Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. How about now? Okay, there we go. All
right, everybody. Welcome to the July 7th, 2025 Jackson Township Planning Board meeting. This meeting has been appropriate appropriately published in all the uh all the places that needs to be according to the Open Public Meetings Act. Mr. Sherwood.
Uh, roll call, please. Mr. Bernstein, here. Mr. Marzo, here. Mr. Heler, here. Mr. Hudach, Mr. Rogers here, Mr. Dreamer here, Miss Rose here, Mr. Weart,
Mr. Sullivan here, and Dr. Campbell here. Uh, I'll accept a motion for the payment of voucher for recording secretary for tonight, please. So moved. Sullivan. Second Heler. Roll call, please.
Mr. Bernstein, yes. Mr. Marzo, yes. Mr. Heler, yes. Mr. Rogers, yes. Mr. Treamer, yes. Miss Rose, yes. Mr. Weart, oh, sorry, he's not here. Mr. Sullivan, yes. Dr. Campbell,
yes. Uh, we'll take a um motion for approval of the minutes for May 19th regular meeting. Roll call, please. Motion to approve. Demarzo. Second. Bernstein. Mr. Bernstein. Yes.
Mr. Marzo. Yes. Mr. Heler. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Tremer. Yes. Miss Rose. Yes. Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Dr. Camp. Yes. Uh, we have some schedule changes. Block
21702, lots 37 and 38 is on hold until further notice. July 21st uh meeting is cancelled and the next meeting will be August 4th.
Block 840. Do we have to vote on that uh on these or can we vote for them all together? Good. Lock 841 lot 541 North County Line Road LLC is carried
from July 21st to August 4th. Notice required. We'll accept a motion. Please. So move. Sullivan. Second. Bernstein. Want a roll call? Roll call, please. Mr. Bernstein. Yes. Mr. Marzo. Yes. Mr. Heler.
Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Treamer. Yes. Miss Rose. Yes. Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Dr. Camp. Yes. Um, I am pleased to announce that the master plan is in the very final
stages and will be presented to the public on Monday, July 28th at our regular meeting times. We're also meeting every Monday this month just to clean it up. So, uh, we're
hopeful that, uh, all things will be finished and we're looking forward to getting this, uh, process on the books. Okay. Um, I think we're down to engineering and planning matters,
gentlemen. Thank you. And legal matters? Not at this time. Excellent. Um, any other board matters for discussion? Happily, no. All right. Uh, we're ready for
applicants, please. Block 11701. Mr. Alfairy. Good evening, Madam Chair, members of board. Salvator, Alfury, Clearary, Gobi, Alfian, and Jacobs. on behalf of the applicant. Uh this is an extension of time request.
PDS submitted a letter, an end application earlier this year and then I supplemented it by letter dated May 30th. Um it's a five residential lot subdivision and the applicant is attempting now to bring public water and
sewer to the project and as a result that permitting process is going to take longer than it would normally take. So, the one-year extension request has been amended to request that it be extended through um June 19th of 2027, which would be a two-year statutory protection
period. Um, and that's for the board members um edification. It simply means that we're protected against zone changes during that time period. Um, but the applicant, our engineers are here, PDS is here if you have questions, but otherwise, we're seeking that two-year extension rather than the one that was
originally requested. Sounds like a good idea. usually is. Yes. Any concerns from board members? Shall we just vote to approve? I'd like to make a motion to approve a
2-year time extension to block 11701 lots 9.04, 9.05, 9.06, etc. Liquid Investment LLC. Second. Tamer. Do a roll call, please. Mr. Bernstein, yes.
Mr. Marzo, yes. Mr. Heler, yes. Mr. Rogers, yes. Mr. Treamer, yes. Miss Rose, yes. Mr. Sullivan, yes. Dr. Camp. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Good night, everyone. I'm sure we'll see you before that hour.
Before that, yes. I hope so. All right. Lock 19501, Law 21. I don't see Miss Jennings. Ian, you could just run it. Do it anyway.
I mean, you've done this so many times, you probably just do it yourself. Yeah, serious. Thank you. That is a straight Yep. That's it.
Yes. Thank you. that all by itself. today. That's a really good question. Synagogue, but you could have a call.
A big building is usually more localized res. What do they call is the Yish term that covers everything. I was trying to figure out SH covers everything but SH is usually more of a but it's usually more
residential in style which this is more of a it's not big conglomeration of thousands of people but the I would say that's more of a synagogue. Yeah. is Yiddish for worship.
Miss Jennings. Thank you. Good evening. For the record, I'm Donna Jennings from the law firm of Willen Skullman and Spitzer on behalf of the applicant. I apologize for being tardy. Uh with that said, uh the board is aware the applicant is seeking preliminary and final major site plan
and minor subdivision approval with bulk variances to construct a house of worship with a necessity religious bathing facility, otherwise known as a mikvah on property located at 26 Whitesville Road identified as block 19501, lot 21. By way of background, on
November 15, 2023, the township zoning board of adjustment memorialized a resolution which granted the applicant a conditional use variance from ordinance section 244-115 to construct a house of worship with the accessory mikvah on the property.
Uh, as the board is aware, new amendments to the Jackson ordinance no longer categorizes a house of worship as a conditional use in the RG2 zone. Rather, houses of worship are now permitted uses in the RG2 zone as are accessory religious bathing facilities.
Notably, the application that was previously granted approval for the conditional use variance was bifurcated with the understanding that the app would return to the board to obtain site plan approval. The property is approximately 2 and a half acres and currently improved with a 1 and a half story dwelling, K9 boarding and day camp
building and a parking area. The applicant is seeking minor subdivision or approval to subdivide lot 21 new lots proposed to be designated as lot 21.01 which is approximately 1.79 acres and lot 21.02 which is approximately uh 0.65
acres. Finally, the applicant is seeking bulk variances for minimum lot depth for both lots and maximum height of the rooftop dome. As will be discussed by the applicant's planner, the record will show the applicant satisfies both the positive and negative criteria to warrant the granting's requested relief.
In support of the application, I have Mr. Bordon, the planner, sitting to my left, as well as Malkey Rob, the architect, and John Ray, the traffic engineer. I also has a representative of the applicant in the audience. If needed, we'll call him up to testify as well. As a matter of recordkeeping, we
are in receipt of the following report. The board planners review letter dated June 30th, 2025. The board engineers review letter dated July 2nd, 2025. And the township tree specialist re review letter dated July 2nd, 2025. With that, we'll have Mr. Bordon sworn in and we'll
begin. Gentlemen, any opening comments? Um, no. Um, Miss Jenny's um perfectly inadequately satisfied or described the project. Um there I think there was some
discussion between um Mr. Peters and um Miss Jennings as far as the variances which which we'll get into. I think I called the coverage law variance out which wasn't um um may not may not be needed. My biggest question um and we'll let the application proceed is the
actual need for this minor subdivision. I understand if the development of the house of worship is above two acres there's certain standards that have that would apply. Um, in in my mind, it's pretty clear. We're subdividing this off so we can get below two acres and have another set of standards um to govern
the government. Um, if the board was so inclined to um look at the house of of worship and assume it's less than two, even though it's not, we could eliminate the need for the subdivision, which is in my mind basically not built, not
buildable. It's environmentally constrained. Um and eventually it's going to wind up um for the public to take care of the stop paying their taxes on it and the public will you know be um burdened with the um the maintenance of that of that um of flat block. So just
some discussion as far as the actual need for it um the subdivision. That's all. I think Mr. Cle covered the opening comments. Okay. Maybe we can hear.
Who are you again? Yeah. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth? Nothing but the truth. I do. Please state your name. Spell your last for the record. Sure. Ian Bordon, uh, president of professional design services, licensed professional planner state, New Jersey for too many years and didn't appear in
front of this board for too many years. Thank you. Well, maybe you could explain to us then why the need the board accepts his credentials. Oh, absolutely. Thank you. Okay. Uh well, I think let me let me
give some background of the property first. I think that will help me me answer that. Uh so I just want to refer to exhibit A1. I I pre-marked four exhibits, provided copies of the boards and they're on the screen there. The property, this is an aerial photograph of the site. The property shown in
yellow triangle. You have Whitesville Road that runs the north is to the top. So Whitesville Road runs north south and you have the T intersection with 520 uh 8 East Veterans Highway on the top which is a signalized intersection.
The property uh to our west this forested area is all freshwater wetlands. There's an unnamed tributary to the Tom's River which crosses the road here. Uh there's actually a large covert there. I actually did the work for the county, the engineering work and the permitting to reconstruct that cover
which was done fairly recently. The county has also acquired the property to the west of us. So uh as noted by your professionals, we are proposing to submit off the tip of the triangle so to speak, that wooded portion. It is environmentally constrained. that cannot
be built developed but there is the opportunity to include it with public ownership that already exists to our west and it's already has a large covert from the county on it. Uh yes, there's an easement for it but uh that that's the uh uh to be honest are we uh it does
place us in the category of 1 to two acre for the house of worship. I won't lie that was part of the strategy. I'm I'm here to be honest with the board as I always am. But but to that but but there's that just that doesn't change the facts of the project. This project
was designed and approved by the zoning board under the 2acre criteria. So it in in my opinion working on the project under the old and the new ordinances it's irrelevant. The project stays the way it is. It's a modestly sized house of worship that's
appropriate for the property. And um um I think the uh personally not that it matters but the ordinance that was adopted and certified in 2023 to provide the categories of 1 to two versus greater than two is appropriate and this project is an example of that because
yes it's 2.4 acres but but more than4 acres is is uh is environmentally constrained. So, and if I might add, the Pinelands in their review letter uh requires the applicant to deed restrict that small lot uh as conserved space. That's what
they'd like us to do with it. Right. So, would this end up at this point if the county doesn't absorb it, it's Jackson's property, right? No. Nobody said Jackson would own it. It
would just be deed restricted from any development. ownership would remain in private hands and uh I don't there's I don't see any circumstance here where Jackson Township would be imposed any burden whatsoever. That is not our intent. That's not I I
don't see any path towards that. It's not that's not what's intended. All right. So no one can build on it. The only burden that rests is the the maintenance of that covert. But there's already an easement for that. So, and that's and that's the county and that's the county which is why the county owning the open
space behind us. Um I'm drawing a complete blank on the name of that farm. I actually they were actually a client of mine. Um but uh but anyway, uh they own that property now and there's nothing on there now. I I
was out there the other day and it's difficult to see because but there are some buildings on that property. Now there's a house uh right on the left side. There's a house in a garage out in front. I actually tried to subdivide it for his daughter. We tried to build a
house here but we we were Pinelands and the wetland rules we could not do it. So that was 20 probably 20 years ago. Okay. Uh fun fact Kalandulla Court we did that I did that subdivision too. Kalandulla is the dog of one of my beloved go
yellow labs. So you can tell all your friends that I think we are quite digressing the application. I did wonder Mr. Clay what's your advice here? Uh I would say probably not.
the county has to approve the project. But but the only thing that the only negative effect of the subdivision is is that we do require a single lot depth variance for that new lot, which it's not a developerable lot. You'll hear my planning testimony. I I I see no
negative impact from a single lot depth variance on a property that will never be developed upon. The lot depth variance that we require for the house of worship remains whether it actually gets worsened. If we don't subdivide then the lot depth that we require for
the house of worship actually gets increased because now we move the center point of the lot closer to the intersection towards the acute end of the triangle. So, one one could argue and mathematically it's an argument that the subdivision actually lessens the
variance relief for the uh for the house of worship as well. Yeah, but we meet the coverage. We we meet the coverage for the 1 to two acre category. We met her for the greater than two acre. Dr. It's an unusually shaped property that
fits within both categories of house unusually shaped properties in Jackson in case you haven't noticed. Um it's a question for Mr. Peters maybe. Um I think you were involved with the drafting of the ordinance to one to two acres. Could we just explain for the board why
there was a difference when we drafted the ordinance from the one to two and then two two and above? Well, the short answer is there's not a public history. There's a planning idea that in certain areas of town there would be different
lot sizes available and different design standards would yield different intensities of development. In this particular case, um while I don't take any exception to the request for the subdivision, um
it is obvious that there are different design standards if you're over or under two acres. Um Mr. Bordon has done has given testimony. He's done just about anything everything except give us a a sketch that says here's what the two acres are and this is the reason we're not doing it. Um if the board accepts
that, fine. Going back to either Mr. Clear or Mr. Sha's comment about what about the sort of useless or throwaway lot, I think we'd be happier if it was given to a public entity as opposed to having someone own it. Someone's going to own
something that can't be developed. A, they have to pay taxes on it. B, they have to be responsible for maintenance on it. They don't want to do either because it's not a developable lot. The residents of Jackson Township, as Mr. Cle had indicated, probably end up putting the bill for part of it. So to
the extent that someone's going to own an undevelopable lot that's severely constrained by wetlands, there might be a better plan out there than that. Um, but as it relates to providing houses of worship and accessory structures,
I think it was the intent that based upon the size and configuration of lots that you would get sort of the same yield across that spectrum of lots. But at two acres, you're going to need additional things, parking, storm water management, those sorts of things. So,
it got out of just the planning realm, got into the engineering realm, so to speak. Um, the only other comment I've heard so far that I might not agree with 100% was Mr. Bordon's comment about it doesn't matter if we were here at the zoning board. If they wanted, they could have went to the
zoning board and applied for a site plan. Quite frankly, that was a tortured history with the zoning board with this application. I'm not unhappy that they're here before the planning board with a conforming application. Board just needs to weigh the variance relief that's being
requested. At the end of the day, I don't know that the yield of the site would be significantly different whether they applied the one or two acre standards. I think Mr. board and started to talk about that. Perhaps
if the the board's looking for something more to hang their hat on, so to speak, I think it's what can we do with the leftover piece of property so that it doesn't become a nuisance. Um, and sort of an explanation of again, Mr. Bordon, Miss Jennings,
we're not unaware of the ordinance changes. How does this fit into the intent of the revised zone that they're utilizing? Is that clear to everybody? All right. So, we have to think of two
two different scenarios here, right? One would be if we allow the subdivision and the other would be the building as it stands and we don't. So perhaps it would be best if we went
ahead and listened to the testimony about the building itself and the um any variances that may be necessary. And and just so just so the board is clear, deed, we don't see it a lot or at least we haven't seen it a lot in the last couple of years. Um but that that's
a very very common thing. People deed restrict their properties for all reasons all the time. Um, some of it's to make sure it's not developable. So, I it this is kind of a a nuance new thing for for us, you know, for seeing this. I
don't think we've come across this in the last couple of years. Um, but this happens all the I do this all the time in my private practice. Um, I mean, I write deeds myself sometimes with with restrictions inside of them. So, this is kind of a common thing. So, don't take this out of context that this is kind of
unusual. It's really not. Okay. So that's it. That's my two cents. Okay, great. All right, let's let's continue then. Sure. So, if you could uh Mr. Bordon, why don't you go through the background on the site and what we're proposing
here? Certainly. Thank you. So, as I said, the property is 2.44 acres. Uh the property is located within the regional grow zone of Pinelands. The board members, I'm sure, are very familiar with that. It's the uh the highest intensity development
section of the Pinelands National Reserve as ma as regulated by the Pinelands comprehensive management plan. All the surrounding lots u are zoned RG2. The East Veterans Highway is the boundary of Pineland. So everything from
the exhibit A1 to the south or to the bottom are all zoned RG2. The area above is not in Pineeland and is zoned R1. The property is currently occupied by an existing home and a separate uh building. You can see the home uh when
I'm aimed at A1 and then below that is another building. See grass. There's a small parking area. My office has worked on this property for more than 20 years for various owners. This property was originally was a house with again a separate uh
structure, a garage or barn. It was originally granted a a variance by the zoning board to do a canoe rental. They used to have Pinelands canoes there. Uh then my office got involved years later and we did a variance and a site plan for a cat pet resort. It was a K9 pet
resort. Uh then my my current client and the owner approached me about doing a house of worship on this project. I'm going to guess about four or five years ago. And uh as Miss Jennings said, we did we did obtain a D3 variance from the uh
from the zoning board u for the same house of worship. Basically the same site plan that you're going to see as we go through the plans. The reason it was a D3 variance acquired because under the old ordinance, houses of worship were a conditional use and the conditional use required
for example the lot depth. You know the the requirements are the same. One of the questions and let me just touch on this. One of the questions was how how would this site be different if it's under the one to two acre on the greater than two acre old criteria or even
current criteria and and the lot width and depth requirements were the same. It had a lot width of 250 ft and a lot depth of 400 ft. So given the given the odd shape of the property in the triangular nature the acute triangular nature the lot variance the depth
variance is there regardless. So that that was the primary reason that we were informed. I'm sorry. Um Mr. Gordon, I I didn't hear what you just said. I apologize. I'm sorry. I'm probably talking too fast. I apologize. The we the the property the project does not comply
with the lot depth variance either under the the old because this ordinance was just adopted in 2023 and as I said we've been working on it since 2020 or 2021. Uh so in in the case of lot dimensional requirements
the 1 to two acre category that's in the new ordinance versus the greater than 2 acre in the old ordinance are very similar. In fact they're the same dimensional requirements and variance was required from both except back then there was no it required a D3 variance
because it was a conditional use requirement. Uh now they are just simply listed in the permitted use section of the ordinance. So any any uh such variance relief for a dimension of a lot like that can be granted by this board.
And and I think also also I think it's important to put in context is that we're always striving opinions out in the world notwithstanding I'm talking about the development community and people in our profession. We're always striving to make things conforming and to bring them to the planning board. You
know we don't like we don't want a board shop and go to the zoning board. That's not what ethically and professionally what we try to do. We try to design conforming things to to bring them here. Obviously, in this case though, we had a the dimensions of the
lot are unique and extraordinary. Uh you'll hear my testimony again about a C1 variance, extraordinary shape of the property, etc. Certainly this fit into that category, but because it was a conditional use that required D3 variance
and as Miss Jennings said, the township then subsequently modified the ordinance in 2023 uh to add that category of house of worship of 1 to two acres and uh thereby we're here we're here today. So, we have designed this, as I said in my initial statement,
considerative of or ordinance 30-23. That does include the minor subdivision. Uh, if you don't mind going to exhibit A2, please Anthony. We have the minor subdivision that we we have submitted as our exhibit A2. Uh, would have been nice if I taken the time to highlight it, but
I apparently did not. Uh, the proposed lot line is is where my my pen my marker is. In this case, Whitesville Road is left to right. veterans is off the page to the right or right here. So, here you have the existing house, existing
garage, the parking all done for the for the canoe rental and the in the pet resort. And then here and here's the head wall that I was making mention of right there and the various easements for it. So, that's the lot. Uh so, we are proposing to make a lot 21.01
um which is 1.79 acres which is a subject to the site plan and then 21.02 02 which contains 0.65 acres. Again, no development is proposed on 21.02. Um the both lots conform to the
ordinance requirements. The ordinance requires a lot to be at greater than 10,000 square ft and and we comply with all the dimensional requirements. The the minimum width and depth is 100 ft, but the minimum depth or the actual
depth of proposed lot 21.02 is 86 feet. So that is the variant the one variance that we and and C1 variance that I would consider it that we require for the subdivision that is an 86 ft lot depth where 100 ft is required for proposed
lot 21.02 too. Well, that comes in the site plan. I'm talking about the subdivision. Just the subdivision. There's a singular variance. Uh now we move into the site plan. And if you go to A3, please Anthony. We have the U
proposal is to here you see the lot line bit here. There's no development proposal at 21.02. And here we have uh our proposed house of worship. Um, we are, uh, demolishing all of the existing site improvements, the house, the the
garage, the, uh, the parking. Um, actually, uh, let me let me skipped over something in my notes. I want to step back and go over. I mentioned in my initial, uh, talk here that the on the A1 that forested area is wetlands and
that's shown here. And you can see the wetland line on A3. Um and the buffers extend onto the property. These wetlands and buffers have been established by Pinelands Commission. The Pineelands Commission has jurisdiction over wetlands within Pineelands. D has no jurisdiction over
uh wetlands. When you're in the Pinelands National Reserve, so uh having the Pinelands verify the wetlands and wetlands buffer limits is a necessary part of the procedure going through the certificate of filing. My office did that basically 20 years ago
through these various applications with the uh pet resort and then of course moving into the house of worship. U we do have a certificate the latest certificate of filing is dated October 26 2023 and that that verifies the limits of
wetlands and and buffer. In fact, the the wetland buffers on the property have been deed restricted already as part of the original the earlier applications. When we did the when we did the K9 pet resort, we were required to deed restrict those wetland buffers
and that remains. So, this project respects those filed conservation easements. This is a heavily encumbered piece of property. It's a heavily encumbered piece. Thank you. That's very well said. Yes. It's a heavily encumbered piece of property. unusual shape with with heavy encumbrances.
It makes sense. U I just want to make a note. It was listed in the planners letter. It was asking us to testify about the conservation overlay zone. Uh the conservation overlay zone does does not apply in the pinelands. Um if you read
the zoning map, it actually has a notation that says does not apply. And that's because the pineelands commission has never certified that aspect of the uh land use plan. Uh, as I mentioned, they have no jurisdiction over freshwater wetlands. So, that just simply doesn't apply. But
we do have uh proof that we do accurately show the wetlands and wetland buffers by virtue of the certificate of filing that was issued and submitted to the board. So what we are trying to do is uh now build the house of worship uh under the
requirements uh in the ordinance the new standards under 244-90F. I'll I'll briefly go through them. Uh there's a number of them. Uh there's there's three that that apply to every house of worship regardless of
the lot size and then there are separate category that applies to those that are between one and two acres. So the the first of the three that apply to any house of worship are that the lot shall not have frontage on a residential access or residential neighborhood street. Uh we obviously have access to
Whitesville Road which is a county arterial road. So we we meet number one which is the uh the uh access type of of the road that we're we're using. Number two is that the required minimum lot area uh shall be the same as required in
24490. 24490 is the RG2 zone requirements uh particularly C and the minimum lot area under that is 1 acre um thereby the ordinance says you have to have at least one acre to have a house of worship and our proposed lot has 1.79
acres so we we comply with that number three is the maximum height of the building of any principal structure shall be 35 ft the proposed house of worship has a height to the top of the flat roof 28 ft where 38 ft is required.
Um there is a a variance that we required for a projection. This is unusual. I don't recall ever testifying about this to to this board. Uh but uh it is a part of the ordinance. It's not part of the zoning requirements. There's
a separate part of the ordinance under 244 156B uh that applies to uh and I'll read from the ordinance spires, belfries, capas or domes not used for human occupancy or to parapits, walls or cornises extending
not more than 4 feet above the building height limit. Sure, the board has heard testimony many times. I've given testimony that on a flat roof you have a parapit. Uh the maximum height of that parapit or any other decorative feature I would call it is four feet. In this
case there is a dome on top of the house of worship that that exceeds the 4ft height. It actually extends 14 feet above the flat roof. And there if maybe just jump to the uh the architect to provide some more testimony on this, but
just to give you some introduction, if you don't mind, Anthony, go to the next one. Uh the dome actually extends 14 ft above the flat roof. That came out small, didn't it? Why did it Why did it do that? I feel bad for
the poor architectural. Why Why is the file do that? Yeah, there you go. No, we got Anthony. He's he's got he's got the uh So, there there you see the dome. You see the small area of the roof that it occupies. Um and that that dome extends
14 ft above the flat roof. So we actually require a variance from from not from the zoning ordinance but from 244-156B which is that uh uh in my opinion the the height of the permitted top of dome
height is 30 ft 39 ft because you have a 35 ft maximum permitted height plus 4t so it'll be 39 ft 14 + 28 is 42. So, we're proposing a dome height of 42 feet where 39 feet is the maximum permitted dome.
Did Did the fire department have anything to say about that? The fire uh commissioners did review the project. I I fortunately didn't bring a copy with me, but I believe they approved the project, understanding that the dome is not for human occupancy.
Right. It's beautiful. I mean, that's the definition of that that section. So it's it's just the decorative feature as my as I understand it. So So that's the that's the those are the three items that apply to all houses of worship and all all categories
whether it's one to two acres or greater than two acres. Now we get into the subset of the requirements as they apply to lots between one and two acres and and I'll go through them fairly quickly. You have the moon lot width and depth that I'd mentioned is 250 and 400. We
provide 323 feet of lot frontage with the proposed lot 21.01. Uh we have 243 feet of lot depth. So that is the second variance you required than the first for the house of worship. Uh so that is a C1 variance that we're
requesting for the uh and again that that variance would be exacerbated if we eliminate the subdivision. It would slide the lot depth line closer to the acute end of the property and make the depth even less. The minimum front yard is 60 ft. We
provide 62 feet. That's measured to Whitesville Road. The minimum sideyard is 20 ft. That will be from the uh if you can go back to Anthony the A3. U that will be from the U from the left side or the south side. We
have 40 45 feet and the minimum rear yard to the back here is uh 50 ft and we provide 93 ft. So the the house of worship building complies with all the SAP requirements.
The maximum building coverage is um the maximum permitted in the zone which as appined in the planners letter 40%. We agree with that. So we're permitted 40% of building coverage. we are proposing 21%. So I think it's important to note that
that even though we're making the property smaller with the subdivision, we're still half of the permitted building coverage. So we're not overbuilding. We're not, you know, it's um the maximum lot coverage is 70% of the gross lot area. We're at 60%. Again,
we are significantly under the maximum impervious coverage even though we've made the lot smaller by this subdivision. The parking uh is required to be set back at least 15 ft from the public street rightway which will be
Whitesville Road in our case and shall be screened from the adjacent rightway with a hedro. Uh we are proposing a 15t front setback so we comply with a and we have a hedge planting along the front. Uh I take credit for that part of the
ordinance too because I can I said you know it's important when we do parking areas to put a landscaping of a of a hedge type to block headlights. I think you've heard that from us before as well. The applicant shall submit a list submit a list of proposed activities and anticipated participants and the hours.
We did submit a statement of operation with the uh with the application. The uh parking area, circulation drive and/or accessory structure setback to any side or rear property line adjacent to a residentially zone property shall
be 10 ft. This applies to two things on the property. One is we have an access drive on the south side of the building. um kind of an emergency access primarily that goes around the house of worship that is set back 10 ft from the property
to our south. In addition, we have the mikvah accessory building in the back corner that that uh setback is 10 ft from the sideline and u 47 ft to the rear line. So we meet the 10t on the
side and we're we're 47 where 10 is required on the rear. So we meet all the setbacks of parking. Uh next one is not applicable. It's parking area in circulation to to commercial property shall be 3 ft. That doesn't
apply. We have no commercially zoned properties uh adjacent to us. And uh and the last item is that a decorative six-foot fence and/or natural vegetative buffer of a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along all parking
circulation structures adjacent to residential zones where properties improve with residential uses. That only applies to our south property here. And uh we do have a on the landscape plan, we do have a vegetative planting of mixture of trees and shrubs along that
property line. as I noted to our our west is forest and wetlands owned by the county now. So we we comply with that. And lastly uh not I don't just want to mention that the uh the mikvah is permitted as an accessory use
to the house of worship with two uh criteria. One is that the u the maximum floor area is 2,000 square ft. We're we're proposing 1157. So we're basically slightly more than half of what we're
permitted and and the next one is a statement that the religious bathing facilities shall not have any additional parking requirement beyond that of the house of worship. So that's more of a statement guiding us on how to design our parking. Uh in the statement of operation, you'll
see that religious services each day in the house of worship seven days per week starting at 7:30 a.m. more to be held on holidays. There's a list of activities in the in the statement of operations that are not proposed. Um
and uh speaking now talking to the site uh quickly, we have 55 parking spaces are required as determined by the planners review. We provide 67 parking spaces. Uh two uh we provide 66 physical spaces and two EV ready spaces which is
when you have between 50 and 75 parking spaces you're required to have two EV ready spaces. We do comply with that but those two spaces give us credit of one that two to one credit. So we have 66 physical spaces, one EV ready credit
space for a total of 67 where 55 are required. Um the we do propose a single two-way drive to Whitesville Road. Mr. Ray will give testimony on that. Um
we have submitted to the county planning board. They they have no issues with the project. We're just doing standard uh road widening along our frontage per the master plan which is typical for all all projects that county road.
There were a couple of items noted in the planners review on the parking u standards specifically referenced in section 244-197 and that is a section of the ordinance. It refers to large parking areas.
large parking area is defined as greater than 50 spaces. So because we have 67 spaces, we fall into the large category and uh what those are and those are what I would call enhanced standards above and beyond a normal parking lot considered the amount of traffic that
that a larger parking area would would see. Um and and what typ what primarily what those items are is they want a throat of driveway from the road for an entrance and exit. So when you pull into
a parking lot from a roadway they want there to be 100 ft before you can pull into a parking space or pull down a drive aisle. And for exiting they want a minimum of 60 feet. Similarly we have 33 feet for the entrance and 40t
for the exit. U additionally that same C uh ordinance section states that um a major circulation drive should not be utilized by parking stalls. We do have in the back the main parking
drive is here. We have no parking uh from the road all the way through through the uh house of worship. We have this loop drive aisle with all the parking spaces off of it. We do have two parking spaces in the very back of the house of worship. One
handicap space and one regular space simply for convenience of use primarily for the mikvah. Technically those are on the major circulation aisle. Although really the major circulation aisle in my opinion is limited to what the front parking bay
area in the back there as I mentioned is more of an emergency access. uh but it was called out and we would would request that waiver as well. And then lastly, landscape islands are required to be 10 feet in width.
We have two islands in the main parking bay, one here and one there that are 8t in width. I know that's a small difference. Why don't just make them 10 ft? But we're dealing with uh as the board members can appreciate spatial constraints from the shape of the property, the existing wetland buffer
and wetlands and um And so we do ask for that small waiver of two feet on those two each on those two islands. In my opinion, design waiver is is is applicable here because it would be impractical to comply given the spatial constraints and environmental
constraints of the property. And I think it's also important and maybe John can speak to this if he agrees with what I'm about to say. U and that is that I in my opinion that large parking area standards is written for a shopping center. I think they have a lot more turnover of vehicles than a house of
worship. We have this conversation when we're dealing with again large shopping centers. Uh typically more than 20,000 square ft is where you generate that amount of of parking with varied commercial uses. Uh we do not have that
situation here. Uh curbon sidewalk is proposed along Whitel Road across the front edge of lot 21.01. We do not was raised in the letters about we do not propose the sidewalk concur along 21.02 and that's not that's
not because of the subdivision that's just simply concerned about the environmental constraints. Uh we are happy if the board obviously the board can direct us to put in curb sidewalk and and I'm happy to go to Pinelands and try to get that done. I just don't know
that they will accept the sidewalk. We understand the need for for good pedestrian access. Nobody cares about that more than my client and I. But given the environmental constraints, we're just not sure that we can actually accomplish that. But we're we'd like to if the board feels that it's necessary,
we'll we'll take a shot with them on that. Um we will propose a ground sign. I believe there was something that was missing from our plans. We would like to propose a ground sign at the site entrance. Um that would be a conforming ground sign
of a maximum height of six feet. signage area 32 square feet simply with the name of the congregation. I think it's important to have an ident as well as facade signage on the building will comply with the ordinance. Um the project will be serviced by public water and sewer. There is public
water in Whitesville Road currently across the site frontage. There is sewer just to our our south with the new uh subdivision being built called Blinky Court or the Hunter subdivision. This board had approved
that many years ago. Um we understand that there are capacity the site is located within a central sewer service area. So public sewer is is permitted in in the regional grow zone and encouraged. In fact, we do
understand that there's capacity limitations with the Jackson Emmy way and the downstream sew into Tom's River. My office is actually working to hopefully solve that problem for everybody's benefit. But uh and it it is our intent to provide public sewer for this project.
And uh lastly uh uh just as a housekeeping the obvious I mean it's obvious but the property owner will be responsible for all the operation and maintenance of the site plan parking area landscaping utilities lighting refuge collection is private
carrier. We do have a refuge enclosure that meets the ordinance as far as size shape landscaping and it does have separate areas for storage of refues and recyclables as well. So other than some planning testimony on
those three variances, we have the lot depth of uh 21102 proposed lot for the subdivision 86 ft 100 ft required and the lot depth of the house of worship 243 where 400 is required. my opinion that would be
C1 variance of the exceptional shape of the existing piece of property. As I mentioned, even if the subdivision was not proposed, that would simply mean that the lot depth variance for the site plan would be exacerbated. It would be less than 243 ft proposed. And then
lastly was the height of the decorative dome uh where we're permitted requesting a maximum height of 42 feet where 39 ft is permitted and that is a decorative feature that the architect can explain in further detail. But I think that's
mitigated in part uh because certainly from the perspective light air and open space the proposed building that we're proposing uh or our proposed building is substantially less than the maximum permitted height of 35 ft. Yes, the dome is higher but the building
itself is 7 ft below the maximum building height. And would it be your testimony that the dome height is an aesthetic improvement? Yes. So it be under the C2 flexible criteria? I I certainly Yeah. Yeah, certainly uh uh we can do that as well. Certainly the
grant of the variance would meet the benefits versus detriments under the C2 um because the u the benefits granted variance does not create any detriment to the zone plan or master plan.
And did you address all the the issues raised in the board's consultants reports? I I tried to address the ones I thought would be relevant testimony. Certainly any of their technical comments we agree to comply with. We have no objection to any of the comments, any of the reviews.
Uh yes, the street sign. Could we also have the address uh put on the street sign? Of course, it's required. Yes. Excellent. Regarding the dome, first of all, I'm not sure you see down the road by the state forest. They're building something
like 100 feet. So, this little few feet of dome and it's aesthetic by the state forest, the nursery. Not sure if that's really for this application, but it's a fire tower. I was wondering what that was. So, this little dome is and it's beautiful. So, can you elaborate
back on what we spoke about at the beginning of the meeting regarding dedicating to the county? I concur with Mr. Cle and Mr. Peters about that. So if they do not want to observe that I was a bit unclear on what ends up happening if the county does not want to observe that. I do see they have a drainage easement
there right through the middle which is already currently dedicated. Yes. Yes. Lot 21102 in my opinion will either be owned by the applicant in perpetuity with a deed restriction as it that's already deed restricted under the current easement city can't be developed
or it would be or it would be uh deed to the county to be consolidated with the existing county property uh located behind us. So if it stays with the applicant applicant will be responsible to maintain that property. Yes.
Thank you Mr. Trump. Um, I appreciate what you're saying about the sidewalk. So, if you could try that, I think it'd be a good idea. That's fine. Let them shoot it down instead of us. I agree. Um, just clarifying in the drawings you have 360 degrees of driving around the
building, correct? Okay. Because the picture you have a nice front wall in it, but I was just making sure. Yes. Which Thank you. Appreciate. Yeah. That that actually that that rendering that aerial rendering in A4 predated us adding the driveway. Yeah. I was back back then it was back then that was
a we actually you can't looks like grass but it was a grass breed but then we made it a pavement so yes it is 360 a driveway. So has the fire official looked at the updated version of this and he had no problem with the
Okay. Did he give you any type of written clearance on that? Yeah. I just didn't bring a copy with me but that'll be provided to the board. We we can't go forward without it. We know that. Right. Right. No. So you did your job. Yes sir. Um
my only concern and I had it another application which is very concerning. Pulling out of this parking lot. It's a double yellow line there and it's a deceleration area up to the signal. Is it going to be strictly only right turns
or we going to be making left turns out? No, it's it's a full turn driveway. Say again. It's a full turn driveway. There'll be left turns out. It's a double yellow line. I understand, but the yellow lines is for passing. Mr. Ray can address that. His traffic
test. I have a very big issue with Mr. Ray and his statement the last time with that. And I've checked with Jackson PD and neighbors can make turns in out of the driveway. It's called a courtesy, but this is a major parking lot at certain
times. And double yellow line. While yes, it is for passing suggestions, it's also an imaginary divider, which you're not supposed to be making left turns over. I mean, maybe the county can put a broken line there or
something like that. I don't know. But I have a very big issue with that. Okay. And I think that's a problem, especially I mean, we know the area we're talking about. Everybody's coming up to the light or they're coming, they've just turned from the light and they're flying down that road. It's a dangerous
situation like the other application. So that I'm very concerned about. I don't think that there should be left turns going out of there unless we have some sort of legal break. Sure. Because you turn out over WL line, you're at fault. I understand. Mr. Ray will address that.
Mr. Thank you. Anyone else? Um, as far as the statement of operations go, you only say that it's um it's open at 7:30 a.m. When does it What are the hours,
the end hours? Uh, I I don't know. I don't know what the closing time is. I think that's what your question is. Yes, that is what my question is. Okay, let me uh thank you, Miss Jenny's. She helped me out here. The uh on
weekdays, the evening services uh well, the evening lecture ends uh by no later than 9:30 p.m. There's an there's an evening services which occurs during sundown.
Um, and then the evening lecture will end by 9:30 p.m. on weekdays under Sabbath and the holidays. Uh, they end u hour after sundown. And you indicate here that there will be
no weddings. Are there going to be bar mitzvah, bach mitzvah? I know I saw something about a social hall. I think I don't know the answer to that question. Is there anyone that could answer that? Yeah, the applicant representative is here so we can bring him up.
Okay, that'd be great. And I'm just curious um because you know you're asking for some variances and you've indicated that the lot is unique, extraordinary, exceptional. Was there any thought of
trying to put in a house of worship that didn't need any variances at all, including a height variance of 42 feet? Well, the the two the two variants the the lot that variances exist no matter what size of the house of worship is. I
mean, that's irrelevant. It's irrelevant to the size of what we're proposing is an existing condition. So, right now it violates the lot depth, right? as it is configured without any development on it.
And the dome is just an aesthetic. It just looks really nice and that's what they'd like to put on top of the roof. And the architect can address why the height of the dome is 14 ft. I think that's a relevant question, but that's the only variance related to the
use. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you. Okay, at this time then I bring up Mr. Ray. Long time no see.
Yes. You swear affirm tell the truth the whole truth. Nothing but the truth. I do. All right. Please state your name and spell your last on the record. John Ray, REA, professional engineer with Mcdana and Ray Associates, 1431 Lakewood Road, Manisquan, New Jersey.
Word acceptance qualifications. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Ra. Just for the record, your office prepared a traffic impact analysis dated June 25th, 2024. Uh we also updated it uh December 1st, 2023. And uh the reason is we were
originally involved in the zoning board case which as uh Miss Jennings indicated resulted in an approval from the zoning board for the house of worship and the mikvah. Uh but now we're in front of the planning board. So we just we updated it to address it to the planning board.
Okay. So you've obviously visited the site in the area around the site many many times not only for this project for other projects in the area. Yes. I'm sure. And if you could just describe the existing conditions and uh you know address some of the board members concerns. Sure. You've heard I'm sure you've been sitting in the audience listening.
Well, the subject property is located on the west side of Whitesville Road which is County Route 527. It is just south of the signalized intersection at Whitesville Road and East Veterans Highway. and a little bit further north and offset from Kalandoula
Court approximately 250 ft center line to center line is the offset of the uh two driveways. We did a full traffic impact study for the project. Uh we projected traffic volumes to a design year of 2033 in accordance with the Ocean County
Planning Board protocol. Uh we included traffic from other projects in the area and quite frankly we're familiar with nine other projects within several miles of this site. We included that traffic in our 2033 projections. Uh we did level
of service uh analyses for the site driveway to Whitesville Road and under a worst case scenario one in which all 66 parking space or 67 I guess it is now. I think I saw a plan with 66. But if all of the parking spaces are occupied by
vehicles and they're discharged onto Whitesville Road during a peak hour, we will still have under that worst case scenario, we'll have a level of service C for the morning peak hour, level of service D for the afternoon peak hour. Those are acceptable levels of service.
We also looked at the off-site intersection, the signal at Whitesville and East Veterans, and that intersection has plenty of capacity that will also operate at level of service C for both the morning and afternoon peak hours for the design year. Uh, I understand that
we do have adequate parking, I believe, as per the Jackson Township ordinance. I can back up what Mr. Bordon said with respect to the relief we need for the uh depth of the access aisle before it intersects a cross cross aisle in the
parking lot. This will be a house of worship that will be utilized by congregants who are familiar with the site. I do believe those um requirements were basically put in for large commercial properties, shopping centers, things of that nature. And I understand
the need for them in a case like that, but not in a case like this where we have a relatively small parking lot, 66 spaces, and the congregants will be familiar with the uh the circulation. We do have full circulation around the building, although it may not be shown
on on on this site plan. We do have full circulation around the building. The fire department wanted that. We gave it to them. And um let's see what else. Oh, I I I'll I'll try to address the double yellow line. There there seems to be a common misconception even among police
officers, and I don't want to get into a debate about that, but you you can't cross a double yellow line, make a left turn. We have a letter from the DOT indicating that you can do that. I don't know where this came from, but I'm trying to address it as best as I can without being confrontational. But what
we can do to make it better for the congregants, we can ask the county to break the cross-hatching in the vicinity of the driveway so that it's clear to the congregants entering and exiting that they're allowed to do it. We can break the cross-hatching there. The county will allow us to do that. So, I I
hope that addresses your concern. Thank you. I understand. If somebody pulls out and there's a major incident, it's on you. So, we don't want that to happen. We'll ask the county to break the cross hatching.
I' I've asked from several jurisdictions, state troopers, local police, and many others, and they all disagree with you. that that's I I and and again not to be argumentative or anything. I'm not aware of anybody that's ever gotten a ticket for crossing
a making a left turn across a yellow line. It's just we have a letter from DOT. It's not part of the vehicle the motor vehicle and traffic laws. And I'm not an expert in the law. I'm just an engineer, but this is my understanding. But I I'm not to be argumentative. We're going to do what you suggested. We're
going to ask for a break in the crosshatching. It's not a bad idea, and we will go to the county and ask them for that. I believe it covers both ends. Covers us covers you. Thank you. I'd ask one question of our professionals. I I know this is a major
road and theoretically there's no parking, but would it be wise to put no parking signs there? Um is there something an ordinance on parking on the street there?
Uh, as long as we're permitted by, I guess, the township or the county. I don't know if we need authority from somebody to do that. I'd appreciate that, Dr. Yeah, we would we would agree to do that. Definitely. We don't want people parking out on Whitesville Road. Absolutely. Dr. Campbell, could I just clarify, Mr. Quickly? Is that would that be under the
town council or the county? I think the town council has to pass an ordinance if I'm not mistaken, and the county will approve it. Whatever the town wants, the county would go along with it. Okay. Because we just had us come up with another application recently. Just wanted to clarify who's responsible for
this. I think from what I gather is the town uh makes the request of the county because the county wrote, but the town makes the request and the county will approve it hopefully. Right. So, we can just make the request
to the township and hopefully they'll make the request to the county. That that sounds about right. So, as we'll make it a condition of approval for you guys to for them to request it from us, for us to request from the county. Correct. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions?
Thank you. Okay. At this time, I'd like to call up our architect Good evening. Do you swear or affirm the tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. All right. Please state your name and spell your last of the record. Sure. I'm Melissa Rub Rub. I am a
licensed architect and project manager at BF Design in Lakewood, New Jersey. I've had the pleasure to appear before this and many other boards throughout the state. Same here. Thank you for having me. And if you could, Miss Reb, just go through um your elevation and floor plans for
the benefit of the board and if you could also make sure you address the question raised by board member Demarzo regarding the height of the dome. Absolutely. Um Anthony, if if you mind if you don't mind, we'll start with the house of worship. This is the zone except for the Meeka building. So, if I can trouble you to go to the other Z1
page that was submitted. There were two packets, I believe. Oh, it might be in the same. Yeah. Uh Oh, no. This is only a two-page set, it looks like. Is Was there another packet? Thank you so much.
Yes. Perfect. Thank you very much. Um, great. Let's actually move over to the next page, Z2. That's the floor plans. Um, so the proposed house of worship is a two-story structure with a full basement measuring approximately 67 feet
wide and 105 ft deep. Um, as u Mr. Bordon mentioned in his um testimony, the height to the main roof is 31 ft and 42 to the top of the dome, which we'll we'll get into a little bit later. The main entrance of the building is
located on the west facade. You can see that in the bottom left floor plan over here. Um leading into a vestibule on central lobby. To the left of the vestibule is the coat room, coffee room, and restrooms. And to the right is a
library. Um the main sanctuary totaling 1,943 square feet lies straight ahead with a ravi rabbi study and small lecture room located behind it. Moving up to the second floor, which is the top right hand corner of the page.
Um, we have a 1,321 square foot women's balcony looking over the sanctuary accompanied by a small coffee station, restrooms, and other ancillary spaces. At the basement level, which is the top lefthand corner of the sheet, um we have a 3,143
foot social hall with areaways um at the basement level on either side, as well as other supporting spaces including a lobby, bathrooms, utility room, and food prep area. Um if we can move now to page Z3, please.
So there, this is um two of the four elevations. Um maybe the if um the rendering is a little bit clearer to see the full building. Um that was part of the exhibit package. A4 in the exhibit package. That was the first packet.
Sorry, the the first tab, the 26 Whitesville Road um exhibit packet. Yeah, thank you so much. The last page. So just for the record, this is exhibit A4 um and is a architectural colored rendering of the site.
Thank you so much, Anthony. Thank you. Um so the elevation showcases an elegant building with classical influences. Um the exterior is a light tone stuckco facade with tall arched windows and columns. Um a detailed cornice. Um the main entrance is again located um facing
west and the arc wall facing east um that add further texture and interest to the building. Um and lastly as we discussed there's a um the sanctuary is by a rib dome with integrated clear story windows and that's this is where the height piece of it comes in. So, as
you can see, this is the main roof level. And in order to allow the dome to have a function in that it lets light into the main sanctuary, we've added windows around the dome. Um, and that increases the height. Now, with the
proportion of how wide the dome is, um, the end result is that from the roof surface, which is this area, to the top of the rib dome ends up being 14 ft. Um, I'm sorry to make you flip back and forth, Anthony, but if we can go back to the architectural Yeah, you can see that
from a flat view, this part of this 14 ft is blocked by the main parapit of the building. So again, from a, you know, a person standing at grade or a a car driving nearby, the 14 ft doesn't read 14 ft, but just as a matter of, you know, on
the record, um, it ends up being 42 to the top of that rib dome. Next, we'll move on to the ancillary mikvah building. So, that's that first packet that you had. Um, this is a singlestory structure measuring approximately 27 feet w um
deep by 42 feet wide. Um, the height of this building is 14 ft to the top of the parapit. The building consists of three distinct mcvos or um pools um each with its own entrance. Sorry. Oh, no. Sorry. Thanks.
Um yeah, let's go to the the middle tab that MCBA architectural plan. Perfect. Yeah, these are the elevations. If you scroll up one sheet, we'll get to the the floor plan. Yeah, perfect. So, each of the um functions of the building have its own entrance. This is the women's
entrance, men's entrance, and the vessel mikvah or the kaya mikvah as um as put on the plan. Um, architecturally again from a elevation standpoint, the Mikvah building reflects the language of the main house of worship, incorporating stucco and clad
with plasters and coral details just to give the building a little bit of rhythm and um architectural cohesion with the with the main building which is the house of worship. That concludes my direct testimony. Donna, you have anything else? No, thank you. Great.
Hi, just confirming the rabbi study. Is that an emergency egress out there from the main sanctuary or are you just using the rear for the building for that? That's a great question. So, the rabbi does have his his own entrance. Um, I'm just going to take a quick quick peek.
Um, the main sanctuary actually has a secondary exit out of the library room. So, um, conforming with building code, it's one-third of the room diagonal and and that should be fine. So, the the intention is that that secondary room be the second means of egress out of this.
So, no access to the rabbi's office. Hey, that's correct. Sure. Thank you very much. At this time, I'll just call up the applicants representative Morai Hirs so he could address any specific questions regarding the operations of the facility and in
particular questions by board member Demarc. So, all right. You swear affirm tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I do. Please state your name and spell your last for the record. More Hersh. H I R S C H And if you could just for the record,
how are you affiliated with the applicant? I'm the rabbi and the applicant. And I know that there was a specific question whether or not what kind of activities would be happening um at the shul and the mikvah other than services if any.
So the primary activity is services as Mr. Bordon already detailed. Uh I think the question was if there would be borrower bot mitzvah hosted and I would answer in the affirmative but those are predominantly affiliated with the services so it wouldn't attract more
guests or vehicular traffic. In other words, when there's a service in the sanctuary, those uh congregants would filter downstairs to the social hall. Uh will there be no rentals? That is correct.
And social events other than those dealing with the religious service for members of the congregation, but typically they would be associated with the service. Thank you.
If I may go back to a question that came up at the beginning of the meeting, I just want to state that um there was a natural lands trust fund meeting where I gave a presentation. I believe the dates were February 28th of I could pull it up
for you. Bear with me one moment. This way I could speak accurately. As you see, my binder has gotten very full from all the hearings on this application. February 28th of 2024, um there was an application heard number 717 by the
Ocean County Natural Lands Trust, which is the committee that acquired the contiguous 12acre parcel, former Pugli Farm. Um the structures that were on that farm have since been demolished by the county. And then we had a subsequent meeting on July 24th, 2024. Uh at which
time the county did express interest in either acquiring or receiving the parcel as a donation. So if we would move forward as a subdivision, that opportunity is available to give the the new small parcel that already has the the wetlands and conservation
constraints to the county. Um, if the board so desired that we not proceed with a subdivision, then as Mr. Bordon testified, um, we would maintain the ownership of that parcel as we have for
nearly a decade. I also want to address Mr. Tremor's question about the fire letter. I'm able to pull it up from my cloud and I'll just run through the comments. the the fire letter signed by uh Scott Roush
makes no uh mention of the dome. They had no objection with the height of the building. It was um specifically regarding and excuse me for reading off of my phone October 10th, 2022. Um which and it was the date is October
10th, 2022. Perhaps there is a a more updated letter that I am unaware of. I have not received a copy, but I will say for the record that when this application appeared before the zoning board, we were showing the same structure. That did not change. So the building height would have been
something available to the fire department when they reviewed the application at that time. There was no change to that. So exactly nothing has changed the whole application from the time he looked at it in 2022. To the best of my knowledge, that is correct.
Okay. because that's one of my big concerns. We make changes, it has to go back to the fire department to be just reapproved. It's a very simple process, but it's something that's not been happening. I I I believe that Mr. Warden recirculated the current documents to all of the
various authorities. I don't have a copy of a letter, if one was issued, that is current, but the the architecturals have not changed. there were some minor site plan changes um that created a better flow for this site and for the township.
Um so if if I refer to that letter, his comments were specific to the hydrant location, um code requirements for the hydrant, um speaking with the MUA about it, doing rate flow tests pertaining to the water, uh ground fire lane markings, but no
comments with regards to the structure itself. Just just to be clear, I mean, fire's going to have to look at this anyway. Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely. So, you're still going to be subject to all of those conditions. Sorry. Yeah. And and if I might just so the record's clear, I think you need
to have something in the planning board folder for this project. So, the variance was at the at the zoning board that were here for site plan and the circulation which may or may not have been part of the 2022 report. I don't think it's unreasonable
as part of resolution compliance. resubmits to Mr. Cle. We ask them just to run through fire officials office again to make sure we have one because I'm not sure that the fire officials report is part of this application, part of the zoning board application.
Yeah, we've made a lot of changes in the last three years. So, I would I would prefer that I don't disagree there were not significant changes. I just for the purposes of making a clean record, you have to do resolution compliance one way or the other. Recirculate it one more time. Exactly.
Absolutely. Very good. You have in here a um food prep staging area. What kind of what are you doing with that exactly? There is no kitchen with actual cooking. It's intended for light refreshments. So, for example, with your prior
question about a bar mitzvah, if someone wants to serve cake, cookies, desserts, etc., there will be a place for the waiters to stage and prep. And though the though the time for a celebration like that that would still
close down around 9:30, the same as the services or would that extend out? I think it's foreseeable it may extend uh a little bit but typically those events are held earlier in the evening or on a Sabbath again when there's no
vehicle traffic. Then as far as the um the dome height, what was um why do you need it to be so high? I think Mrs. Rub um testified to that.
It was an aesthetic feature for the building and in order to be able to include incorporate natural light and insert windows, we had to exceed the the height limit by just a few feet. But you really don't need that in order
to have the building, do you? No, it's an aesthetic improvement. We said that it's not for human occupancy. We just think it's a nice architectural feature. So, taking four or five feet off it wouldn't be a big deal if it was a
problem. I'm not an architect, so I couldn't tell you. Just lobbing four or five feet off of it. I'm sure the dome will shrink significantly in diameter and probably will look silly. You make the dome to fit the Well, I kind of I I get what Lisa is
saying. It's a very high mounted dome where you can go off the curve on it, knock four feet off it, and make it more compliant. Well, if I may point out one other thing, if we don't proceed with the minor subdivision and we're viewing this parcel as greater than 2 acres,
then we in fact by right can go 40t because our front setback has a 60ft setback requirement when we're providing 62.2 ft. And by increasing the setback 2 feet, we're entitled to one extra foot in the height. So instead of 39 ft, we'd
be able to go 40t and then our variance relief request would be just two feet. If we knock off a couple of feet, you're demolishing the dome because it would would be unable to be built as inspired and desired.
There there's a ratio that is required with the dome per the size of the building. So becau if if you've studied architecture there's a a ratio and you you need to maintain that ratio for the aesthetic
purposes. So it's necessary. Madam Chair, I just wanted to close the loop on the the use and the parking. I know board members had a concern. So Mr. Hirsh, thank you for your testimony. Um, you're very familiar with the plans for a long period of time. You understand there are
66 parking spaces being proposed. What is the question? Yes. You you understand there are 66 parking spaces proposed? Yes. And you're confident that the use of the facility should not exceed the capacity of the parking that's being proposed? Yes. Thank you. That's all I have, Madam
Chair. Um not sure um you're the uh correct um witness and I'm sure we'll get the answer. The security booth and I see in the front what is that for? Um and there's also a concern if it's viewed as an accessory structure you might have
another variance there. I am not qualified to answer with regards to whether there is a variance necessity and if it is u by code or architecturally consider an accessory structure but the purpose is just to
have a sense of security for the community. Unfortunately we live in in a world where where that has become of need. Um, I can tell you personally just in the last month I walked by the site after dark and had garbage thrown at me out a window with uh various
slurs that I cannot repeat. So it having that sense of security is is the purpose of the structure and um it has become common place amongst houses of worship and other religious institutions in the area. and and and fine. Um would it be better
on the other side of the driveway as people come into? I'll defer to Mr. Bordon on that. And just some maybe some additional testimony on the security because I do have a concern that you know what this how big is this thing? What does it look
like? How high is it? And how far set back is it from the road? And if it might require additional variance. And the only other question I have, and I'm sure it's not for this this witness, there's a six foot solid fence along the Southerntherly property line that appears to be encroaching into the um
the front yard setback. So, some testimony from the applicant in support of um that because you can't have a sixoot solid fence front yard. Okay. Well, I think we have to call Mr. Bordon up for both those questions. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr.
Hirs before he steps down? Thank you. Ian, if you wouldn't mind coming back up and addressing the two questions. One related to the security booth and the other with regard to the uh 6ft solid fence encroaching on the front yard.
on the security booth. Uh yeah, we propose just a very small approximately 8ft square uh structure next to the drive as noted at the entrance. Uh we do show a fence across the entire front of
the property with a with a gate. U the ordinance is silent on that. So um it it doesn't permit it. It doesn't not permit it. There's no there's no statement in the ordinance about accessory other than like the MCA
building that I testified to. So I I personally did not consider that a building. We called it a security booth. I know we commonly deal with something like this in the retirement community, for example, with the gated entrance, but uh it's really just for enough large
enough for one security person to get out of the weather basically. And what about uh the question with regard to is that the proper location for it? Should it be on the other side, the entrance as opposed to the exit? I believe is the question. No, I I I think it
we we put it there so that somebody entering the site, it would be on their driver's side. Obviously, you know, it's across the egress aisle, but I I believe it's the correct place. It could be placed on the other side if there's a particular preference, but in
my opinion, it's in the uh it's in the proper location. it it's set back off the road uh more than 20 feet. So, it's not uh it's not up against uh it's it's farther back than the parking, which is a 15t setback and at least 5 ft
more than that. As far as the the fence, I do see that we carried the 6ft solid fence all the way to the uh to the uh to 15 ft from the from the rightway. Uh we can end the solid fence at the
front setback. That's just a didn't notice that as far as it related obviously what Mr. Cle is saying is correct any any fence in the front yard setback must be a 4ft open fence or a variance is required was not our intent to trigger a variance on that. So we
would modify the fence to be a 4ft open fence in the front yard on the sideline consistent with the detail that runs across the front of the the property. What what are your thoughts on the security booth? Does that need to be a
separate structure? I'm sorry. Cheering services. So if if if a variance is required of that, we would ask to amend the complaint to add a variance. So obviously you were not going to put a security booth behind the building. That's not really going to serve any purpose.
Madam Chair. Yes, sir. First and foremost, I don't think it's a bad idea. I think if the congregants want it, it's a good idea. We should provide it to them. It's a structure. Okay. We don't we don't talk about booths in the ordinance. So, while I
don't take offense to the debate, it's a structure. My recommendation is the board grant the variance for both the use, the location, and what it is for security purposes. Dr. Campbell. So, I've seen some of
these booth in not so much in this in this area. It's unfortunately becoming new in this area. I've seen this in other communities throughout the country. Um it is quite common. Um I like unfortunately I like the idea. I think it's something we should be reviewing with our upcoming review and
some of the other things that we're working on with the master plan. Just it should be probably be addressed um because I think it needs to be addressed because unfortunately it's going to be coming up in I think I think it's a good idea. Uh aesthetically I'll assume that the
architect is going to have some involvement so that it will blend with the rest of the property. I think certainly the material would have been nice if we had seen that u and in the future we keep that in mind. Of course
nothing not not opposed to it by philosophy but it should have been included. Yeah. Yeah. I'm going to um going to concur with uh Mr. Peter's assessment of the situation. So it's definitely a structure.
It's you know it's associated to the use on the property. Um so it's accessory in nature uh clearly you know but I think that the safety aspect of this you know
kind of warrants the the variance so to speak. Um, I I'll just at the time we're deciding this, I just want to let the board know that we're also taking into consideration now this variance that we didn't anticipate having in the beginning.
No, no bathroom, no plumbing. No. Okay. Thank you. Hopefully some heat and light. Yeah, heat and light. No different than maybe air conditioning. AC be probably good.
Yes. I'm sorry. I was looking at the um one of the plans I don't know the site plan A3 and under the EV ready spaces you have a proposed septic disposal bed there's no septic right
no so why is it there I think that's just um I might have attached the wrong site plan but there's no there's no there's no second Ray, you're slacking, man.
Yeah, there's just there's no septic photo. Ray, I know. I thought you were gonna catch that. I think it's the wrong It sounds like it. Sounds like I think
I think the person who put the exhibits together attached the wrong file. It's a different street. Yeah, I would tell you it was an employee, but unfortunately it was me. Former employee.
Anyone else with comments, questions? Do we have a maximum capacity? I know we're doing 66 parking spots, but nowhere do I see a number. I was just curious. The parking is based on the square footage of those build of those rooms. Right. But I'm just wondering what the
occupancy maximum occy. I'm sure I'm sure occupancy is dictated by the building codes. Well, the architect might know the answer to the occupancy thing. Yeah, probably IBC. Yeah, it's probably a specific IBC.
Yeah, sorry. I was just doing some quick math. Um, for the size of our sanctuary, we're at 129 occupants. 129 129 occupants according to IBC. So that's that's a prescripted number of occupants per square foot for the size
of our sanctuary. So does that mean that you limit your congregation to 129 people? So again, that's the size that this room could could accommodate. And so we designed egress and plumbing fixtures according to that designation. It doesn't reflect the actual occupancy of
the room. It could go up to it could go higher or lower, but that's how um the building code prescribes the the occupancy. Yeah, Lisa. So, um this is going to sound strange, but what happens with the IBC is that they actually take the the
the square footage with the amount of people, but then they construct the doorway, the the entries and exits of the building according to how many people are allowed in the building. So the so the the door frames actually have to be a specific like width depending on
how many people are actually allowed in the building. Um it's kind of weird but that's how it that's how they do it. And that's also the fire department also. It's it's fire, it's IBC, it's you know that's correct. Okay. Thank you. Sure.
Uh any other experts? Like to public. Is this cross examination? You want to do cross in general together unless anybody seeing no one come forward, make a motion to close crossexamination. Second,
all in favor? I Okay, we're back. General. General. Let's open it to general questions from the public. Seeing no one come forward, I move to close the general portion of this
application. Second, Bernstein. All in favor? I I Yeah, just in conclusion, um this is you have not really been along for the entire ride. Uh it's been a long time coming to get here. Uh we
think with the new ordinance, the use is now permitted. Uh the lot depth variance exists on the site today. It's just a triangle. Doesn't have enough lot depth. nothing to do with the actual use of the site. Um, and then of course the dome we
just think is an attractive feature uh for the building. And so we would and of course amending the plan to include the security booth which we obviously believe is a safety issue and something that probably should be addressed in a future ordinance amendment. Uh we would respectfully request that the board
grant the applicant an approval. I'd like to make a motion comments from Any comments from I'd like to make a motion to approve this application with the requested
variances. Uh when it comes to the dome, I think anything that uh is aesthetically pleasing and provides an environmentally um prudent aspect of bringing in natural light which would lower the cost of the
utilities and the electrical use for lighting. Uh I think it's a good thing, not a bad thing. And of course, a security booth, unfortunately, in this day and age is a uh requirement that we may see pop up more often. Yeah. Yeah. Why don't why don't we do
this? Why don't we have the first vote on the subdivision? Um, so let's do the first vote on the subdivision. Uh, we'll get through that, then we'll go on to the second vote for the plan. I'll second the motion, but again, let's just make sure everything's updated
through police and fire, too. We got a motion. It's on the floor right Mr. I think our motion is very live. Do we have to table that motion? So, now we got Now we got a live Do I table my motion? We need you to table the Okay, I'm going to table my motion and
I'm going to make a motion that we approve the subdivision of the lot uh for 26 Whitesville Road. I'll second the table and second your motion. All right, let's have a vote on
subdivision. The subdivision, Mr. Mr. Bernstein. Yes. Mr. Marzo, no. I don't think it's necessary. Mr. Heler. Yes. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Tremer. Yes.
Miss Rose. Yes. Mr. Sullivan. Yes. Dr. C. Dr. Campbell. Yes. Now we'll go to the table motion. Mr. Sullivan, it's all yours. new
motion. I'll make a new motion. Yeah. Um I move that we uh approve this application with the requested variances. Once again, security unfortunately is going to become an
issue I think uh and is a necessary um part of this. Uh the dome once again I said would bring in natural light which is an environmentally pleasing aspect of this application. Plus, it's a beautifification aspect and the other
minor variances that were required because of the depth of the lot. Um, I move that we approve. I'll second it. Bernstein. Mr. B. Mr. Bernstein. Yes. Mr. Marzo.
No. Again, I'm objecting to the height variance. It's not necessary. Mr. Heler. Yes. And great application. Mr. Rogers. Yes. Mr. Treamer. Yes, Miss Rose. Yes, Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Dr. Camp. Yes. Congratulations.
Thank you so much. Have a great night. Motion to close. Please make a motion. I'll make a motion to close. Second, Sullivan. All I Thank you. Good night, everybody.