church doesn't have that. Your ordinance also says no more than 10% of the parking is supposed to be in the front.
That's not the case. There is no testimony by the applicant to justify those variances. Zero testimony. But they're clearly variances that are needed. And they show you what a contorted site plan this is.
There's an opport with larger acreage. There's an opportunity to put parking in the rear uh to have only 10% in the front. But because this is such a crowded application meaning the warehouse is taking so much land and
the warehouses of such a size. The question was asked of the uh at the last uh at the u two meetings ago of the engineer, you know, wouldn't you have more landscaping in the front if the building were reduced in size? And the
applicant never addressed that. If you look across what you approved on the other side of uh Executive Drive, there's a lot of landscaping there. You have next to nothing on the subject
side of Executive Drive. And in fact, there's a detention basin on the corner, which means you're not going to have any landscaping there except for maybe grass. You're not going to have trees and shrubbery in the the low side of that. um of that feature. And again,
that's going to be the most visible part of the property. What you know, whether this is a public street or it's vacated, the public and some of the people parking for the hotel across the street are going to have a wonderful view of
trucks, truck bays, which is in my opinion not an improvement of aesthetics. Right now, there's not a lot of shrubbery on the property, but when you think of the cultural center, you have this broad open space and a rather,
in my opinion, h handsome building, but that's over 100 ft back. And now you're going to bring a wall that's 44 feet high, 50 feet back from the property line that's 360t wide.
And in my opinion, it's not an aesthetic improvement from what is there today. The applicant is proposing an excessively wide driveway and I think that's in concert with the fact that there is parking in the front yard and
there is an insufficient depth according to your ordinance. Now, the applicant says, "Well, it's traditional. uh we've done a lot of warehouses and they all have this dimension. That's not the basis of a variance that I've done it on other properties. The answer is you have
you have your own standard in your code which is twice the length of a vehicle. This is substandard. The fact that other towns have different standards is not the basis for a variance. This is a crowded area. the voting bays are going
to be very visible to the public. That's not an aesthetic improvement. So, uh, as I've listened to the testimony, um, the fact that you are the planning board is recommending
changes to the zoning ordinance is irrelevant. You don't know that the governing body is going to adopt it. Um and and more importantly, the municipal land use law says when you're addressing the negative criteria, you address the
master plan. You don't address the re-examination report. It doesn't even require a public hearing. The public policy established by this board this evening is we don't like new warehouses.
How do you reconcile this application that proposes a new warehouse when your zoning doesn't permit warehouses and your master plan says we don't want new warehouses? >> That's kind of white and black to me. I
don't know how you in fact I don't think you can meet the applicant has met the burden of proof of the Medici decision where you have to have what they call an enhanced quality of proof. you have to explain why putting a warehouse in an
area where it isn't permitted and when the master plan shouldn't be a warehouse how you can reconcile this application with that. So in summary um I think the applicant has not met the burden
um certainly not the met the medi burden for the warehouse um I don't think the site is particularly suited to simply say that this is that we comply with um environmental regulations that has nothing to do with the use. You
got to comply with them anyway because there's a repairarian area and there wetlands there. regardless of the use, you have to comply with that. So, that's not sight suitability. Um, the applicant says we're close to uh
2 287. That's the upper fourth of the municipality. That's a generic feature that might be the basis for, let's say, resoning, but it's not the basis to show particular suitability in in my opinion.
And then I'm not an attorney, but in my opinion, both lots uh what's called the subject property lot 1.06 and lot 2.01 are inherently part of this application.
So you got to reference that. You got to tell the public the whole thing's involved. You got to draw your 200 foot notice from these properties. and you need an approval for a cemetery and there's nothing on the record
that supports the approval of a cemetery which in my opinion requires a D1 variance because that prior approval has lapsed. So I in my opinion there has not there are there's not been substantial credible evidence that would justify any
of the variances and in my opinion there are jurisdictional defects that are fatal and that's my opinion as a planner obviously not as an attorney. >> Mr. Chairman I have a few follow-up
questions. Um Mr. stack. In your last paragraph of your in your report on page seven, you indicate that the property is particularly unsuitable
for this proposed use. >> Yes. >> What are your reasons that it's uh for for it being particularly unsuitable? Um, [clears throat] if you look at the nature of the site plan, uh, while there's a, you know, it meets
the building coverage requirements, all that open space land is to the rear. The public doesn't even see that. It's by the stream because of the size of the building that the applicant is proposing.
There is insufficient loading. The loading maneuvering area is in the front yard, highly visible, whether or not it's a public or private street. And in my opinion, that's why the applicant needs 66 feet wide because they're going to use the driveway for some of the
maneuvering because it's substandard. And again, what what makes it also unsuitable is you're going to have the church has a church users have a right to go through that industrial property.
And in my opinion, they will because it's easy to use a lighted intersection when you're doing a left turn. It's likely to be used. And it does not make sense to me to have church users go through an industrial property. And in
fact, as they start going through, they go through the the area that's used for 35 load loading bays. The loading bays have a deadend aisle on one side, which means there's going to be more maneuvering.
Um, and um, this is, in my opinion, um, not an aesthetic improvement with what's there today. There's going to be a 360 foot wide, 44 foot tall wall 50 feet back and the applicant is going to put
some trees there and some shrubbery and at the corner there's going to be a detention basin so you're not going to really have any landscaping there. This is clearly not an aesthetic improvement. the fact that they're complying with certain set setback requirements.
We can't forget that it's not a permitted use and I don't you can't meet the Medici decision criteria but it part of that is the suitability of the site and the fact that you have substandard uh loading
areas loading areas in the front yard. The fact that you have church traffic going through an industrial property tells me that this site with a the scale of the building proposed is not particularly suited for
this type of use. >> Thank you. Um now you indicated that you also read Mr. Moransk's uh planners report as well, right? >> Yes. And uh in particular, you reviewed his
uh reasoning for [clears throat] the application's alleged satisfaction of the first prong of the negative criteria, namely that um the proposed use would not create a substantial detriment to the public
good. [clears throat] Do you believe do you agree with that opinion? >> I don't. And um what uh is your opinion as to how this application does just the opposite? It does not satisfy the first
prong of the negative criteria. >> Again, the the the negative criteria is the first prong is, you know, doesn't substantially impair uh is not detrimental to the public good. Um here we have um acknowledge that the driveway
is going to be I guess a level service E. So, there's going to be a deterioration of traffic at the intersection. And the applicant says, "Don't worry, there's backup. It's going to be on the site. It's not going to be on Davidson." But that's still a
detriment to have a backup uh a worsening of the level of service even though it's on the subject property. Um, this is, in my opinion, a dramatic difference in the aesthetics of the
area. Across the street you have a hotel, you know, conference center, banquet center. Some of the people are going to park right across from Executive Drive. They're going to have a wonderful view of the loading docks. And
there is insufficient landscaping in my opinion to shield that. And that's those are features in my opinion that are detrimental to the public good. >> Thank you. Um
now uh sir are you familiar with the uh the Calfman case? >> I am. [snorts] >> And uh in particular I want you to apply the standards of Calfman with respect to the variance sought for the the I
believe it's a 66 foot driveway width. >> Um yes. So the Calfman case basically said that was the first Supreme Court review when they broadened C variances. That's when they change the
law. So the C2 is the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments. And the benefits are not benefits to the developer. They're benefits to the public. That's that's what the benefit is looking for.
This applicant is seeking an excessive width of driveway, which means it's more the loading docks are more visible than before and and they have uh loading activities within the required front yard. The applicant needs it in my opinion
because the building is too big for the site aside from the use. It constrains that part of the property that when you approach this property, this warehouse property from uh Executive Drive, how many warehouses do
you know that when you approach the warehouse, the loading is right in your face? That's not an aesthetic improvement. And that shows, in my opinion, a deficient design. And there's no flexibility because the warehouse is so big. There's
no there's no standard in your ordinance that said even though warehouses are not permitted, we got to have at least 250,000 square feet. That's a choice of the applicant. It's a self-created choice. the the deficiencies
in in the location of loading and the width of the driveway are not at all public benefits and they encourage a use that's a prohibited use and one that the master plan says we don't want new warehouses.
>> Okay. So, I guess my question at this point after listening to what you're saying is if the building was smaller, would this make would they be able to put a building there uh that wouldn't
have uh the the defects that you perceive? >> It would eliminate some of the defects, but the I don't want to lose the view of the big picture. Warehouses are not permitted. You could put a small
office building there. Maybe another type of use. >> Yeah, but that's why he's here. We know that >> that's a jurisdictional issue. That's why he's here. But the answer is it's a heavy burden of the applicant to propose a use that's prohibited and where your
master plan is in agreement with your current zoning. The master's plan says we don't the most recent amendment to your master plan says we don't want new warehousing in this zone. And in fact, your zoning ordinance says we don't want
new warehousing in this zone. So I don't know how you get over that and still meet the medi criteria. Mr. STE. Um would it be your opinion, sir, that um proximity to 287
a permitted use could could um could go at this location? >> Yes, it's it's not it's not limited. It means that it's it's regionally accessible. Uh but that doesn't mean it has to be a warehouse use in my opinion. And again
the there 287 cuts through the municipality. There is substantial acreage that has the same characteristics. If that's a generic characteristic of let's say the northern fourth of the municipality,
that's not a basis to say this site is particularly suited. That might be a basis to change your zoning in the future, but we don't know that that's going to happen. And that's not a basis to approve or deny this application. What you speculate might happen in the
future. >> And finally, uh, under Ca under Calfman, um, would you agree with me that in order for the variance to be granted for that driveway,
there must be a public benefit as opposed to the purposes of the owner being advanced. Is that correct? >> That's correct. And again, what that driveway tells me, that 66 foot wide driveway is the applicant needs that to have better
maneuvering. And the downside is because you can't plant in the middle of a driveway. Those 35 loading bays are going to be more visible than they would otherwise. >> That's all the questions I have at this moment of uh Mr. Ste. [clears throat]
Do you want to go first? >> Any >> any questions from the board for this witness? >> I I do have two quick ones. Um the first one just and excuse my ignorance on this. Um throughout your testimony, you had referred to aesthetic improvements
several times. What's the relevancy to that? Is that advancing the MLUL? Is that a master plan thing or is it more of a preference? Um the applicant's planner cited four purposes of the Miss
Balani's law A, G, H, and I. And I reads as follows. To promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement. So u Mr. Moransky says, "Oh, we're going
to landscape the area." That's that's that improved the the visual environment. and he said, "It's a nice looking building." Now, it to me it looks like a warehouse and it's big. If you look at the attachment in my report
on page nine, I clipped from the applicant's architectural plans uh the different facades of the building. And the view from Davidson is a 44
foot tall wall that's 360 ft wide. That's a football field. That in my opinion is not an aesthetic improvement to what's there today. I'll grant you today that there's not a lot of shrubbery in front of that parking
lot, but the building is like 130 foot back. Uh there are trees behind it. It's a nice view. to the applicant has the right to demolish that building, but to replace it with a
football field wide masonry wall that is 44 feet tall and that you're not going to effectively block with landscaping in my opinion is not an aesthetic improvement. I I think I'm just confused why it needs to be an
improvement when the the purpose I is to promote a desirable visual environment. >> Well, I I disagree with the the one of the reasons that this use variant should be granted according to Mr. Moransky is
that it's an aesthetic improvement. Now, I'll grant you that aesthetics are to a certain degree in the eyes of the beholder, but that building is that's there today is not an ugly building. Um, it is set back.
Um, this is going to be a large concrete wall, probably prefab panels >> tilt up >> and it's going to be 50 feet back, but it's going to be almost as tall as it, you know, it's 44 foot tall and 50 feet back. That's a big intrusion and it
happens to be an intrusion for a use that's not permitted. >> No, understood. So I guess my my question being your terminology aesthetic improvement is more of a response to the applicant's planner saying there is an aesthetic improvement. >> The applicant has the burden of proof of
course. >> So I am uh offering my critique of his the basis for his testimony. And then this the uh the second thing is um you had mentioned proximity to 287. Uh 287 cuts through the township. Uh but my
understanding and interpretation of the previous testimony is the proximity to 287 for this application isn't a direct linear line to the highway itself. It's to exit um 12 there. >> Well, there are a lot of properties that
have convenient access to this exit. And what I'm saying is that that's such a broad statement um that in my opinion it is not a basis to say that this particular site this
site is particularly suited or or let's put it this way one half of this site is particularly suited and I note I know that there been advice given to this board by the historic commission but part of this warehouse is physically
within the historic district. And to me, to to say that a a non-permitted warehouse use that intrudes on the historic overlay is an aesthetic improvement doesn't make sense.
>> Yeah. No, I just wanted to kind of point out the 287 thing. You had mentioned approximately a quarter of the township was in close proximity to 287 obviously because it bisects it, but I think the testimony from the applicant was the proximity to the on and exit ramps of 287 which obviously would not be a
quarter of the township. >> Right. That was all I had. >> Yeah, you you can't get on except by an exit. I'll grant you that one. >> Any other board questions? Seeing no takers, Mr. Chair, I have a few things. Um, well, first you brought
up a few issues that, um, immediately I'm not sure what to make of. U, the one issue that you brought up was the use of the adjoining lot U 2.01 1 and that the applicant's planner had
indicated that some of certain of the activities that are going on in the um cultural center will then happen perhaps at that adjoining property. Um I I do remember the testimony. I don't remember
the exact activities that he said will go on over there. Um and frankly your testimony didn't either. Um I don't know is is this gatherings of 400 people that would in some way intensify lot 2.01 or
this is this prayer meetings involving 10 people or somewhere in between. and and and and I frankly I don't know to what degree that matters, but if if it was the the you know the latter if it's if we're talking about small groups of people meeting in a in a in a room, you
know, I don't think that affects the use of lot 2.01 whatsoever. >> Well, okay. And m Mr. [clears throat] Healey, I do have another witness who will uh testify to what uh goes on at the
cultural center at present and u you know the number of people that you know show up for these uh various u things and um um so you know so that testimony is coming.
>> Okay. And let me respond knowing that there's going to be more testimony. Mr. Moransky said, "Yes, technically there's a intensification of activity because the [clears throat] square footage of this site is being reduced by the
subdivision. But he justified his D2 argument by saying that we're going to take some of those activities and put them across the stream in the social building over
there. It's not my burden to quantify that. He relied on that in his testimony, but he didn't identify exactly what activities are going to be over there, how many people, how often, how big is the
building, is there parking associated with that building. He has the burden of proof and there's no testimony on the impact on that abuing property, but there will be an impact. He admitted that. >> All right. And then the other issue you
brought up is the cemetery. Um, and I guess I'm, you know, again on that issue as well. I'm a little bit scratching my head on that because I would say my understanding is the applicant didn't notice for it because they weren't applying for site plan
approval or use variance for a cemetery and and you said that the the use variance for the cemetery had lapsed. So I get, you know, following up on Mr. Shepherds, I'm not quite sure what the issue is. Well, the issue is that the applicant appended
to the planner's report past resolutions having to do with the cemetery and there were two extensions granted and the last extension expired. So, my conclusion is there was a
variance for a cemetery on the subject property. That variance expired. The applicant has to reapply. The site plan that you have in front of you this evening shows a cemetery on the
subject property. So the applicant is asking for approval of a cemetery where the approval has lapsed and it happens not to be a permitted use in this zone. But but respectfully, I mean it they're not showing site plan improvements,
whatever site plan improvements would be associated with the buildout of a cemetery. They're showing a hatched area that shows a cemetery area, but it's not but they're not applying for that to this board and and and and that approval had lapsed. So, if they're not applying
for it, >> well, that >> and that approval had lapsed, >> what again, what's the I'm not sure. applicant shows an area of the property that's proposed for cemetery use on the site plan. If they're not seeking
that and they it's labeled cemetery. If they're not seeking it, take it off the plan. Maybe that's an area where they can be parking to the rear of the church like the ordinance wants. Puts the majority of parking there. It certainly affects the site plan because it's
dedicating part of this site that could be used for other purposes. Uh and it's saying that no, it's not going to go there. It's there's going to be a cemetery there. Well, a cemetery isn't a permitted use in the zone. Well, I would agree with with the the
statement that you made because with respect to, you know, the applicant is through that hatching in some way, I think, alerting the board to the fact that they they have some intention to do to to put a cemetery there in the future, but they're not applying for
that now. So, if they're not applying for that now, I think your point that they could possibly use that area to put the parking for the church behind there to have some more room for the for the warehouse perhaps, I think that's a legitimate point. >> The plan doesn't say future proposed
cemetery to be applied for at another date. The plan says this is a cemetery area and that's what you're approving if you approve this plan. >> Well, that I don't agree with. I don't agree with that whatsoever. That they're not applying for a cemetery. That's because there's a defect in the
application. They should have applied for it and they didn't. And that's another I would say fatal defect in this application. >> Okay. Well, again, what's before this what's before this board does not
involve approval for a cemetery. >> It's on the plans. You're approving these plans. If he if he wants to remove th that cross-hatched area and the word cemetery, if they want to remove it and say we're not going to we're not seeking approval, then take it off the >> I would I would agree with that. That's
that's a perfect perfectly reasonable thing for them to do. >> Um >> the the vacation just again point of clarification the road has been vacated. The township council did pass an ordinance vacating the road and that
road goes and you are correct that in almost all situations typically when a road is vacated it goes to 50% goes to one half 50% goes to the other. In this case when executive drive was created it
was carved out of the lots that were one two and three uh executive drive. And my understanding and this is by our surveyors and engineers that um when when the when the road that culde-sac road was since it was carved out of that
previous parent [clears throat] parcel it goes back to that previous uh parent parcel that doesn't go to the adjoining property owner meaning the church because they never owned it. So the vacation the the portion that's executive drive or had been executive
drive is vacated completely to that other application and there would be a there would be an access and utility easement in favor of both in favor of this property >> that I mean that's a legal issue obviously beyond me about if there were
special conditions here. Uh my point is whether it's vacated or not, those loading bays are going to be very visible to the public because of the angle of the property and the the relatively narrow area of green
between the loading aisle and what I presume will continue to look like a public street even though it isn't a public street. That's still needed for access to both of the properties. So it's it's visually it's not going to solve any problems uh that it's being
vacated. >> Okay. Again, I was just you had commented on it. Factually, you didn't have the facts. I wanted to make sure the record was correct. >> The advertisement of the ordinance adopted and at least as of this afternoon, it it doesn't appear to be in published in a newspaper.
>> Okay. And then the last issue is is frankly um my biggest issue with your testimony and that is your treatment of the January 2026 master plan re-examination and update. It is both a re-examination and an update. It was
titled that. It's described as that. It was noticed for that, heard for that, and adopted as a master plan re-examination and update. And the document makes that clear. So, and and and and I you know I authored the 2023
master plan update and I was intimately involved in the in the recently adopted update to the master plan regarding the BI zone. It was a two-year process involving multiple hearings well beyond the municipal land use law. We had
community hearings. We had a dedicated web page. We had a community section on the website. We taped all video at all the meetings, put it on the website. This was this was an very involved intensive process with a with a steering
committee and again it was it was entitled a master plan re-examining update described as that very clearly in the document noticed as a master plan is required to be noticed as a master plan update and adopted as such and
referenced as such in the re in the resolution of of the planning board's approval. >> So let me if I can finish please. So, with respect, and I'm the one who authored the 20 the very short 2023 update,
the the one that was just adopted by the planning board supersedes it entirely. That's the official planning policy, master plan policy by the planning board is that January 2026 master plan re-examination and update.
My response is the prior formal master plan that was just a master plan amendment is the one that said no more warehouses. This latest document is labeled as a re-examination report and if you look at
the structure of it, it follows the municipal land use law section about sections of a re-examination report. I disagree with you that it is clear that it was intended to amend and cancel
the the prior master plan amendment that said we don't want any new warehouses. >> Mr. Mr. Ste, it it it is labeled master plan re-examination and update. I mean that's the very first words on the document. >> Update of what? The re the last
re-examination report. >> The the the master plan. >> How do you know that? because there's language in there that says it there's language in there that says that it addends is addendum to that 2023 update. Okay, >> it was noticed as such and and there's language to that effect in the
resolution. >> Well, >> and I can tell you that since I was so intimately involved in the preparation and the process for that document. Well, I read it and um I interpreted to be a re-examination report and not a
formal amendment to the prior master plan amendment. >> Okay. And I will respectfully disagree with that vehemently. >> Mr. >> I'm sorry. >> Any other questions? >> I would like to ask a question, Mr.
Chairman, if I'm allowed. We have something. >> All right, we have to get you a mic. >> Thank you, Christine, do you have what our what the last exhibit was marked at?
>> What what the last PL applicant exhibit is marked as? Uh why don't we mark this for purposes of the record. A1 May 8th 2026. It appears to be ordinance number 451-26.
An ordinance releasing, extinguishing, and vacating the rights of the public to a portion of a street known as Executive Drive in the Township of Franklin County or Somerset State of New Jersey. adopted introduced in March 24th, 2026 and
adopted April 14, 2026. >> Well, today is I keep hoping it's the 8th. The point is to Yes, today is the seventh. Uh we're going to mark that as A1 for today.
You'll provide us with a copy, Mr. Land. >> Uh, yes, I will. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Ste. Can you take a look at this, please? >> Certainly. So, it says that it's effective uh May 4th,
2026, which is I guess pretty close to today. Mr. Ste, your report was dated April 24th, 2026. Correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. >> You testified
You testified that you checked the records and publications and that as of your testimony tonight, Executive Drive was not vacated. That was your testimony. >> When I did my report, it was not vacated. And before I came here this
evening, I looked for the published notice of the ordinance and I couldn't find it. >> You couldn't find it? But but now you admit it was published. >> Uh according to that do well that may I look at the document again? >> Sure. >> It says it was published April 17th and
effective May 4th. So when I wrote my report, it was not effective yet, >> but it was published. >> Uh I couldn't find it, but according to that document, it was published April 17th. >> And actually the introduction of the ordinance was on March 24th and was
published on March 27th. >> I'm aware of its introduction because I found that in the public notices, but I could find no evidence in the minutes that it was adopted. So
>> so I stand corrected that as of this evening uh as of March 4th the road has been vacated. >> Okay. And because it has been vacated then the proposed warehouse building doesn't have frontage on that because
that road does not exist. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Okay. And as a result of that, the bulk variances the applicant was seeking uh also go away because those variances were to a front yard. Correct. >> Um yes. Although it obviously alters the
site plan that the board doesn't have in front of it at the moment. >> We we would have to amend it based on the vacation which is was testified to by Mr. Miol. You recall that testimony. >> There is no testimony about what it would look like if the road was vacated.
I don't believe there is >> Mr. Mr. Miola did not testify to that. >> I I he know he testified about that that that it was in the works to vacate it and he did indicate and I agree that it's no longer a front yard.
>> Okay. And and therefore at that traffic light that is a driveway or will be a driveway. Well, it'll be a shared driveway apparently with both uh uses on both sides of what was executive drive. >> Well, that that driveway will be owned
by IDI, will it not? >> Um, if yes, if if the vacation if the entire right of way goes to IDI, you're right that it would be on an adjacent property. So the question that arises,
if that's private property, can there be a an accessory use that's not on the same site as the principal use? So this applicant now is using someone else's driveway uh to access
Davidson. >> That is corre. And that was contemplated by this board in the IDI application when they when it was requested that they vacate Executive Drive. It wasn't contemplated there would be a warehouse on the other side of Executive Drive.
That's not part of the record. >> In addition, because it is now a driveway on the IDI property, that is not accessible to the public to access the church. Correct.
Uh I don't know what the easement is. I know that this record says that church users have the right to go through the uh industrial the warehouse property. >> Wasn't the testimony, since you said you
looked at the testimony or were present at it, wasn't the testimony that if you're looking at the warehouse, the right side of the property has car parking and the left side of the property has truck parking. That's correct.
>> Okay. And did you recall the testimony that said that the driveway for the car parking would be the driveway that would be used for members of the congregation to access the church since that driveway was the most proximate to the church property. Do you recall that testimony?
>> There's that testimony. But the what comes to mind is that and again I'll repeat is from common sense tells me that someone traveling northbound on Davidson is going to take advantage of that light that signalized intersection
to enter the church property. >> But is it is not an it's not an signalized it's a it's a traffic signal but it's not a public roadway at that light. But the the the the the bottom line question is is it permissible will
it still be per if you're telling me that that church users will be prohibited from using what was executive drive that that's not on the record. >> It was clearly on the record was it not that the church users would be using the
driveway most proximate to the church property. Someone, in my opinion, someone going southbound on Davidson, that is the logical conclusion, but someone going northbound, especially during any of the rush hours, they're going to have trouble turning left. And
in my opinion, they're they're likely to use that signalized intersection, >> but that's not going to be a public roadway. >> It doesn't matter. People are going to be using it. And there's an easement that allows the church to cut through the the testimony is that part of this
application is that there's going to be an easement through the warehouse property that allows church users to use that >> to use the driveway closest to the church. That was the testimony, was it
not? >> That I misunderstood. >> Yeah, you misunderstood that also. Okay. Just want to see what else you misunderstood. Um, >> objection. >> You indicated that it was your opinion that lot 2011 should be part of this
application. >> Yes. >> Okay. Are there any propo? You reviewed the site plans, did you not? >> Yes. need to stay at Mike. >> Were there any improvements of any kind proposed on lot 2011?
>> Uh the only improvement that was proposed there was a reference by your engineer to a pedestrian bridge across the stream. >> Okay. Which is an existing was an existing condition. It was going to be replaced but it was not not a new improvement. Well, if it's going to be replaced, that
might be The answer is there's a connection between the properties that is being proposed, which is the pedestrian bridge, and it was not shown on the site plan, but the testimony is that there will be a pedestrian connection between the two properties.
>> Not not to beat the dead horse, uh, with respect to the cemetery. Uh if that is deleted, first of all, there's no approval for a cemetery on lot 1.06 at the present time. That that approval expired.
>> That's my understanding. >> So even if there's a notation on the plan of cemetery, the applicant has no right to use that because he has no approvals. Well, if if it shouldn't be shown on the site plan because the site
plan shows an area that's substantial that is labeled as cemetery. In my opinion, you should not put something on a site plan that you're not seeking approval for. >> And as Mr. Healey suggested, if it was
deleted, you you you have no issue with that. I would have to look at the plans and see how it's deleted, but the answer is the plans that are before the board this evening shows a cemetery on the property. Okay.
>> Now, with respect to the master plan re-examination and update that Mr. Healey questioned you about just to make the record clear. Is it your position that you now have changed your testimony
and that in fact the master plan now indicates that warehouses are going to be permitted uses in the BI zone. My first of all, I read it by its structure and its title
that it was a re-examination report and didn't formally amend the master plan. And it didn't make warehouses a permitted use. If I recall correctly, it recommended that the ordinance be changed to make it a conditional use.
And to my understanding, the governing body has not amended the ordinance. Warehouses are still prohibited. That that's that's not my question. Is it your conclusion now that the master plan currently calls for the amendment of the
zoning ordinance to allow warehouses in the BI zone? >> It it it recommends ordinance amendments that classify different types of warehouses and if I recall correctly make it a conditional use rather than a permitted use.
>> Okay. Now, you also testified that you had concerns about the aesthetics of the the frontage of that site. Correct? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Are you a landscape architect? >> No. >> Okay. Do you know whether this applicant appeared before the historic commission on this matter? The record shows that the applicant did appear
>> on how many occasions? >> Three. >> Okay. And were the plans amended to incorporate changes that were recommended by the historic commission to improve the aesthetics along the entire frontage of Davidson Avenue, both
on the warehouse site and on the church site. Uh, I understand that the applicant amended the plans in response to recommendations from the historic commission >> and and the historic commission in fact recommended approval of the plans as
amended. >> Uh, that's my understanding although it's it's a recommendation to this board. It doesn't preempt the the site plan uh considerations of this board. >> Okay. And also the historic commission recommended the demolition of the uh
cultural center, did it not? >> I don't know if they recommended the demolition of it, but they they okayed it. >> Okay. And and in fact, this application has nothing to do as to whether the cultural center stays or goes. Correct.
Uh it has well the the applicant is alleging well the applicant's planner is saying that the fundamental operations of the church
will not be intensified. So it has something to do with this application. >> But the church has the absolute right to demolish that building. >> Yes. And that is not subject to this board's review or approval. Is that correct? >> That's correct.
>> Okay. And whether the church decides to intensify the uses on the other site or eliminate some of the uses that took place on the cultural center. That's a business decision of the church, is it not? It may it it the the proposal to do that
is whatever a business decision, but the fact that there are land use changes to non-permitted uses is a an issue of variance approval. >> Correct. Concerning the parking parking needs, parking requirements on the
remaining sites. It's it's everything that the applicant is shifting allegedly shifting some unknown undefined functions across the stream to lot 1.02 with no description about the those what
functions are going to be shifted, how big the building is, how much parking is, where the traffic's going. There is no evidence at all about the changes that are integrated into this subject application. They're going to be changes
on lot 1.02. They are undefined and untestified to. >> Now you indicate that this site is not in your opinion particularly suited for a warehouse. >> Yes.
Did you review the decision of this board in the IDI application? >> Yes. >> And the ID IDI application is the site directly next door to this site. >> It's AC it's across uh Executive Drive.
>> No, it isn't. It's >> the rear end of it. Well, the rear end I think they touch, but no one's building in that part. >> The but the street is now vacated. So, it's not across Executive Drive. these sites are a budding. >> But when that application was approved,
they weren't a budding. >> But again, based on the recommendation of the board to vacate the street, ultimately there they would have been a buddy. Correct. >> Well, we we don't know. the the the decision said that the applicant IDI had
to use its whatever best efforts to request that the street be vacated, but that decision didn't depend on the vacation of the street. It assumed that there was going to be a church on the other side of Executive
Drive. the issue of a future warehouse. >> It's your So, it's your testimony then that this board wanted the IDI to vacate the street because there's going to be a church on the other side. No, that that
the factual first of all um the decision hinged on the fact a crucial bit of evidence in that decision as I read it is that the governing body was
thinking of new regulations that would allow certain kinds of warehouses and based on thinking that there might be something happening in the future, the board relied on that basis to approve a use
variance which makes no sense to me but it wasn't approved it's done but that is not a basis because you're thinking of doing something is not a basis to grant a a Medici case variance >> so so in your in your opinion the this
board er when they granted IDI their their approval >> it's a done deal but in my opinion that was I'll call it a a bogus basis to approve it. The fact that there was proposed legislation that wasn't in
place and that was a fundamental part of that decision as I read the resolution. Now, you referenced the testimony of Mr. Morowski and talking about lot 2011 and correct.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Uh I will refer you to the refer to the transcript of Mr. Morowsk's testimony uh when he was questioned by Mr. MacArthur
and the question was it's all open space and Mr. Morowski answered, "There's a stream. There's a stream. There's a cemetery. All that you're talking about is that this warehouse is not affecting that in any way." Do you recall reading that in the transcript?
>> Well, I was present during his testimony. U so um I my recollection is that that was makes sense that he said that. If you want to show me the transcript, I can look at it.
So, where what line do you want me to >> Right there. >> Okay. >> Okay. Uh, >> attorney MacArthur says, "Well, what about behind that building? Isn't there a tree of tree farm back there? And aren't there many acres of land on that parcel?"
And uh and then you then uh Mr. Moransky says theirs stops. Uh Mr. MacArthur says it's all open space. Moransky says there's a stream. There's a stream. There's a cemetery. All that area that you're talking about, this
warehouse is not affecting it in any way. >> So, it was his testimony that the proposed warehouse development has no impact on lot 2011. There are no improvements proposed on lot 2011. Is that correct? for the warehouse. That's
correct. But not for the church property because there's a connection between the two. But the uses that were are being eliminated at on the where the cultural center could be moved
to that 2011. It could be moved to the remaining portions of lot uh 1.06 or it could be abandoned. Correct. Well, the applicant needs a D2 variance for the church >> and the basis
being offered is that there's no diminishment of the fundamental activities of the church because in part some of those activities are now going to occur on lot 1.02. But there was no description of what
activities, when, how many people, uh, how you're going to get there. There's zero testimony on what's the effect of this on lot 1.02. >> You mean 2011? >> 2.01. Thank you.
>> Okay. What is on 201? >> Um, there is a mausoleum. Uh, there's a large cemetery. Um part of it there's a church there too. >> Parking lot. >> Yeah. Uh there's a small parking lot for the social center. Yes.
>> Okay. >> Is there a parking lot for the church? >> Uh there's some parking there. >> Okay. >> But there's it's not shown on the plan and there's no testimony on what goes on on the other side. >> Thank you. I have no further questions.
>> I'm just going to ask one question. Uh that's sort of has come up as you guys were going back and forth. Um what is this what is this social building on lot
2011? Uh there's a woodframe, I'd say, uh you know, two-story building that's on the adjacent lot that's referred to generically as the social building, but there is no description of it on any of
the plans and there's no testimony about it >> except for the fact that it's going to be used. >> Yeah, except for the fact that Mr. Moransky said, "Don't worry. you think the use on the subject subdivision is going to be intensified.
He's saying it's not going to be intensified because we're moving some of the stuff onto to the social building of 2.0. >> Okay. How big is that building? >> It's shown. Let's see if I can
If you look at the cover of my report, um it's um we don't know the size of it. It's it's uh you know, it might have a footprint of >> Okay. Well, I think we're going to find out. It's a small building. >> I see Mr. Moransky's making his way over
to the table. >> Well, I I [clears throat] think if anybody knows it probably would be Mr. Miola could give you the approximate size who was our site engineer. But >> yeah, >> we want to wait or do you want to pick them up and answer? >> No, no, we can wait. We can wait.
>> It it's a it's you know it might have a footprint of >> No, it's all right. You you've given me the information I was looking for. [snorts] >> Anybody have any other questions? Any other questions for anyone?
redirect. >> Thanks. [snorts] >> Mr. Ste, you are not advocating, you are advocating for the use variance to be denied. Isn't that correct? Well, I think despite the fact that the applicant is
saying these are three separate applications, number one, the subdivision can't be separated from the the D2 church application there. The reason you need a D2 variance is because of the subdivision. In my opinion,
not not none of the three applications warrant approval. subdivision, the church D2, intensification of the church or especially the warehouse, >> right? And I understand that that's your testimony. Um, if
uh you are as to the the lot that where the warehouse is is, you know, proposed to be, you are advocating and your opinion is that the use variance on that lot should be denied.
Isn't that right? >> That is correct. >> And if the use variance is denied, that means the cultural center will not be demolished. Isn't that correct? >> Well, it doesn't have to be demolished
if if that's denied. It uh it it this application requires the demolition of the cultural center. If the warehouse application is denied, it's not automatic. It's not required
that the cultural center be demolished. >> Now, you're [clears throat] familiar with the Medici case. Is that correct? >> Yes. And um does your reading of Medici um
um does it uh does Medici say that because something a similar use was approved next door you should approve this one too? Uh no the the one of the themes of the Medici case is
the municipality kept on giving variances for hotels and the court said although you're granting subsequent variances for hotels the fact that the governing body hasn't
changed the ordinance to permit hotels is important and that was the basis for saying there's an enhanced burden of proof. You know, you keep on granting variances. That doesn't mean it should be easier because you got an you you approved a
variance for a hotel last month. It should be harder because the governing body has not changed the ordinance. >> And in fact, that was the history behind Medici. Use variances were being granted too too often and too easily. >> That's correct. Without a without a
basis. And that's why in my opinion the court said that there's an enhanced burden of proof uh because the governing body in fact has not changed the ordinance to permit hotels. Now on the uh the I I'll call it the
warehouse lot. Would you agree with me that the impervious cover coverage on that lot is being increased significantly >> over what it is today? more than what is there today, Mr. Lanford.
>> Uh, it is being increased more than there is today. >> Okay. Substantially. >> Thank you. >> And you can you can see that from looking at the photograph on the first page of my report and then looking at
the extent of pavement and building uh that's being proposed in the site plan. Finally, um let's get back to Medici. Does Medici say that um
the um the applicant has to prove a substantial impairment to the re-examination plan or to the uh master plan? The Medici case uh refers to the
traditional negative criteria which is in the municipal land use law says no detriment to the zone plan. The zone plan is the master plan is not the re-examination report. >> That's all the questions I have at the
moment. Anything else? >> Ju just to be clear, you indicate you indicated on a question by Mr. MacArthur that the cultural center does not have to be demolished if this application was denied. Correct. Correct. Okay. But it
can be the the applicant has the right Well, I I guess the applicant doesn't have the automatic right. It has to go before the historic I guess commission because but uh >> which which he did. >> He did but so
it's inapprop >> that's inappropriate. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> The applicant needs certain municipal approvals and historic preservation approvals in order to demolish the cultural center. >> Correct. and and and they're all procedural approvals. He has to make the
applications and get the permits and then he can knock it down. >> I don't know if they're all procedural. Uh I don't know if that's a fact or not. >> He doesn't have to go to any board to get it approved to to demolish it. Correct. >> Um I I don't know what the rules are
with the historic commission. Some historic commissions have the ability to say uh you have to try to market it as is for a year and then if you can't market it but I I don't know the exact uh provisions of your of this
municipality's historic preservation. >> But but in this case the historic commission reviewed it and and indicated that the applicant has a right to demolish it. Is that correct? >> That's my understanding. Now, you also in a question by Mr. MacArthur
talked about the increase in imperous coverage as a result of this application. Uh, does the proposed warehouse building meet the impervious coverage requirements for the zone? >> Yes. >> Okay. So, we're not seeking any variances or deviations for the
impervious coverage. Correct. I >> if isolated from the fact that it's a warehouse use, you're correct. the the number fits within the ordinance presumably for a permitted use. >> Okay. And and in fact, the plan includes
storm water management to handle the increase in impervious coverage, does it not? >> Uh yes, but the impact of imperous coverage is not just storm water management. There's obviously a significant visual difference when you're paving a substantial portion of a
site that's in green at the moment. Well, right now if you drive past that site, all you see is one mass parking lot in a building. Correct. >> Uh you see a a surface parking lot with a strip of grass in front. You see an elegant building and you see a a wooded
area behind the building. >> What What's your definition of an elegant building, please? >> Um the the in my opinion, the building has nice colors, has nice details to it, a lot of windows. Um it's a a nice looking building. It it looks you don't
know when by looking at it you don't know when it was built. >> Do you know when it was built? >> Um I think at one time I did but I don't remember the date. >> Okay. Do you know do you know what the condition of the building is? Whether it has any structural defects, what the condition of the heating and air
conditioning systems are? >> I don't know and none of that is on the record this evening. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Please. >> No further question. You're close to getting removed. You're close to getting removed. Do you
want to stay? >> Do you want to stay? >> That's I have no further questions. Mr. St. Um, [clears throat] does an increase of imperous coverage
have an impact on preserving light air and open space? >> Um, yes, it has both. You know, there are impacts in terms of storm water runoff, but there also significant um, uh, aesthetics and buffering businesses.
Right now, there's substantial buffer >> uh, between the existing cultural center and let's say the cemetery on lot 2.01. 01 uh that will be uh substantially altered >> uh >> removed actually, right? >> Excuse me.
>> The the >> the pavement will come a lot closer to this the cemetery lot 2.01 >> and u the the wooded area will be will be removed and it'll be replaced with a warehouse building. Correct. >> That's correct. and uh and supposedly
more trees are are you know they're going to be some whatever several hundred trees that are supposed to be planted but aren't being planted. So the applicant is paying to a tree fund but I don't know how paying to a trees fund helps buffering on this property because
those trees could be planted a mile away. So, it's not clear how that addresses the negative criteria if you're not planting the number of trees back on the property that were intended to be there. >> And finally, um you are not advocating
that the cultural center be demolished. Is that correct in your testimony? >> I'm not advocating that the cultural center be demolished. I think that the applicant has not adequately explained
how the core functions of the church are going to be maintained on a lot that's substantially reduced in size. >> That's all I have right now. >> Any others? Anything else? Anyone else?
All right. I think at this point it's we will open to the public. Uh this is questions of the witness as to his testimony by those individuals not represented by Mr. MacArthur and we
would ask when you come up if you come up to state that please as well as your name and address. Hello. Um, my name is Valyria uh, Bernenko and I'm live on 265 uh,
Maple Avenue, Danellen. >> Can you spell your last name, ma'am, for the record? >> V A R N I C H E N K O. >> Thank you. Um, I want to ask the the commission a
question uh about >> Let me stop you. >> Yeah, >> the questions are to Mr. Stack. The board doesn't answer questions from the public and the public portion at this moment is to ask as to his testimony.
>> Okay. Um, what's his name again? >> Oh, by name? >> No, no, no, no, no, no. the the um the uh sir who represents the the project the warehouse project >> Mr. Lanford, you can't ask him questions either. >> I can't.
>> No. As tempting as it would all be, no, you cannot. He's not a witness and he's not testifying. >> Okay. Um well, my question is about whether the environmental commission approved this project. Um and um if it
didn't approve it, then how can a resoning commission approve resoning if there's no evidence heard about um you know environmental issues that this project is causing? >> Well, I let me answer that because it's procedural. The environmental commission
does not does not have approval authority. what the environmental commission they do have a role though and they did review the project and they issued a report to this board and their report is advisory to the board >> and what did they advise >> I I don't know offh hand but that's part
of the process and that that is part their report is part of the is part of the record >> they they recently had a meeting on uh May 4th is it correct >> getting off to a bad start and we're going to do this again your questions
are supposed to be ju just again to the public just real quick. >> This board it's like a court, right? Where you we've all watch those movies. You have an expert. You they presside provide testimony. That attorney asks
questions. The other attorney asks questions. Then the board and the public can cross-examine them like we've all seen in court. >> So Mr. Let me finish. Mr. Ste provided his testimony. So right now just to all these questions everybody's asking Mr.
Steck questions. Okay. This is now the public's opportunity to ask Mr. Steck questions. >> Okay. >> Okay. So okay I'll I I'll uh I'll ask the question. Um the so Mr. Planner uh like you're a
professional. You've been you know doing this all your uh life. Uh and um you certainly know about the recently um uh you know came up uh issue of data
centers and what impact they do on communities uh on power lines on power usage on water usage. Uh so did you consider um reviewing this project uh with regards
on um um the possibility of warehouse uh a proposed warehouse being used for as a data center um which will significantly
you know uh influence the lives of the whole uh of the whole town and uh probably the whole county. Um and I also want to support this idea that this uh warehouse is probably going to be used
as a data center because you've been questioning >> there's no there's no application here for a data center. We're going to have >> because you because your board allowed the the testimony to be used for data centers.
>> Did you hear his testimony? Okay. This is This is a planner. I'm I'm gonna make a broad assumption. You're an objector to this application. This is a planner that's here on your behalf. >> Yeah. >> All right. I'm looking the board looking
for questions from your witness, your planner to get out more information that might help this board make a decision. >> So, how is my question not not not uh uh addressing Mr. said? >> Mr. Mr. Chairman, let me address the
question and I think it is a good question and I'll answer it. Warehouses and data centers are two different uses under our ordinance. Okay. >> So B1 by by by your uh uh ordinance is not it cannot be used for data centers
because it says right in your ordinance that it can >> but that's not what they're applying for. So they're applying for a warehouse. >> Oh, they don't have what they're applying for. It says right here that the warehouse can be used for data centers. >> If if you ask a question,
>> I don't because she's talking over me. >> You're asking a question. Let me answer it. >> Okay. So, the there are there are different uses under our ordinance. They are applying for a warehouse. They
cannot make it into a data center unless they went back to the board. If the board ends up approving this, it would be for a warehouse, not for a data center, not for a data center. So, and I understand data centers are very concerning to a lot of people. So, Ando,
I wanted to make that clear so that there's not a an unnecessary concern that if you have a concern about this being a warehouse, that's fine. It's not proposed as a data center and we'd have a whole new hearing if they needed to. This is the report. That is the fact.
This is the report by the uh by the guys who uh you know um offered uh you know to build the warehouse and in this report it says that um so 3.1 land use
and zoning the project area is in the B1 business and industry zoning district. The B1 zoning district includes the following permitted uses. General and professional office, laboratory, banking facility, hotel, data center. >> Yes, >> data center.
>> Yes, it's a different use though. It's a permitted use currently, but it's not what they're applying for. And and and I can tell you that the council is considering changing that. >> They're applying for a warehouse. >> Can I finish my Can I finish answering
your question? My question was not to you and you interrupted me. >> I am the township planner. I'm the one who's who knows about these things and I'm trying to inform you if you will let me answer your question. What I was about to say is the council is considering an ordinance to take data
centers out as a permitted use. >> Notwithstanding the fact that that's not what they're applying for tonight. They're applying for to build a warehouse uh on in a re reszoned uh area. So they
want to reszone the the uh this lot and they want to resone it to B1 business area and under B1 the data centers are permitted. >> You're you're just your facts are all wrong because it's already in the BI
zone and so they're not reszoning anything. They're here because warehouses are not a permitted use in the BI zone and they're asking this board for special permission called a use variance to allow them to build a warehouse.
It's in the BI zone currently. Okay. Um but they don't they cannot build data center in Ukrainian cultural center building. They need a warehouse for that. So in my view, this is the pathway
to another data center built in your town. >> Everybody has tried. >> Do you have a question for Mr. Ste? Yes or no? >> Yes. Do you agree with my theory that not a theory? Ask a direct question.
>> That's a question. Do you agree that that's that's how the question starts? Do you agree with my theory that the reason why they want to uh uh this particular site in such a close proximity to uh uh I 287 because uh
there's a significant uh electrical uh you know highway underneath uh uh along I7. So they need to connect to that. >> Would you please sit down? >> Why? >> We need cooperation.
You're you're out of place. You're out of order. You've been to the question or the comment that you made has the >> a number of times >> to answer the my question. >> Would you please sit down?
>> Would you answer my question? >> No. Sit down. You gave up your opportunity. >> Are you representing the the public or yourselves? >> It's open to the public to question the witness. Yeah, but it seems like you don't want
to listen to public and you're against what public thinks about data centers and warehouses. >> It's my only next step is to h ask you to be escorted out. Please sit down.
>> There's going to be a data center in that place. It's the It is still open to the public for questions or comments concerning this witness. Questions concerning the witness.
name, address, name of civil m um what first and last name. >> Okay. V S E V O L O D M Y R N YI
and address. Yes. Uh New York, Brooklyn, uh 114 uh 2833 Harway. So question to the planner as I understood do you think it is the way to
the data centers from the warehouse or no? the applicant is not requesting approval for a data center. So that's not uh I think a consideration in this proceeding.
If if the if the applicant were proposing a a data center, it would be a permitted use in the zone and it would potentially go to the planning board, a different board. This is not being proposed at a data center. And my experience tells me that this is too
small to be a data center. But as you know, data centers have morphed into a specialized use uh nowadays. That's a a new trend. But the
answer is the applicant is proposing a warehouse. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, seeing no one, we'll close to the public and sum up and go on from there.
Anything you want to add? Uh, >> I do. >> Bring them on. How many witnesses do we have? >> I have two. >> I have two. >> All right. Then we're obviously not going to finish at 10:00 tonight. Uh the
hearing by the usual time. So, is this a witness you can deal with in 15 minutes? >> I can try to deal with one witness within the time left. Yes. >> Go ahead. Bring him up.
>> Okay. Can I >> testimony? I have one witness who will be testifying right now as to the um the the you know the cultural center itself.
And the other witness um frankly will be addressing some of the allegations that um were made against them at an ear at the earlier portions of of the of these hearings.
Why don't we bring up the individual who's going to testify on the cultural center and we'll go from there. >> I'm sorry, Mr. Bernste. >> Call your next witness as to the cultural center. All right. I I call Bogdan Jasinski. Hi.
>> Raise your right hand, sir. Testimony. You're about to give truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I help you God. >> Yes, I do. You state your full name, spell your last name and possibly your first depending on the understanding of the
stenographer. Where you reside and who you are affiliated with. >> Uh my first name is Bden B O G D-An last name Jasinski J AI NI. I live at one operative court,
Morganville, New Jersey, 07751. >> Anything else? >> You're going to have to to get closer to the mic, sir. >> As if you're a rock star. >> Mr. MacArthur, your witness. >> Having a little trouble with the mic
here. Um, Mr. Jasinski, what uh tell us what the cultural center is and what it stands for. I believe I already made that statement at the first >> before he even testifies. Can we get some foundation as to his involvement
with the cultural center or andor the owner of the property so we can have at least context for the board? >> Certainly. I I I just wanted to get right to the point because the hour is getting late. Um
Mr. Jasinski, um [snorts] um could you please tell us the um experience that you and your family have had with the cultural center and over how many years that experience has taken
place? >> Objection. Well, I mean, we're we're talking about uh your application is calling for the demolition of this of of of this building. You've you Yes, it is. You and you've had you've had a u a a witness
that's testified that, you know, everything that that that's going on there now can take place, you know, just up the street a little ways. And, you know, and that's, you know, why why I'm presenting this witness. It's to it's to counter your planner's
testimony because he because factually it's not correct >> the whether the activities to the extent that there are numerous activities in the cultural center and the testimony was that some of them will be relocated
on the site next door period not to the same you know they could be to the same extent to a greater extent but the issue is not whether there were activities that took place at the cultural center. There were there were there were commercial activities there.
There were religious activities and there were cultural activities. We admit that. But we also, as admitted by Mr. Stack, have the right to demolish it. And even if we demolish and had no activities going on next door, we have the right to do that. This board can't uh legislate what
activities that are going on in the cultural center now have to go on next door. >> It's irrelevant. It's not relevant because you're because you had you had a planner that testified that that uh that I that certain things that were going on at the cultural center would be moved to
a different location and he and he and that and he basically gave net testimony on that on that issue. So, I think I have I think this board has a right to hear a little bit of context to, you know, to uh to to what actually is going on at the cultural center and not and
not net opinion. >> Isn't this ultimately a a church decision? You know, that they have to decide whether there are too many activities and where they need to be placed. And it's not our
we have no no dog and horse in the race, let's say, when it comes to deciding whether this building gets torn down or it stays. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of
this testimony to to the entire application. I'm there was a witness that testified that activities from this cultural center would be moved to a different location on the property and I am I am
presenting this witness to contest that testimony. >> What's that have to do with us granting a variance or proving >> a warehouse? It may have it may have something to do uh with your factf finding and whether or not you grant this. >> Instead of wasting your time, go ahead
and start. But if it if this is going down a dead end, we're going to stop it because we have listened to months of irrelevant comments. We've been part of a feud between the church hierarchy and the members of the
church that we have no business being involved in. The cultural center is there. If we approve the application, it it will go. If we don't approve it, they might, as your planner mentioned, they might keep it, they might not keep it.
And any activities that move from the cultural center to the uh other building, I'm sure if they're inappropriate, they'll be discovered or if they're too many issues with them,
it'll come to code enforcement and be back before this board again. >> Mr. Chairman, >> no, no, wait, wait a second. I I I Mr. Chairman, I've given the reasons why I believe this this witness should
testify. I I believe it to be relevant and um you know, I I I I have made good faith arguments throughout these proceedings and I would ask that the board hear Mr. Jasinsk's testimony. I've been
proceeding in good faith here since day one. So I you know >> let's hear it and please be keep it relevant. >> I can keep it I it's not going to take that long. Ju >> just just one other thing for a point of
clarification. Mr. Thomas, you indicated that uh statements were from members of the congregation and I think the last meeting used the word parishioners. Uh I just wanted to be clear that none of these people are members of the congregation or are parishioners. They are not.
>> That's not what this witness is being is being presented for. This this witness is being presented because he has he has a a a myriad of experience with this cultural center over many years. Instead of prejudging this this witness's
testimony, I would respectfully ask that he be allowed to give it. >> Mr. MacArthur, the discussion a moment ago was to ask Mr. Lanford to stop characterizing things. I'd ask you to do the same. If your co witness is going to
testify as to issues involving the cultural center, let's keep to it and keep it on track. >> I intend to >> go ahead. >> Thank you. [snorts] >> I believe uh Mr. Jasinski, there is a existing question
um on the record which you were not allowed to answer concerning what is your you and your family's experience with this center over the course of your family's lifetimes and and how long has that been?
>> Yeah, there you go. Uh my experience with this cultural center and the church goes back into mid70s 767 was the first time I've attended this church. Uh my kids went to school there
back in the 80s. I have picture of my son who currently is a successful physician who also is a uh commander in the Navy right now is being at a training potentially. He might not have to leave the country.
um my grandkids attending and were attending until very recently Ukrainian uh schooled there until priests decided to sort of dismiss the uh education.
Uh as you can see behind me, we've got all these people. Okay. Cultural center has been driven to dilapitated situation. My opinion probably
intentionally. I have met with uh I have met with uh uh Bishop Daniel. He said they have no money to fix it. I said I'll organize money. He said let's talk about it. That meeting never happened. I met with him
second time. I said, "Bishop Daniel, let's meet again and let's talk about getting money to fix the roof and let's get the money to fix the air condition." Okay, let's do it hopefully next week. I call next week. He's in Canada. He's in Chicago. He's all over. There's no time.
So, ultimately that meeting never happened. I've met with Bishop and Anthony asking him if I could have a word with him. The answer was, I know what you talk about. This is none of your
interest. This is a church business. I've asked him, who is the church in your opinion? [snorts] What is the church? Are you the church? Is the building the church or is the community the church? He turned around, walked away, didn't answer my question.
>> Okay. >> So, is that okay? >> Failed to see the relevance. I'm moving on to the next question, Mr. Chairman. >> What events and activities occur at the center
>> in your in the 50 years you and your family have have been going there? >> Objection. >> Again, it's irrelevant. It It's not relevant. [clears throat] >> It It's not irrelevant. >> Okay. Uh different festivals. I have pictures of it. weddings,
uh, christenings, um, saint all saints days. Uh, on that particular day, you'll see thousands of people. There's not enough parking space in the actually designated parking space. People park in
the grass. people uh attend uh different vendors attend and put their boots in the cultural center, buy different ethnic uh food by ethnic uh belongings.
Um what else is there? >> Well, um how many that there's classrooms in this building, is there not? >> Uh yes. I I haven't been through the back of the building. I've been always in the uh main auditorium, but the classrooms, if I remember correctly from
years ago, 10 12 classrooms, pretty good size classrooms. And there are storage uh rooms. There's more than that. Um >> and offices, a couple of offices. >> What was taught at the school?
culture, language, dancing, music, >> history. >> History of that's part of education. That's part of classrooms. >> Okay. >> Training. >> And all this is Ukrainian culture. Correct. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> Correct.
>> And um um when was this school in session? >> Uh usually Saturdays. >> Okay. Saturday. That was a Saturday school. Now, Mr. Jasinski, have you been present at all of these hearings? >> These? Yes.
>> Yes. You haven't missed a single one? >> Yes. >> And were you present when you heard Mr. Moransky's testimony um that the alternate space elsewhere on this property in the in the social area of of another building is was was sufficient? Did you hear that testimony?
>> Yes, I did. >> And have you know what what is your opinion? Well, first of all, how big is the auditorium that is that is in the cultural center? >> It's huge. It's bigger than this room.
>> Okay. And um is that to your knowledge is that building bigger or smaller you know that the auditorium that is than where these um activities are
proposed to go to. I think I I think this is the moment we've crossed the the imaginary line. >> The witness is not qualified to give planning or or engineering or architectural testimony, is he, Mr.
MacArthur? >> Is he? >> No. No, he's not an expert, but but I mean he has he has enough he has enough lay experience with this building to know whether or not the alternate space is sufficient. As Mr. Moransky testified.
>> No, he isn't. He's not qualified. You may believe he's qualified, but he's not here. He's here as a factual witness relative to what is going on in the cultural center. I assume in the support
of the objector's argument that the planning testimony of the applicant misleads my words misleads the board into somehow not granting the variance because the
current the current remaining space will not be sufficient to meet the needs. Am I wrong? That is that that's the that's the testimony. That's the testimony that I'm trying to elicit.
>> He has anything to add to that issue, he can testify. He can't testify as to whether the size of this room or the size of the auditorium in the cultural center will be met in some other space somewhere in
on the property. >> Okay. Let me let me ask the question this way. Mr. Jasinski, um the cultural center, the auditorium with with the Christing, marriages, funerals, festivals, the storage space for the artifacts, the library that's
there, the classrooms. Is there room at the other building? >> No, not even close. >> Objection. >> Not even close. F to quote the phrase of the night. It's net opinion.
>> It's it's in my opinion it's proper lay opinion >> based upon based upon his experience with with this um with this >> net opinion which he you're entitled to provide. I'm just indicating that in the absence of professional expert
testimony, it's his belief, which he is more than entitled to have. And he's testified as to what's in there and what isn't in there. Anything else? >> Yes. I'd like I I'd like to present some pictures, please, of the
>> uh author of the pictures. >> I'm sorry. >> Who's the author of the pictures? Yeah, those pictures are my pictures and I have some pictures too that have been taken from uh church's website.
>> Who took the pictures? >> Mr. Jasinski took these pictures. >> These pictures are circulating in Ukrainian community for different things and they were taken during the events by the participants and passed on to us.
>> Objection. Can we tap testimony without the pictures? Because frankly, the board's going to need to know who took the pictures, when the pictures were taken, what the pictures of. The fact that they've been circulated in the community
is not helpful to the record. Don't respond, Mr. Lford. Sir, can you indicate The pictures show what >> pictures >> picture show hall with events being
happening. Another p I have quite a few of them. I'll show you one picture that has been taken by me. >> Let's Why don't we mark them one at a time? >> We're not we're not marking them unless you've got a profer as to who created these pictures. >> Mr. Just do we know who took the pictures?
>> That person on the record. I do not >> picture I do. >> I'm allowing. >> Okay. Who took that picture? >> Your witness to indicate what they show. >> This classroom was also >> Okay. All right. Hold on. >> Take where's where's the picture of
that? That your wife took this one. >> She took Yeah, she could herself. She's in my microphone. >> She call this picture. She took this picture. She took this picture. She took this and she's got a thousand other pictures on her cell phone
>> and so is this. >> Let me ask a question. Is there anything in any of these pictures that's different from the testimony that's been given? >> I.e. you've testified as to what's gone on in that cultural center. Are there
anything in those pictures that is different from what you have testified as to what has gone on in the cultural center? Could I could I show this as a comparison? >> Well, let let me answer the question. Um, >> this is this is
>> Mr. Jinski, let me let me let me answer the the the attorney's question. Mr. uh Bernstein, we have pictures of the um exterior of the building because there was um you know testimony during
this during the course of these hearings that the building was dilapidated. It was, you know, >> actually I believe the testimony came from your witness >> tonight. >> So >> that the that the outside of the building looks like every other
building. I'm not paraphrasing, Mr. St. >> So this shows that the building is not, you know, in in disrepair >> again. Isn't Isn't this a a church policy
issue, >> not a zoning board issue. >> This is not a zoning board issue. >> There there was testimony again that was given on this record which I believe these these pictures are are relevant
for as was Mr. >> All of us up here live in this town. We've seen that facility in operation. I have since it was built. They run there were all kinds of big events there and I'm sure as has
been snuck in to the record many times. It's a school. It's got the other things that you do. That's fine. I truly have empathy for all of you people sitting here that are upset with this. But
you're you're you're taking your fight to the wrong place. It's not a zoning board issue. Our issue is do these applications pass muster? And what you're describing, as far as
I'm concerned, has very little to do with that. And your own witness said same thing. Basically, it can stay or it can be torn down. And it has to and it he was not and he he clarified his testimony that
he was not advocating on on having this. >> No, but he was saying what could happen as a as a result of what happens here. This is a church issue. It's not a zoning board issue. >> It's it's a it's a it is a board issue,
Mr. Chairman. When a witness testifies that things that took place here are being moved to another location, >> then then if the building facade, the building existence is an issue according
to your client related to this application. The person to testify to that is sitting in the first row with his laptop up and that's your planner. and his testimony was the building was
what it was. So this gentleman isn't going to change the professional opinion unless you want to recall Mr. Stack and have him testify as to the building facade, which by the way is not going to make a difference one way or the other when it comes to this
application. Is there anything else that this witness can testify to this board as to what has or is transpiring currently in the cultural center, not what it looks like, not whether or not the bishops want to or don't want to
repair the roof. >> Is there anything specifically, Mr. McCart? >> I'm checking my notes, Mr. Mr. Bernstein. I think we've covered it. >> Any no other questions? >> None of this witness at this time. No, >> Mr. Lanford. >> No questions.
>> Anything from the board? >> Open to the public. We'll again I will open to the public for questions to this witness and um again most of you out in the audience are objectors. This is a witness on your
behalf. So if you have questions to bring out more information that he may have for us, come up to the podium name, address, and have your have your questions ready. Okay, seeing no one will close and we
will also be closing for the evening. Uh, you said what? June 4th. >> Uh, yes. I've already clarified with the board of education that the building is of >> for you. >> What are you shaking your head for? No.
Eric has >> Oh, you're not available. >> Since I'm apparently the the designated person, I have another commitment the fourth. What about the 18th? >> Do do we have another date that might be
available at town hall? >> No. >> What was that? You wanted to change it to town hall since there's is I'm available which is I believe a board meeting
>> is the 18th aboard meeting Christine >> I don't see my my list for the thing. >> Bless you. >> Uh, what days are you available? I'm sorry. June 18th. You said >> June 18th is the third Thursday in June,
which would normally be, would it not, a zoning board meeting night? >> Yeah. But, um, honestly, I'm going to have to just leave it tonight as to be determined because I don't I forgot the list for and I don't I know that we were out till the zoning board is quite full.
So, I don't want to sit here now and say June 18th and then somebody else is there. >> Well, for the record, we we were we discussed having this on June 4th. If for some reason Mr. Bernstein is unavailable, I would ask that it be carried to the 18th. And if somebody's
on on the 18th, move them. I mean, this is a continued hearing. Uh we've got to finish it. We've been This has started last year. So if there's other matters on the 18th, they could be moved.
>> In the June, we need an extension. We're just we're just checking something procedurally >> July 31st for an extinction. Mr. Lanford, >> we could. All right, that's the best I'll do. I apologize. I I had a rehab and I grabbed
everything. I forgot to grab that sheet. So, if I guess we'll move it to June 18th. I'll have to call the people who because I know the zoning board is full. So, I'll call the people who are on June 18th, >> tell them that they may or may not be
reached. I cancel it, >> but they may or may not be reached on the night of the 18th. Can can some of those matters be moved to June 4th and have one of the other attorneys in your office cover it on June 4th? >> I would be here normally.
>> Okay. So, we will move the three Ukrainian um applications. Syracuse, 1950 Eastern Avenue, uh ZBA250000009, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, both ZBA25008 and ZBA20000007.
We will move them to June 18th. Uh do we want to keep the 7:00 time at 7:00 and the this meeting will be heard at 475 Damont Lane. Seeing that there seems to be enough room now that we can fit at 475 Deont Lane,
>> I will grant the board an extension of time through the end of June, June 30th. If more time is needed, I can do it at the next meeting. One of the things I would like to know is, do you have any
additional witnesses? >> Are you planning on any others? If so, I would like us to be notified at least a week ahead of time with a so we have an idea. >> That's fair, Mr. Chairman.
>> And also even maybe a one-s sentence summary of the let look, we need to know by the bit by the meeting on the night of the 4th of June whether you're going to call any other witnesses other than the one in
question. Are you planning on calling any rebuttal witnesses? >> I may want to ask Mr. >> I'm not sure I'm going to call rebuttal witnesses. >> I don't know whether depending on what you're going to ask him. I'll let you question Mr. Massie or Mr. Healey. So,
we'll deal with that on the 18th. >> I mean, I'm being held to to summary. Why Why shouldn't Why shouldn't Mr. Lamford as well? So, >> calling any rebuttal witnesses, we need to know by the fourth. If if you choose Peter not to call them >> I I'll let you know.
>> No, I'm saying for both of you. >> Oh, that Peter. All right. >> Both Peters. I know it's a rip. If both of you want to ind need to indicate by the 4th of June if you're playing and calling a rebuttal witness if or additional witness >> that does not bind you to do so.
>> I understand. >> Okay. Anything else? We need a motion to carry this meeting, Mr. chairman to Thursday, June 18th, 2026 at 700 p.m. or soon thereafter as the matter may be heard at the Franklin
Township Municipal Building, 475 Deont Lane, Somerset, New Jersey with the time of time of decision extended through June 30th, 2026. Have a second. >> Second, >> you said 7 p.m., right?
>> Moved. >> So, don't come here. go to the Franklin Township Town Hall for the next meeting. Okay. >> Move. >> Second. >> Favor. >> I