Welcome everybody to the Milbourne Township Planning Board meeting in accordance with section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act, chapter 231, Public Law 1975. Be advised that notice of this meeting was made by posting on the Bolton board at town hall and serving the officially designated newspapers a
list of the meeting dates annually indicating that this meeting would take place at mil at the Milbourne Board of Education Center building at 7:30 p.m. on May 21st, 2025. Roll call, please. Corey Biller here. Allison Canfield
here. Michael Cohen here. Frank Sagamundi here. All right, Master Pra, Michael Zion, Jonathan Baxter here, VJ here, Gason Halbert here. Uh, just before we start, uh, I
would like to make a note that if we if you do come up to speak or if any of the board members are speaking, please activate your microphone and make sure you're speaking into the microphones at the front. We had some audio problems last time. Um, and we will remind you if
we can't hear you over the speakers. All right. Uh, first order of business is approval of minutes from April 2nd, 2025. Board, were there any comments on those minutes that were circulated? N I make a motion to approve
the minutes from April 2nd, 2025. Do I have a second? All in favor? All opposed. Motion passes. Um, we need to approve the
memorialization memorializing resolution for the capital review project of the town hall renovation board. Were there any comments on the resolution? Do I have a motion to adopt the resolution? So moved. Second. Second.
Do we need a roll call or a roll call on the resolution? Did we have a time on the second? I didn't get who he was. It deferred. Okay. Cory Biller, yes. Allison Campfield, yes. Michael Cohen, yes. Jorge Mastro,
yes. Frank Sagendi, yes. Michael Zion, yes. Jonathan Baxter, yes. Shy VJ was there last time. Oh, that's right. I'm sorry. You're right. You're right. Guess on Halberg. Yes. Okay. Oops. Excuse me. Um, so we are
going to continue with application 24003. Over the last week or so, we've gotten in a lot of documents and have a little bit more ground to cover. I would
like to ask Mr. Lavine, council for the applicant to come to the front. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Is this working? Okay, I can hear you. You have to speak like literally your mouth has to be right.
Really right on top. Now we can hear you. That's That's right on top. Okay. Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. Just for the record, Michael Lavine with Fox Rochild on behalf of the applicant, the highest center. Um so the uh the chairman is
correct. The board may recall at the uh last hearing there was uh there were some open requests from some of the board's professional consultants uh that the uh applicant attended to uh in the interim. One was uh you'll recall that we submitted revised plans Rev E as in
Edward um and there was substantial testimony as to details of those uh revisions. Uh one thing that we did not have at the last hearing were the uh underlying uh test results with additional test pits, additional soil sampling that was done to uh confirm the
proper soil classification for the site, the depth of the seasonal high water table. Um and that uh that raw data was not available. We had preliminary verbal uh indications from the con from the contractors to what those results were. We did not have those in writing uh
since then. those uh were reduced to rating and submitted uh to the board and its consultants. Um in addition to that um because Mr. Fishinger who was taking a look at the revised plans wanted uh additional kind of blown up detail with
regard to the mouth of the driveway exiting out onto Old Short Hills Road. Uh it was unclear um from what had been submitted whether uh the design proposal would necessitate uh garbage truck in particular having to have a a conflict
trying to exit the property with retaining walls and whether or not they're going to have to traverse any grass areas as opposed to exclusively uh paved asphalt areas in order to make that turning movement. um uh exhibit was uh prepared and submitted showing a
proposed design that uh confirms that neither one of those uh would be an issue and that in fact the uh full-size garbage truck can make that turning movement out of the site uh successfully and at the same time not uh cross over into northbound traffic on Old Short
Hills Road. Um also um Miss Callahan had asked for um a calculation confirming that uh the existing storm wall storm sewer in Old Short Hills Road has sufficient existing
capacity to accept new flows uh both this you know the source and the volume of flows that would result from the development of this proposal and that was uh verified. Those calculations were submitted along with a diagram showing specifically where the drainage pipes connect to the physical manhole in Old
Short Hills Road. What those existing uh flows are at maximum assuming maximum uh capacity. Uh taking account of the additional flows post construction from this development and showing not only that um the existing pipes could uh accommodate that but there's still
excess capacity remaining in those pipes even in the post uh the post construction uh condition. Um those I believe were the three uh submissions in response. Uh just kind of confirming uh submissions that had been requested by the board's consultants.
The only other thing I can update uh with the board was there's a lot of uh discussion and uh questions and suggestions and and thoughts uh bennied about with regard to the uh landscaping and and buffering the whole
the continuing buffer issue on the western edge of the property. Excuse me. I can stipulate for the board on behalf of the applicant that they're not proposing to uh relocate any of that landscaping or change the species, but uh in
recognition of the the uh differences in topography that have been discussed at length, they will uh agree that uh they would revise that landscaping plan to show that at initial planting all of those trees would be minimum of 8 to 10 feet at planting, taller uh than was originally proposed and taller than is
required uh by the ordinance. uh in a further effort to um screen uh and there's extensive discussion about cars making a right-hand turn into the westernmost uh lane of of parking stalls uh in order
to uh to further address that concern. So there is not a supplemental submission that's just simply a simple matter of revising the landscaping table to show that at initial planting those would be 8 to 10 feet tall. Um and that's I think where we
left off and what was submitted in response to board consultants uh requests. I think there was also a discussion as to uh procedurally moving forward with uh public statements is I think where we left off. Okay. But before we do that, I
Excuse me. Before we do that, I do want to ask, does the board have any questions on the supplemental information that has been received either on the driveway reconfiguration or storm water calcs, soil tests?
No, I have a question about the you mentioned the trees and that you weren't changing the species. Can you remind us what species were or are I think the green uh I think they're green giant arborvite is what they're called out on on the plan. Okay. So, so evergreen.
Yes. Yes. Evergreen. Correct. Mr. Chairman, I may if I may, not a question, but uh just a couple of quick related items. One, just for the record, I just wanted to confirm the uh soil investigation report that was referenced by applicants council, I believe, came
in May 16. uh and uh the two other items which were in one uh report, the uh uh uh the driveway exit uh uh template and and and uh the uh uh calculation of the existing storm water capacity came in uh
via a submission on May 20 just to get the dates on the record. I did note that there was also both Mr. Lavine uh council for the applicant and Miss Dory council for uh uh the representative objector uh sustainable development um
made submissions that were more in the way of uh legal argument for the most part I guess could could be uh as well as perhaps planning. There was a submission also with Miss Doris uh that had an expert report from Mr. Keller uh as well on the uh in response to what
Mr. Lavine said just just to get everything on the record that has been received in the interim between the last meeting and this meeting and then I believe we did receive something referred to as a buffer exhibit from applicant uh today. Uh and I all those
items as I understand it were distributed to the board members and I believe also put up on the website. Um number one. Number two, uh it may be uh that the board wishes at a minimum uh to hear from uh Miss Callahan
uh and or Mr. Fishinger with respect to the additional items related to storm water soil testing and uh uh and uh the turning template and exit for the uh
waste disposal onto Old Short Hills Road. But I'm only venturing a guess. Mr. Fishinger, do you have any comments or questions on the new submissions? Rumor has it it's directional and you have to speak very closely.
Okay. Yes, I believe it is. Um, so no real questions. I did have an opportunity to the to review it. It was sent to me um I think late last night. Um just for the board to know they they ended up making some modifications to the way the truck turned. They ended up
using a smaller garbage truck. I think initially they they used the the default largest one. So it's a slightly smaller garbage truck. And they did end up adding a little bit of sidewalk or widening the sidewalk right along
uh the roadway. But I don't see any issues with the design. Um, there was on the ser on the earlier plans there was a utility poll that I thought was a conflict. It turns out that util utility poll's not there. I guess it was on their survey inadvertently, but unless
there's any questions from the board, I I'm I find the the turning template, the revised one's acceptable. It shows that the truck can make the turn. I do have one question and and forgive me because because I don't have an expertise in reviewing these, but when I saw the template, it seemed that the truck has
to go on the sidewalk. Am I just reading that wrong? It It does come close. It is tight. And generally speaking, these turning templates are conservative, but it stays on the driveway apron. It doesn't
actually jump onto the sidewalk. Um, if the board is concerned, um, what I would suggest if you're worried about the garbage truck getting on the sidewalk would be to ask the applicant to make that section of sidewalk, um, a th or a thicker reinforced, you
know, instead of a standard 4-in concrete sidewalk, make it a 6-in reinforced section. So, if a truck does swing over the turn, it it's not going to crack the sidewalk. I'm less concerned with the sidewalk and more concerned that the truck won't go onto the sidewalk and then will take a bigger
radius into Old Short Hills Road. The the way it's shown is it can swing the turn without needing to get either on the sidewalk or go over the double yellow. As I said, these turning templates are usually conservative. A truck driver can
swing the turn a little bit tighter than the templates can show. So with regards to the change in size, you know, it seems to me a little bit like it's it's cheating unless we get some sort of guarantee that the size of the
garbage truck will be the one, you know, either at least the same or smaller than the one they've depicted in their revised um plan that they sent. Right. Yeah. That's a very my opinion, it's a very reasonable request. I won't speak for the applicant. they can confirm if
that's acceptable to them or not. Do you have any idea of what the standard garbage truck size is? And and is the one that they're proposing now non-standard? No, they're they're using what's roughly a 34 foot long garbage
truck, which is a typical garbage truck. I think before they were showing the largest garbage truck you could get. In this case, the 34 foot one is pretty, you know, a pretty typical garbage truck, but I'll leave it to the board if they want to make that a
condition. Or perhaps better yet, if the applicant wishes to stipulate to it, the board doesn't have to oppose it. I think that was yeah I mean we you know we would be using a private car hauler so we can just ask you know that they use a truck that's 34 ft you know not an
oversized truck the standard 34 ft certainly instruct them to do that so I take that as a yes okay you mentioned you mentioned they um they widen the sidewalk but I also remember reading in here that that that did not
affect the calculation for the that lat size ratio which they were really really close to and I guess I don't understand what the offset was to the widening of the sidewalk. So the and of course the applicant can call and site engineer
back up but typically you know there's a 2 to three foot grass strip between the curb and the sidewalk in that specific area. They have this the sidewalk going all the way to the curb, but doesn't that change the calculation
for the coverage that they were? So, I mean, I know that's not your area, but you're the one. I believe the the letter, and I'll let Mr. Ferrante speak for himself. The letter that accompanied this analysis had pointed out that all of that sidewalk was in the public right
ofway, not on their site. So, it doesn't count as part of the impervious. But obviously you can ask Mr. Ferrante to clarify that. Can you can you confirm that? I can confirm that. Okay. It's in the public
right away and that's shown on the plan. Any other questions? Thank you, Mr. Bishinger. Miss Callahan, have any comments or questions for the applicant? For the applicant? Uh, yes. comments on
anything that was submitted or questions about it? Yes. Or or perhaps also uh advice, analysis and advice to the board, members of the public as to your uh review of that report. It's a little down for me. Oops.
Break it. Okay, good. Can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay. Um, yes, we did receive the uh soil boring information for the new there were nine new test pits that were dug and they indicated they they did do test pits in
both areas where where they had proposed a permeable paving and the brick system, the storage system underneath. And um in the lower parking lot they indicated that there was a shallower um water
table depth. So the shallower system that was designed would work in this vicinity. And it's also uh the redesign of the storm water system was also um a closed system. It didn't allow infiltration because we thought the
seasonal high water table was was too high. And so therefore it wouldn't work. Um and it did indicate it. I think it was three or three and 1/2 3 and 1/2 ft down which is relatively shallow for a
water table. Um in the upper parking lot I believe the water table was a little bit lower. So those were the numbers. The areas that we were really concerned about was where they were putting the major storm water detention. Um they also did um soil borings in the
southwest corner of the site. We're not really working over in that area. Um and it indicated a very good soil layer. Um hydraologic soil group A I believe was in the southwest corner which would
indicate good perk but we're not working over there not in intending to do any infiltration in that vicinity. So um you know this the the soils report I believe was adequate the soils borings the locations where they took them and gave
um Mr. Fronty enough information to be able to take the system as designed and tweak it in areas so that we're sure that it will function as designed and it will produce the results that the DP is
is looking for the reductions in the storm water runoffs and I am of the opinion that the system will work. Now, there may be some tweaks that may be required, but I don't think it's anything drastic.
So, um, and as far as the calculations for the 24-in diameter pipe that's in the street, there was a question about whether the outfall that is coming from the system, which is approximately 8
cubic feet per second, uh, whether that was going to, um, overwhelm the system in the street. And the calculations demonstrated that there's still um about 24 cubic feet per second
capacity available in that pipe as it heads downstream. So that 8 cubic feet per second addition into the system isn't going to affect the way the system operates the our our storm sewer system
in the street. So, any questions? I do have a couple. Um, for the storm water piping calcs, um, I believe, and I know it's not testimony, but it was mentioned that it has been observed that at that manhole,
we've had a lot of, uh, I guess water coming out, overflow. Overflow. Yeah. When we do have it. So, how is this extra 8 cubic feet per second going to affect that? I don't think that happens a lot. I
mean, that's that's not a a a rare occurrence in our storm sewer system. Our storm sewer system is designed for a 25-year storm. We're talking about calculations of um equivalent to a 100redyear storm. So, we're talking about like a maximum event happening.
And I don't know when that manhole sir charged like that, but sometimes I it that could be anything. That could be the pipe is plugged up with debris down the street and it's backing up. We don't know exactly why a particular manhole
would sir charge until we go out and investigate it. And this you wrote that in an email to me briefly and um that's the first time I've ever heard of that happening. And generally if it's a big problem, we'll hear about it in the
engineering department. We'll hear about it in DPW. We do have areas. We know we have situations and uh we do what we can to correct them. But in in this situation, I don't think a search charge of that manhole, it's on the
street. It's adjacent to the curb line or clo No, wait. That might be more in the middle of the road. I don't think it's hurting anything because at that point when it's searchcharging, we're probably getting a tremendous rainstorm. So, we have water running down the street anyway. And it could just be a
matter that this was a it occurs when we have an abnormal cloud burst. Sometimes that happens. Um, and you just have to wait for the system to catch up. But I don't think that's indicative of it not having enough
capacity. It's also that that the pipe from um Park Road comes in right at a 90 degree angle. It's just it comes in and with a lot of force right into that manhole and that itself could be causing
a search charge or causing an overflow situation to handle to to occur. But I don't see that as being something that's it's not flooding out a particular property when that happens. It's just following grade and running down Old
Short Hills Road. But we can look into it. I can certainly I'll talk to our DPW and we'll go out and pop the manhole cover and see if there's anything that is blocking it or if there is any we could TV the lines
if it's really a problem situation. But I don't see that this additional 8 cubic feet per second that is coming off the site at a time when we're having a 100redyear storm is something that is going to be a big cause for concern.
Okay. Thank you. Um second question on the soils test. the uh objector's engineer had a question about or maybe a claim that there need to be two soil tests per each
treatment system. Is that the case or you know I've seen the BMPs I I know that what they're saying but I think that that would tend to be for something that is like say you have a major development. It might be it might be a
whole, you know, neighborhood new development and you've got an area up here and an area there and they have their own individual little um storm sewer systems or storm water management systems that are remote from
each other. They're collecting just one sub area and eventually it all works its way out to downstream from that development. In this case, I think of this storm water system. They're all connected and I think of it as one
system and he's so far they've taken 14 test points on this site. I think it's more than adequate to to provide the indication of the soils that are there, the the the uh location, the elevation
of the water table. I don't think that I I think they're adequate. Okay, that's my opinion. Okay, thank you. And one last question on the infiltration rates that were tested uh for the soil
samples. How does that relate to groundwater recharge? Because what it looks like is that these I don't know one, two, three, four, six, and nine had actual flow rates through them. The other ones had zero. Um, to me that
means that there should be some type of groundwater recharge happening, but now that we're paving over it or constructing over it, that is not happening. Does that count towards any type of groundwater recharge or should it? Um, first of all, are are we talking
about groundwater mounding and groundwater recharge that's required as per the D? because that's or or just infiltration like you think it's a good idea to infiltrate water where we can to keep it from running off the site. Uh
yeah, both actually. So whatever's not going into the ground is going off the site. So that'll be a reduction there, but then also recharging whatever was once there. We're we're paving over, you know, I don't how much was it? 81,000 square feet. No, I don't know what it
is, but yeah, we're it's it's a very large amount compared to what was there. And so having some type of infiltration is always a good thing in my opinion. Yeah. Well, doing the test pits is it's sort of a snapshot. I mean, if if they did this testing in July when we hadn't
had rain for, you know, sometimes we have droughts in the summer and we might not have rain for four weeks, might have totally different results where infiltration would be a great idea, but you kind of want to take those those test pits when uh you know, you you you
may have high groundwater tables. So you've got sort of the worst case scenario kind of thing. And what this is indicating that even though in one area the the water table was lower than the other area, you still don't have infiltration
might not be a great idea because you do have that seasonal high water table that's relatively close to um to the grade level. When we do drywall inspections, I'll go out and do a drywall inspection that might be dug
down to 14 feet, 12 feet down and not see any water at all. So seeing water at three or three and 1/2 ft or 5t that's that's kind of high. And so um when they redesigned the storm water
system because of the high water table question why that came up um they designed it to not infiltrate. Now infiltration is not required in accordance with the D because what they want is storm water reductions of the
you know the 100redyear storm, the 20 um two-year storm and the 10ear storm. And if that doesn't necessarily mean that you infiltrate, means you're reducing the flow of water that's coming off the site at that particular time. And what they're doing is holding that water on
the site and then allowing it to seep out at a later time when this when the storm sewer system has caught up. So they have shown that there is there are reductions as per the D
regulations. They don't. They're not required to infiltrate. And how if you have a site that won't accept the water, how do you force somebody to do it? You can't. You have the ground that you have. So, okay. And the and the recharge
requirement that they're saying that there isn't one. How does that fit into it? Essex County is metropolitan planning area one and we're exempt from d doing the groundwater recharge that other counties other areas more rural
areas are required to do where this Essex County is exempt from that. So not required. Okay. So it's just more a matter of infiltration slowing the flow of water off the site. Mhm. Okay. All right. Thank you.
Okay. Just one just one question. You had mentioned during your testimony that you generally approve of the water management system. There might need to be some tweaks here and there. Just you know minimally in the in the lower parking lot. They may want to raise that
brick system up higher because the high because the water table is higher in that area and maybe spread that out a little bit more. Make it the shallower system. But maybe or may or should I I'm not doing the design. I mean, I I want
Mr. Ferrante to look at that and I I don't think that they should be setting this down in the water table and if we know that that's where the water table is. And that was the whole question before when we were here in in April was we don't know where that seasonal high
water table is exactly and that's why we required them to go out and get more borings. Now that we have that information, that um system in the lower parking lot may have to be raised up a little higher. I don't have, you know, the exact numbers in front of me to to
see what that would look like. Okay. I I would recommend that. Yes. Make sure that that's up out of the water table. Okay. Thank you. If I may. Yes, sir. Is it typical for there to be such quote unquote tweaks
done uh in the event there is an approval post approval or is it generally all to be finalized before anybody gets any permits or or or actually begins any any construction?
They they would have to get a permit from us and we would have inspections done on this site. So I I would be checking that. That would be one thing I'd be looking for and I', you know, I would be speaking with E2PM and
discussing this. But these are, I think, small things that I mean, when I talk about residential construction with dry wells that people, we have like 4,000 drywalls in this town that people have
put in over the years. And I've done I can't tell you how many inspections. I've been doing this since 1999, since 2000, doing drywall inspections. And so, a lot of times I'll get a I'll get a plan and it'll say to put the drywall
here and I go out and look and the contractor's got a hole excavated and there's water in it. And, you know, I'll say, "Well, you know, obviously this drywall isn't going to work here. We're going to have to move it and then do something else with." We we tweak as we
go. Sometimes it's a perfect situation, but these are small things that can be done. I I think I think the whole system that he's designed with the sand filter, with a permeable paving, with the brick storage system, with the outlet devices,
I I think that this in my opinion, it's a good system. It's it's not something he invented. This brick system has been around for a while. It's used in industrial sites. It's used in corporate sites. It's it's a good system and I
believe that it's going to work and maybe the elevations just have to be shifted with the knowledge that we have in regard to the the um water table elevations. Um Martha, I have a quick question.
Well, actually two. So, do you need D permit for this? Are you going to require a D? No, there's no D permit that's required. Okay. And then they're required to follow the D regulations because it's considered a
major development. Okay. And then the other question is is um again the um public's um Eric Keller a prof the professional um he's still saying that
this doesn't meet the storm water standards. And is that there obviously is a written standard but your opinion was to take one core sample instead of two of each location. I mean this is a major project
is this tell you the D also I mean they yeah their threshold for a major project is one acre of disturbance or more than a quarter of an acre of impervious coverage new impervious coverage. So that's kind of a small
threshold actually because these BMPPS like I I described earlier if you have a big development you may have uh a lot of different areas where you're collecting water in different remote discrete
systems and um this I think that this whole system works together as one. So, I would treat this the permeable paving and the brick system as being one uh storm water system. And I believe
they've got at least four test borings for this what I consider one system. And that's I think where the disagreement may be. Okay. So, what I'm hearing is this is your opinion that this is been covered
and this yes piece. Okay. Um Mr. chair if um I mean I'd like the opinion of also Mr. Keller and how that's listed here is that he still does not believe this meets the storm water requirements
and it does need D permits. So I'd like to hear from Mr. Keller if that's allowed. Mr. If I may, Mr. Chairman, please just um you know a couple of things. Uh granted that uh the applicant was
requested to make additional submissions which they did. We certainly value the input of the board's uh consultants. Um certainly the consultants and the board members have read the submissions including the one from earlier today from the story and and and Mr. Keller. Those certainly should be addressed.
Um what I would ask though is you know at this point um that particular uh objector and uh and their council in the story have have had multiple opportunities to question to provide uh direct testimony to present their own
case. Um there are several members of the public that we've yet to hear from that have not had that opportunity yet. Uh I would ask that before yet another uh bite at the apple. Not that that won't happen, but I I would urge the
board to allow some of the other members of the public to who've been coming out repeatedly month after month to have an opportunity to to make the statements that they all want to make. Absolutely. And I definitely in due time, we're definitely going to get to it tonight, but I I do feel like we're
this is all coming to a head now. We're getting to the last pieces of information in. If we can just vet through it very quickly, hopefully Mr. Keller's uh questioning or comments will be uh at least brief. Um but yes, I
noted and we'll get to it as soon as possible. Thank you. If if we're moving to that I don't know, Miss Dory just stood up. She may be thinking the same thing as I am. Are we moving to that? If we're moving to that stage, uh, while we've gone back and
forth a bit, I think we're we may be able to view it as technically still hearing from the objector, the representative objector in their case. Uh, so there has been followup. Uh, Mr. Lavine, are you uh you're not asking to have Mr.
Ferrante testify with respect to the uh soil test and the and the storm water uh uh uh report that was previously submitted on the dates I stated earlier. Is that correct? So I hate to use the word waving, but to the extent you had a
right to do that, you're waving that right at least for now. Uh so as I understand it for the record, uh correct ju just with the regular understanding that yeah, we reserve the right to upon rebuttal testimony. Yeah, we don't plan to offer additional direct testimony.
Okay, then you have no objection. I take it if the chair were to have Mr. Keller uh address those reports uh perhaps consistently with what was submitted on his behalf. I think
today his his report was dated May 19th, but today is when it was submitted. You have no objection if that's what the chair wishes to do. And if that's not what the chair wishes to do, I apologize. I gleaned wrong. You're right. Okay. I got it right for once. Thank No objection. I don't No, I don't
have any objection, but I don't want to sandbag the board. I need to tell the board I do not have authority from my client to grant another extension. We have submitted $15,000 escro check after $15,000 escrow check.
Um, you know, we're we're 15 hearings now. We started in September. I do not have the authority as we as I stand here to grant another extension. So, please be mindful of that when allocating the time to as you're right, we this has come to a head. Uh we're at the goal
line. Please keep that in mind as you're allocating resources for the rest of tonight's hearing. I'm sure the board understands what you're saying and and if I may, uh I would suspect, but I may be wrong, that the applicant wouldn't be
foolhardy enough uh to not allow the board a full and fair opportunity to hear the entirety of the application, all all objectors, all members of the public uh as required by the municipal land use law and and case law. Uh if and when that were to occur, the board will
handle it appropriately pursuant to my advice. Um but it might not prove to be a prudent move on the applicant's part frankly. Um but uh be that as it may. Uh defer to the chair. Miss Kellan. Thank
you. M story. We need to hear from Mr. or can we just go straight to Mr. Keller? Yeah. Yeah. Mor, you're gonna uh call Mr. Keller to address uh the new submissions. Okay. I assume, Eric,
and and and just for the record, Mr. Keller's already testified in all three capacities, been accepted as an expert in all three capacities. I assume his licenses remain in good standing, and he remains under oath. And I assume uh this is at least for now the only anticipated
additional testimony from Mr. Keller on the uh representative objector's behalf. Is that correct? Yes. So he'll be testifying as a uh civil engineer, I take it. Yes. Primarily as a civil engineer. Yes. Is
this working? Yes. Okay. Um so Mr. Mr. Keller is still under oath. I bet you just said that. Um and um so Mr. Keller, have you reviewed the applicant's uh latest submissions? I have um and um other than the the
letters and the report from E2PM um were there any other storm water reports submitted? Any revised storm water reports submitted by the applic? No, just the geotechnical report. There were no storm water calculations submitted.
Okay. Um, and is it still your opinion that the applicant's uh deficient with respect to storm water design and meeting the buffer requirements to block parking and loading areas? Correct. Um, and you prepared a report um that I submitted uh to the board today. It's
dated May 19th. Um, I submitted it with my May 21 letter today. Um, can you address um some of your conclusions in your report with regard to uh the applicant's failure to meet storm water requirements and the buffer requirements? Certainly. Um, and I will
do my best to be brief and be to the point. The details of what I'm going to testify to are all in the memo. What I want to focus on is what my primary issues are. Um,
the in the plans figure five shows sections of the pvious pavement systems. Um, and while in general to some degree I agree with Miss Callahan,
to some degree I don't. Um, the rules are very clear. Um, we do this a lot. I don't like the rules necessarily myself because they create issues when I'm on Mr. Fanty's side, but
they are the rules and that's what we must follow. That's what is codified by the municipality in accordance with the D rules. Looking at the upper parking lot, that pvious pavement
system is three separate systems. They have different depths. They step down. Each one of those sections has an outlet structure. An outlet structure control controls the flow of water from one
system to another. The green infrastructure rules that have now been in effect for about four years require a system series of smaller basins. Um and it's not unusual that you have them in series and that is how this has been
designed. But each one of those portions is different. the soil testing that was done. And just one point right on the front page of the Whit Stone report states that the
um that detailed storm water management system information has not yet been provided. The plan that they present in their report is the old plan, not what is on revision E. So they didn't have
this in the upper parking lot. They did two soil tests. One at the north end closest to Parson Hill Road and one in the in the last section. And yes, in each of those
this the observed seasonal high water tables below the bottom of the basin of each of those basins, but there's not one in the middle. How does the seasonal high water table change from the northern part to the southern
part? Of a greater concern to me. That's that's one. And the rules, chapter 12 of the BMP manual is very clear that each BMP and each one of these is a separate BMP in the reading of that regulation
and needs two tests. In a minimum, they should have done three. If you wanted to treat it as one, you still should have had three because the size of that system, if you took it as all as one, which I don't think is right, you would still need three because it exceeds
10,000 square ft. They only did two. The the system in the lower parking lot on the south side of the building also is two separate systems. It's stepped
And when you look at where they did the soil tests, they did one over here on the far western side and they did one over here on the far eastern side. Well, that system steps in the middle. They didn't do anything in the middle. There's no way to tell where that
seasonal high water table is. And yes, in that area, it's shallow. Now, on either end, yes, they're below the seasonal high water table, but in the middle, I don't know. And it under the regulations it is
irrelevant whether they are infiltrating or not. It's a closed system. I agree with that. But the rules are still abundantly clear that the system even if it's sealed has to be above the seasonal high water table. And you can't prove
that here. Um the um soil testing that they did to we had made a a a comment and a criticism in our prior reports that they
used soil group C for all the soils on site. Um, and we objected to that. We said that's not consistent with the rules, which it's not. So, they did soil testing. They did the minimum number of soil surface soil tests to figure out
the soil classification based on the area. The rules also clearly state that if there is widely varying results found, that you should do more. Well, in the
southwest corner of the site, they found soil group A, means it's very permeable soils. It will seep through. The whole middle of the site is D. Um, and there is no infiltration.
They did tests and there was little to no infiltration in or permeability of that soil. in the norththeast part of the site up towards the intersection it was B. Well, where does it change from A to D and then back to B? They don't have
enough soil tests. They did only two of the soil tests they did um I think it's SP2 and four um had A soils. SP8 had a B soil. everything else
was D. But where's where does that change? Um, and that affects the runoff. Um, soils that have an A classification are more permeable. Less runoff under
today's cover conditions will run off the site if it's an A D. It's it's closer to being impervious than anything else. there's very little uh infiltration into the ground. B is
better. Um but and that affects what the existing runoff is. And that's important because when you're talking about reductions, the um a soils will have less runoff which
means that your reductions have to be further reduced for that portion. Um the calculations they haven't provided calculations that show what that is. Um, the other thing is,
and I made this point, and I will respectfully disagree with Miss Callahan, just because we're in Essex County doesn't mean everything is considered an urban redevelopment area. As I had testified to previously, it's for previously
disturbed areas. That southwest western part of this site where they have a soils is wooded. There is ground natural ground cover. It is not maintained lawn. It clearly in
the rules is an area that does not qualify for an exemption because it's not considered previously developed. So I think those are the highlights of my report and I'm happy to
did I miss anything? No, I mean, so it remains your opinion that there's not enough soil testing for the site to make sure that the storm water system works or is compliant with the township's requirements. Correct. Correct. And the applicant hasn't provided the necessary calculations to determine if the storm
water system works. Correct. Correct. So, um, the one other thing I I did I'm sorry. Go ahead. is and we certainly appreciate the profer from the applicant to increase
the size of the plant material. Um, but the section 516 and 609 also require that a fence be provided that is off the property line. Um, we have previously
stated that we think it would be beneficial and consistent and more importantly consistent with your ordinance that that fence be placed closer to the parking lot so that the plant material that they're providing between the prop between the residential
use bless you and the parking lot um that landscaping is supposed to be between the residential property and the fence And right now the fence is on the property line and all the landscaping is
on the other side. Having a fence um closer to the parking lot deals with the headlight issues that were raised at the last meeting. Um that fence provides
uh the required what the ordinance and it's your ordinance that says to obscure headlights from residential properties and then the landscaping provides the more natural buffer between the residential use the fence and then the
proposed uh institutional use. So that was the last I think the last point I needed to make. So, but it remains your opinion that um the uh application is still required to comply with section 609.3 516.3 516.8 of the township's
ordinances with respect to buffers. Correct. Correct. And the site plans as submitted by the applicant uh don't comply with those buffer requirements on the western edge. Correct. That is correct. Um, so it's your opinion that the the staggering of the plantings,
even if increased to 8 to 10 feet, it still the way that they're placed doesn't requirement. Correct. It does not apply with what the township code requires. And it doesn't require with the uh it doesn't comply with the requirement for fencing. Correct. Correct. Um, and I
just ask you to briefly address the the Goddard school application because it was mentioned in the um the one of the letters of the uh applicant's attorney um comparing the the relief obtained for the buffer variance um in the Gddard school. Could you just distinguish that
from the the present application? Yeah, very briefly. It was a redevelopment of an existing site on uh I think it's on Milbour Avenue. um and the existing buffers to the adjacent residential uses
in the R six zone already existed and what that application what the variances that were granted did was make that buffer a little bit better. Um but it was already an existing condition. We're we don't have an existing condition
here. you know, we have we're not trying to take a property, reuse it for a different use, and make the buffers a little bit better. Here, we're talking about something that doesn't exist today, and they're not complying with the buffer uh requirements, and they
haven't provided planning testimony that justifies why they're at why there's a deviation from what's required from your code. Okay. Okay. And and there was a report by the board's planner, Mr. Pedto, that addressed um the buffer
requirement. Um he uh is it still your opinion that the buffer requirement is a conditional use standard that the applicant doesn't comply with? Yes. And so any deviation from that standard has to be decided by the zoning board. Is that correct? That is correct. Um and and Mr. Pedto's conclusion that um there
are design waiverss from the buffer requirement. Um is it your opinion that the applicant even you know accepting Mr. Pedto's uh conclusion that the applicant still doesn't meet the requirement for those design waiverss from sections 516.3 and 516.8. Well, 516
it would be a design waiver from 516 because that is in the site plan design standards any deviations from 609 which is in the zoning criteria would be a variance not a design waiver in my opinion. Okay. But in even accepting Mr.
PTO's conclusion, the applicant hasn't met those standards and hasn't provided a witness to explain why they can't meet those standards. Right? Even a design waiver there, it's it's not the same level of proof, but you still need to provide testimony as to why you're asking for a design waiver.
Okay. I have no further questions for Mr. Keller. Any questions from the board for Mr. Keller? No, I have I have one. I'm still on the infiltration. This one and this is like killing me. Um, so infiltration is going to reduce
the current runoff. Current runoff has to do with the amount of reduction of storm water flow that's allowed to go into our sewer system or
the uh sorry storm water system. Does do you know does the current capacity of the system that is drawn up on the latest drawings does that have the margin to account for the different
soils and or could like can we just change the outlet size back to the 2 in and the system will handle it. It has the margin or is it does it totally need to be redesigned? It's not something in my opinion that
can be done on the fly. Let me try and make it simple. Not that you you know this is what we do all day every day. And this is not your Mr. Biller. I'm sorry. My
eyesight's even doesn't. Anyhow, that's not your expertise. If you have a lawn, there is only so much water that comes off of that. Oh. Oh, sorry. I thought I was loud enough
that I was blasting everybody out of their chairs. I'm sorry. You have a lawn and there is, we'll say, this much runoff that comes off of it. Now, you pave it and you have that much more. Well, you're required under the
regulations to reduce it from what is coming off of that lawn today. Now, if that lawn is a D soil, it's going to be higher. If it's an A soil, it's less. And this site, as the geotech report
clearly states, is that they have HSG A, B, and D soils and someplace on. So, each of those areas has a different runoff characteristic. Even if it's all
lawn, it's different. And that needs to be calculated to know are you meeting the required reductions as far as the storm sewers in the road. The the and I only got it the the
latest report I think this morning or late last night um and I read it this morning. Um assumes sl pipe slopes. There is no hard data as to that even that from the
manhole in front of the site that somebody raised the point that there's a search charge. They assumed a slope on that pipe. Well, if it's flatter than what they assumed and they assume that it followed the road grade, it has less
capacity to convey runoff. And now you're there's already park road comes into it. the water that comes down Old Short Hills Road comes into it. Now they're going to add the site runoff into that point where it does not go today, which I've
said before. Um, and it's based on assumptions. Not saying that it doesn't have capacity, but I don't know how unless they surveyed though that manhole and the manholes downstream that
you can make the assumption that it has capacity and if it's already searchcharging and yes, systems are not designed for the 100red-year storm, but the point is the rules say that you have to assess the capacity of downstream
systems if you're not currently going to that. So long-winded. I apologize for that. Okay. But the downstream system though would be past the manhole, correct? Or is it it's from that manhole at the intersection of Park and Old Short Hills Road going down towards
Jefferson? Okay. So just for the sake of clarity, is it then in your professional opinion that the storm water system as proposed by the applicant wouldn't meet the burden of proof required in order to approve this application? I I don't see that
they've provided this board with enough information to make that determination. That's my opinion. Thank you. Okay. But I did want to offer Mr. Pedo. Do you have do you have anything to
say or Thank you, Mr. Keller. Thank you. Um, yeah, let me just get to this one section. Just a moment. Yeah, I think just in clarification um first of all just for the record uh Graham Pedto here this evening as board planner um just with respect to the
buffer characterization um as to whether it's a design waiver or variance request um as I provided in the memo uh previously to the board uh the most recent memo dated uh May uh uh for for the May 7th meeting um you know I indicated that uh the conditional use
standards um in accordance with uh 40 go 55D B-67A may provide conditional uses to be granted by the planning board according to definite specifications and standards which shall be clearly set forth with sufficient certainty and definitess to enable the developer to know their limit and extent. Um, and given that the
provision defining the buffer related to the conditional use uh uh for this use within the R3 zone uh just specifies a distance of 25 ft without the additional uh you know treatment of that space. Um it is it's my opinion that the uh
conditional use standard is met given that the dimensionality is 25 ft. Um as I indicate further in my memo and discussion there are other design requirements um set forth within the ordinance for relation. But Graham that first one 609 correct? Yes that's correct. Okay. And then the others are 516. Correct. Correct. Which Mr. Keller
said correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Keller are design waiver standards not conditional use standards or even variance standards. Correct Mr. Keller. Correct. Thank you. I'm sorry. Just for clarification for the record, I apologize for the interruption. No, that's okay. And just um in further to
your point on that um the the how 609.3 which is in the variant section comes into this is that uh the buffer standard detailed in 516.3 which is a design standard references that the uh design standard should comply with those requirements spelled out in 609.3. Um so
it's also my opinion that um given the characterization of the requirement nested kind of by reference um of a design standard referencing the standards of the of the variance uh it's a design standard or design waiver that would apply. So, so in short, you believe this planning board continues to
have jurisdiction over the application by virtue of the fact uh that uh in your opinion there continues not to be any D3 uh nonconforming conditional use variance uh uh at issue here. uh but uh
a conforming conditional use application, a site plan approval application, and in your opinion, correct me if I'm wrong, now a design waiver all relief also required. Correct. Correct. But under all all three of those would be properly before
a planning board, an application such as this one would only go to the zoning board if it had a Dvarian set at issue. Correct. That's correct. Okay. Legally, that's correct, too. Any questions for Mr. Pedto? Okay. Thank you, Miss Dory. Um, okay. I
mean, I did submit my May 21st letter, so I did want the opportunity to address legal arguments before the board. See, is this on? Yep. So, um, you know, I can do that at the appropriate time. I know Lavine is in the middle of presenting his witnesses. Or is is there any other witnesses? Well, I'm sorry. Were you
asking to have it introduced as an exhibit? Yes, I did want to have that introduced in Mr. Keller's report. Um, and Mr. Lavine, I any objection or for that matter uh I I suspect you might want Mr. uh your letter, Mr. Fronty or
Mr. Front submissions, excuse me, also introduces exhibits. Correct. And I have no objection to submission or Mr. Grab the mic. Sorry. Okay. Yes. Uh that's correct. I would like those um applicant submissions that you
referenced uh to be included in the record and I have no objection to including um the submission that Miss Dory made uh earlier today directly from her and the attachment that she included from Mr. Keller. So, uh, Eileen, uh, if you could help us out where we left off on applicants and and
objectors exhibits. We left for applicants first and then, um, applicant, the last we had was A1. Okay. So, A12, I guess, then with the chair's permission would be uh, the May 16 soil investigation
report. Correct. Uh, prepared by Whit Stone. And uh and there's also a transmitter letter from U E2PM engineering, right? And E uh A12, I'm sorry, A13 would be uh the May 20 report
from Mr. Ferrante uh uh both with respect to the truck turning and the storm sewer capacity. Correct. Correct. That's fine. And then I think those were the uh And then M. Uh where are we on the O's? We
left off at 011. 02 Oh, it's almost even. 012 uh would be the uh actually just one exhibit, right? You had the letter. The May 21 letter and it enclosed Mr. Keller's May 19th report. They were all one package. I have copies
if anyone needed them. That That's what I meant by one. Okay. So that'll come in as one. So that's O2 with the chair's permission and I think I covered them. Okay. And I did just want the opportunity, you know, in closing to address some arguments. Summations will
one will come one day. One day. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Warner, do you also have as part of the exhibit list my was essentially a letter brief dated May 7th? I think you referred to it earlier, but I know that it's been marked for identification or entered. A14 is a five uh what was that?
519 57. Oh, 57. Okay. No. Uh no objection, Mr. I'm sorry. A14 was uh uh Mr. Leavine's May 7 letter.
submission. Yep. I think it's referenced in one that you just introduced. Anyway, actually I had I had May 19th. Mr. Le, are you sure about that? Uh I am May 7th, 2025. Okay. Maybe there
was another one May 19th. We just got another one, but I guess that was more a legal argument. Yeah, that's a separate letter. Yes, I thought that that had already been uh marked. If not, that should be that was a separate submission. A15 is the
May 19th applicant's attorney letter. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I became in charge of the exhibit somehow, but it's okay. Doing a great job. All right. Uh since we've heard from our technical experts, um I would
like to now open it. Sorry. Did you have I just just a sing I I did have just one followup for Mr. Keller. Please cross Mr. Keller. He did provide additional testimony. I'm not going to try and sit in that chair.
Mr. color just and I kind of share I guess what I sense some of the frustration or bewilderment of of some of the board members which is for those lay of us who are lay people not engineers you would think as though you know the D is very technical and there's BMPs and there's rags and you would
think that these things would be fairly clearly spelled out whether you know in the regs or a chart or what have you it's hard to understand why there could be fundamental disagreement as to like the number of soil test pits that are required or what have you and you seem to be strongly asserting that there's a
definite number of of test pits uh required I believe per BMP is that is correct. Could you just for our record could you just identify where in the regs that is because I've been trying to locate it as we've been sitting here and I'm looking for instance in chapter 12 which is you know where it sets out
guidance and parameters for testing and there's a chart it's table 123 and to my eye this seems to be tying the number of pits that are required particular for instance for determining soil classification to the size of the site and the the overall acreage as opposed
to numbers of of storm water management features. Could you just for our record direct our attention to what you're referring to? It's in subsection two. Okay. Um and it's it's really set forth there's infiltration BMPs and there's
non-infiltration BMPs. Um and the testing really doesn't matter whether it's an infiltration or a non-infiltration, but it's in that section. what you were talking about with the size of the site goes to
classifying the soils as opposed to obtaining the soil conditions within each BMP. So, all right. And then you say it's chapter 2. It It's chapter 12, section two. Yeah. 2A and 2B. All right.
Thank you. You're welcome. I'm sorry, M. I just interrupted you. No, you have the right to cross-examine an expert witness of the objector. Absolutely. Okay. With that, I believe we're going to start our public comment. I don't think so.
All right. I don't think so because on May 9th, again, my name is Jeffrey Feld live in Alexander Lane, Shills, New Jersey. First, I think as a matter of procedure, we heard that they have no
objection to various exhibits being introduced. I'm sorry, concerning exhibits being introduced. And I think as a preliminary matter, all the exhibits in my letter need to be marked into uh evidence. Um they've agreed to
it. You haven't put a number on that. I don't want this when we get to the record say oops. We're going to he's already said that they're going to be objector and pick up with whatever number we have sequentially that was already established at the last year. I just want to make sure that being done, right? Um in my letter on March 9th that
wasn't supplied to the board for almost two months, I asked for an opportunity to crossexamine our planner and the engineer. Um based on what you just said, I'm not gonna have that opportunity. No, no, Mr. Phelp, let me help you out here. the they the they the
the the uh you've cross-examined the uh planner and the engineer and the traffic engineer based on all their testimony thus far. This is the uh portion where the public makes comment. Now you're uh you're going to present evidence which I
believe uh uh has already been uh not objected to uh by applicants council and you're going to uh present an objector's case. I take it uh the uh that is an affirmative direct case. Uh if you have
witnesses, you call them. If you have documents, uh you provide evidence to submit them and introduce them just like a trial. I know you're familiar. You're an attorney. The the the the uh and you present your case. uh the uh so uh and
you've been uh recognized by the chair to do that first prior to all other members of the public. Anyone else go first and because basically the way you're telling me is my case will be my testimony that I will not have an opportunity. No, no, your case will be
the witnesses you call. If you have an expert to call, you can call them. The board experts are here to advise the board and you have every right and you've availed yourself of that right and you can continue to avail yourself of the right to cross-examine them when
they testify. So basically you're saying it's not a matter of basically this is how the this is how the procedure works in the state of New Jersey. It's the municipal land use law. I here we are saying that I will not have an opportunity now to ask Mr. Pedo any questions about his
technical review. um memo that was not supplied to the board. So there was never any testimony about it. What? What? What? He supplied memos to the board and you've cross-examined him when he's testified to them. That that memo was never supplied to the board until I supplied it because it was never listed
on the public website. And that memo goes to the heart of this matter. Mr. Fel, what memo are you referring to that you believe you didn't get an opportunity to cross Mr. PTO about? a June 5th, 2024, a development re review
committee memorandum that he was prepared for. It was never supplied to the this board until I included in my March 9th letter. There are some issues on here and statements in this memo that goes to the jurisdiction of this board. Right. Okay. Okay. So, if you wish to
present that as evidence, uh, I will wait till other people and I hear what you're saying because you're not going to allow me at this opportunity to cross-examine him or cross-examine engineer. So, I will make my case and the testimony after everyone else speaks. Thank
you. I always talk about I believe Mr. Felt has uh allowed the chair to have other members of the public present their comments ahead of him. Yes, please. Anybody who would like to make a comment and and Mr. uh chairman
did you have any parameters with respect to public comment? Uh yes please. Uh out of respect of time of everybody the applicant um if we could limit our comments to four minutes it would be
greatly appreciated. Um, I will try to keep track of time as great as possible. And also, if we could, if we could if we could please also not do not repeat
everybody's comment. Say your piece and let's try and have a very concise comment period. It'd be greatly appreciated. Okay. Thank you, m Mr. Chair. Uh, just real quick, if I may, you know, um, I've been on the planning board for a little while and in my As
far as I can remember, this would be the first time we're putting a time limit on public comment. I think that considering how long these proceedings have gone on for months and months and months, I am and the public has not really had an opportunity to make testimony of their of their own or comments of their own um
other than asking questions uh based on existing testimony. Uh I really think it's unfair to hamstring uh the residents here. um by a 4-minute comment uh period. Um
you know, we I I think we should allow everyone to say what they need to say given, you know, how long we've been at this and the extent of the development. Um so I just want to get that on the record that I I strongly recommend that uh we don't have that 4-minute time limit and and look, you know, if we get
to the end and not everyone's had a chance to speak, then we can we can deal with that then. And and you know, we want to just make sure everyone has had their voice heard. Excuse me. No, didn't have a chance to speak. Everybody will have a chance to
speak. So, my concern about things going on too long. I'm worried that people will abuse the the the time to speak and I want to make sure that there is some constraint, you know, or restraint, I guess,
exhibited by everybody coming up to talk and understand that, you know, it uh we do want to hear what they have to say. I I agree with the chair. There has to be some boundary because otherwise we'll end up in a filibuster or we could. I'm not saying we will, but that is my that is my concern. Perhaps we could do it on a case-by case basis. If someone's
legitimately presenting new testimony that hasn't been heard and they're exceeding four minutes, can we just start and try four minutes or or perhaps are we going to give people I I have no problem with with extending it if if it is legitimate. That's not a problem. Fair enough. Everybody okay with that?
Start with four minutes and we'll go from there. And if I may, just for the record, uh there is uh support in the case law for reasonable parameters. Uh so certainly uh those that have been discussed by the board uh are more than
defensible in the context of uh case law on the issue of reasonable limitation avoiding repetition filibusters etc. So I believe we have our first or next member of the public. Uh sir I'm going to swear everyone in so your comments
have the weight of testimony. Uh so if you can give us your name and address and I'll swear you in. Richard Prince, 51 Woodland Road, Short Hills, New Jersey. R I C H A R D P R I N C E. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or
affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. And I want to thank the planning board for your diligence and hard work. It's evident. Um, as I mentioned, my name is Richard Prince. Uh my wife and I live in
have lived in Short Hills for 32 years. I'm the chairman and CEO of Escard Inc. a pharmaceutical company located in town. I have known Rabbi Moy Bogamilski for 25 years. My wife and I
support his efforts in community. Hanukkah Lighting in Taylor Park is one of the illustration of our support for his uh outreach to the Jewish community and beyond. Today is a profound moment in our state, in America, and around the world.
Anti-semitism is raging, and we Je Jews feel targeted and increasingly isolated. As established members of this community, I can vouch personally for the broad support for Rabbi Bogamillski
and his efforts to build this new synagogue. Perfection is the enemy of the good. Assuming the remaining technical aspects can be reasonably adjudicated, I humbly request that the planning board approve
the applicant's application. Thank you. Thank you. Keep it down. Two minutes. Awesome. My name is Dr. Sabino Tori. Say B I N O T O R R E. Speak directly to my Sure. I've been a resident of Short Hills. I'm
sorry. Before just address first and then I'll swear you in. Oh, seven Lancer Drive, Short Hills, New Jersey. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. So, my name is Sabino Tory. I've been a resident of Short Hills for more than 25
years, which means I'm very familiar with traffic patterns. I've worked in the cardiac captization laboratories at Cooper and Barnabas Medical Center. This entire time I'm on call for cardiac emergencies, including tonight, as heart attack or cardiac arrests. The Chai Center Kai Center project will adversely
alter traffic patterns along Old Shield Hills Road, placing residents who may suffer one of these catastrophic events, catastrophic events, at increased risk of a poor outcome. And I'll explain. When someone suffers a heart attack or cardiac arrest, emergency service picks up the patient, stabilize them in the
field, and transfer the patient to the hospital. The emergency room then summons a special team of uh cardiac team composed of physicians and three nurses to render specialized care to the patient in the Kath lab. During peak hours, these team members are present at
the hospital during off- peak hospitals. They are not present. They must be summoned. Um I'm sorry. During off peak hours, these members are may not be present. These off- peak hours include evenings, weekends, and holidays. They must make
their way as quickly as possible without the benefit of flashing lights or sirens. These events are very time-sensitive um and unnecessary delays can lead to a poor outcome. For example, during a heart attack, we can minimize the damage done to the heart by opening block heart
vessels as quickly as possible. If the patient suffers a cardiac arrest, each one minute delay in restoring a stable rhythm results in a 10% reduction in survival or restoration of normal brain function and meaningful recovery to society. Thus, any delay, no matter how
small, can adversely affect the outcome. Many of the hospital staff, including members of these specialized teams, must traverse the township I live in on the way to work. In the past, when we've impeded traffic along Glenn Avenue Main Street, this has led to significant delays reaching the hospital. Several
incidents have occurred. For example, one recent event involved a heart attack patient who suffered potentially fatal arrhythmias during transit. There are other examples, but time does not permit me to elaborate. The root cause of all delays was impeding direct vehicular
access to the hospital. I came to a township meeting last year regarding a similar traffic issue and was reassured that this would not happen again. Unfortunately, it appears that it may. In my expert medical opinion, I can testify that any vehicular delay, no
matter how small, caused by the Kai Center project will result in a poor outcomes during cardiac emergency. For the benefit of township residents, I implore the members of the committee to not approve the Kai Center project at 165 O Hills Road.
Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Ambient. Ambient. Brown, 84 Greenwood Drive, Milbour, New Jersey. I've been a resident for You got to spell your name. B I E N S an A N. Last name. B I E N S T O C Ken B R O W N.
I've been a resident for 40 years. Right. Please, please let me swear you in so your comment can be testimony. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Please proceed. Okay. And I rebuting what this
You can just testify, please. Okay. I've been a nurse for 51 years and a nurse practitioner now for 15 years. And I will tell you that yes, when you and my son is a cardiologist
um and worked in the EMS in Milbour on the first aid squad for over 10 years and a paramedic for Atlantic Health for over 10 years. Yes, every second in a cardiac arrest does count. But when you say that
these people are not going to get to the hospital if the doctors have to be there, the nurses have to be there, that they're usually there Monday through Friday, long hours, 12-h hour shifts. If there's a problem at night, in the middle of the night for them getting there because they don't have the staff,
which they should because every I work in New York at Hospital for Special Surgery, every major New York City hospital that has a cardiac calath lab, a cardiac team, and Cooperman Barnabas is a major hospital would have people there 247. So, I rebut that that that's
going to be a hindrance because of the traffic. There is traffic on Milbour Avenue every day. There is traffic on up Main Street every day that you can't get through during the day. So what is the problem that is going that this traffic is going to be prevented with this? I've
seen the Hive Center now grow. I am friends of the Boa Miltskis for over 30 years and every little thing that they have tried to do gets a stop for different little reasons. Once they wanted to have a a log bar in Taylor
Park, they couldn't do it because we can't do it on a Sunday where they let other groups like the Cornell Club have it on a Sunday. They had to change that. So, I've seen all these different things. The man has gotten everything that you wanted. He's gotten the
acorage. He's gotten what you want. So, he didn't do the What is exactly missing? Lay it out. This is what we need. This is what we need. this is what we need and then he can build. It's in a residential area. Every church,
synagogue, house of worship is in a residential area in Milbour Shaw Hills except for maybe Benetron, but they do have people behind that. So I don't understand what the problem is. One, two, three. This is what we need for you to
build. He didn't have the three acres. Now he has the three acres. That's what I would like to see from this committee. just exactly what do you need to do this? And then if they if if they make the qualifications, you do it. But this whole thing about heart and the and the
traffic, some of these churches getting in and out on a Sunday morning, you can't get through either. Are we going to close them? No. So, I have to re revoke what was said before and I've said my piece and
thank you. Good evening. Marina Kushinbound, K I R S H E N B A U M 291 White Oakidge Road, Shorth Hills. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please
proceed. Don't worry about pages. It's old people font. Well, first of all, I would like to thank each of you for serving on the township committee and for volunteering your time to be on the board and to hear our application. My husband and I have
purchased our house in Shore Hills in 2009 when my oldest son was 5 years old. My middle son was only two years old and I was pregnant with our daughter. We moved to town because we knew Rabbi Bamilski was in the process of applying to build an Orthodox synagogue in Shore
Hills, the faith my family grew up in and practice for generations. We were excited to pass down our religion and traditions to our children and for them to start their religious education in our new hometown. However, shortly after moving to Short
Hills, we learned that the high center did not have and will not have the child care for my children because their application for the house of worship was continually denied by the various township boards. Because of that, for the next six years,
we were forced to send our children out of town to nursery school, which had the similar religious observances as us, placing a great burden on my husband and I. But that was not them. As my children were growing up, they could not further
their religious education as the Hebrew school was very limited in the high center due to the lack of classroom space because the town would not let the synagogue expand. Once again, we had to supplement their religious studies with private lessons and sometimes drive them
to other towns to learn which was great burden on us. As we ran out of options, I had to transfer my daughter to Ray Kushner Yeshiva High School, a private Jewish Orthodox day school, which is quite expensive and is located in another town
with no busing, placing yet another burden on my family. Similarly, because the township continued denial of the high cent's application, my kids were deprived of their basic religious rights to have an Orthodox bar and bach mitzvah
in their house of worship. Because of the limitations placed by the town on services to be held at one Jefferson and none of Rabbi Bagilski's applications were ever approved, we were forced to rent out Milbourne Middle School auditorium on one of the highest
Jewish holidays of Yum Kipur, which is the day that my son was born on and correspondently was barit to hold his religious ceremony. Can you imagine the shock, devastation, and dismay for my entire family and
friends who have immigrated from the former Soviet Union purely because of the anti-semitism and the religious persecution to learn that my son cannot be barit in our synagogue, which is his basic religious right, because township
wouldn't allow it. an absolute humiliation to my husband and I and an embarrassment to this town. My middle son and my daughter met similar fates during their bar and bat mitzvah as we had to move their religious ceremonies to a catering hall
that was not equipped to handle such events placing a great burden on my husband and I again because of the continued denial of high centers application. My children's basic religious rights and most important religious practices were taken away
while their peers were able to hold their religious ceremonies without any issues in one of the many houses of worship throughout our town. 11 of which are similarly located in residential zones but are allowed to practice because they're not of Jewish Orthodox
faith. I can go on and on but I don't want to take up the entire time. The residents of this town want and need the synagogue approved. As a matter of public policy and public good, the board has to approve this application,
especially considering it is fully conforming. The objectors have no concrete issues to which they can object as they keep on rehashing same irrelevant issues over and over. It should be pointed out the most vocal
objectors who come and speak at every meeting live one to two and a half miles away. How are they harmed other than knowing that the Orthodox Jews have a place to pray and hold religious
ceremonies? With that, I respectfully request that this board approve this fully conforming application for the high center for the living Judaism so that we, the Jews of Melbourne Short Hills, have a place to pray and practice our freedom of religion. Thank you very
much for your time. Thank you. Hello. Name and address, please. Steven Blum Blum 18 Evergreen Terrace in Melbourne. I've been a resident for Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or
affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth all truth and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Ladies and gentlemen, for your dedication and work on behalf of the township of Melbourne. Um, I've been a resident for uh 30 some
odd years. Um, I'm the resident that's ab budding the Godard school that was mentioned by one of your expert wis uh expert testimony. I'm going to get to that later. I'm going to talk about the buffer 609. I'm sure everybody is very
very familiar with it. And in your um in your amendment uh town ordinance 2471-16, when you talk about buffers, all you list are the OS and the B's. You do not list any R3s or R4s. I have uh
copies of the Milbour Aerial View. If you want to look at it, uh, R3 and R4s, you have nine, you have nine non-residential uses that abut
residential uses for R3 and R4s. You have four schools, four houses of worships, one private club. None of these have 50 ft buffers. Very few of them have fencing for a buffer. Let's get down to the Goddage school which I
abut. Okay, it's not a R3 R4. It's his own commercial. They applied for a variance. They were given the variance. Okay. So, what they applied for was um the 50 foot rear variance which is my
backyard. Um the applicant proposed a buffer from 12.4t to 16 feet. Okay. Um, also as far as landscaping goes, he applied for a VA on the landscaping. It
was all granted to him. Um, according to the resolution of the town planning board, um, the 50-ft buffer um, rests alongside the rear yard. There is currently a 13T buffer. you went up
to a 16 foot buffer as far as the 50 feet of um I'm sorry the the green space that is required in your 609 ordinances um 609-3B Norway spruces Douglas furs
zigzag 5 to 20 feet from the residential line uh they should be over five feet none of that was granted um there was a variance none of it was put in Um what the town finally agreed on is that
substantial site improvements to enhance the aesthetics of the site providing enhanced landscaping. Okay. It's up to him. No 50 ft. There's a picture in the uh
documentation. This is a current picture. Okay. It's in there. Do we Yeah, we're good letting them finish. No buffer at all. Okay. So, you have nine current existing R3s, no buffer. You
have O zoning which required a buffer and you granted a variance for no buffer. Okay. So my conclusion on all of this is that it's wrong for the board to consider the current house of worship application that they have a need for a
parking lot buffer with specific tree plantings or 50 ft of distance from the border zones. There's not a single parking lot in this township that abuts a residential use or that is located in the residential zone that has this type
of buffer. So conclusion is that it's a variance that should be granted. It's a design change that should be granted. Thank you for your time. Sir, before you go, the uh you put something down over there. Is it just bear with me? Is it the uh uh
how many p how many pages? I don't know if there's you have the nine the nine uh R3s are in there. So it's 10 pages, 12 pages. I don't know. It's the same as the submission. Yeah, I think that's the same as It's all copies. But this is the same as what
was That's not the buffer exhibit we got from the applicant, is it? That's from your town. Uh uh I don't know. Okay. So, we already M Mr. Lavine, we Bear with me, sir. Please. The the the uh He's very
good, but he can't get us both at the same time. The the the uh Mr. Lavine, we received from the applicant a buffer exhibit today. Is that the same document? Yes. That did not come through my office, but my client has confirmed that yes, that is what he submitted. It's the same
document. So, all right. In any event, it's So, it's coming in as an applicant's exhibit, not this gentleman's exhibit. We got to call it something. Is it an A something or is it a I think it's an O something. Well, I don't know that it's an O for an objector technically, but uh
the uh I I think it's the email I think was directly from from Yeah. from the applicant, but but it's coming in through testimony for this gentleman, but it we we can make it an A if there's no objection from Mr. Lavine. That's fine. The the u whatever we're up
to, Eileen, that's that's your that would be A16. Okay. A16 is the uh we'll call it the buffer exhibit because I think that's what it will call. And you showed the board a picture. Yes. It effectively became uh part of the record
when you showed it. Uh, is it part of that buffer exhibit? No, it wasn't. I didn't think it was. All right, I'll give it to you, sir. Hang in there, sir. The the uh there's somewhat of a process, believe it or
not. The the the uh we're going to call that P1. The reason I'm saying P1, public one, uh because I don't believe this gentleman is objecting. I think he's speaking in support of the application. Uh so just to keep a chat P1 is a photograph and sir the uh did
you take this photograph? Yes. When? Today. Okay. And I take and it's an accurate depiction of what presently exists at the Gddard school. Is that correct? Yes. That's the uh my viewed from your home rear yard but in the uh backyard of the
Goddard school. Viewed from your rear yard. Yes. Okay. That's all we need to authenticate the party. Thank you. Photograph so that the board can consider it. Thank you. So that's uh P1. Okay. I guess we just have one of these,
correct? Or do you have more? Yeah, I think there might be another one somewhere. Well, that that's okay for now. I don't want to hold up the proceedings. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's it. Thank you. Hi My name is Nawad Koshik. N A V O T as in David. I T as in
Tom. Last name Koshik. K A U. S H I K. I'm a resident of 7 Jefferson Avenue. Um a being a resident here for Please raise your right hand. There's Pay attention everybody. This is how we do it. The uh do you swear to God or affirm that the
testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Uh so I've been a resident here uh in shorts for 5 years. Uh we are an immediate neighbor. So uh is this better?
Yeah, just move the other one. So, uh, my wife and I moved into Short Hills in 2020. Uh, we are an immediate neighbor, uh, at 7 Jefferson Avenue. And I'm just here to say that uh as an immediate neighbor we are supportive of
this effort and we don't have any objections uh to the project that the rabbi is uh uh leading and uh from our perspective this uh having this place of worship is
can have a positive effect on the community. So we are supportive. Thank you. stand on the podium. Yeah, thanks Jonathan. There are engineers here. And planners. I'm sorry, but
I'm Robin Blumenthal. B L U M T H A L. I live at 15 Beach Terrace in Milbour. Please raise your please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I affirm. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you.
Thank you to the board for your service and thank you for the opportunity to speak. I have been a township township resident for nearly 30 years. Most of them a member of the high center community. Unbelievably, for most of those years,
we have been fighting to establish a recognized Shaw. First on Milbour Avenue, then at one Jefferson, and now at our current location on Old Short Hills Road. We were denied a zoning variance on the first two properties because we didn't meet the 3acre rule,
one which seems arbitrary and capricious, especially since most of the existing houses of worship don't conform. We were opposed by a group that called itself Save Milbour from what I am still trying to
understand. We then purchased a property that met the 3acre requirement. And once again, for reasons I cannot fathom, we are being opposed. Despite the fact that the planning board attorney himself is on record as instructing the board that
the only thing that you have to that you have to rule on is whether our application meets the conditional use requirements, which the attorney said it does on record and which the town engineer and the planner both have signed off on.
This raises the question, why are we still debating this? Why have we been made to endure this lengthy process at great expense to our members over objections that seem to have no true bearing on the matter at hand. I am a
longtime taxpaying member of this town and I am trying to make sense of what all the fuss and bluster is about. Everyone is entitled to draw their own conclusions, but it is difficult not to feel that some people want to deprive us of our white right to worship, which is
a real shame. Not only because we have a close-knit, caring community that is instilling our children with wonderful values and a concern for others, but because it goes against the very foundation upon which our country was established.
I would simply ask the board to please consider carefully our application and to filter out all the noise. As the board attorney himself said, the application meets the conditional use requirements and that is the only thing you are tasked with deciding. Please
follow his instructions and approve our application without further ado. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. Carolyn Randelle, 308 Taylor Road South in Short Hills.
C A R O L Y N. R E N D E L L. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Um, I grew up in short health. I have
lived in Short Hills for many years as an adult. I am raising my four children in Short Hills. I have four children, three of whom are still in the Milbourne Township School System, one of whom recently graduated. All of my children have attended the Kai Center for Hebrew
school, for religious celebrations. They have been made to feel warm and welcomed and accommodated. Um when there were times that there were things we couldn't afford to pay for, the high center stepped in and they offered to do it for us. They provide a tremendous service to
the residents of this community. Despite their tremendous efforts, however, our family and others have been disadvantaged. My children have attended Hebrew school in basement, in closet spaces, outside in the rain,
uh outside garages. There's just not, despite their best efforts, adequate space to have a religious school. They're teaching a group of first graders while they're trying to tutor a 12-year-old with his bar mitzvah lessons. They they are not looking for more space simply to bother people. They
are looking for more space because we need it. We need it for our religious celebrations. We need to have classrooms where they can have desks, where they can have bulletin boards, where they can hang things on the wall. It is only fair. And I hope you realize that there are residents, long-term residents of
town, who benefit greatly from this and are disadvantaged when they cannot have it. Do I think everyone who opposes this application is anti-semitic? Some of it maybe is all of it. I'm sure it is not. There's a great not in my backyard factor here. I
totally and completely understand it. Nobody wants anything in their backyard. But that does not make it right to oppose. It does not make it right to deny. There are laws. There are places where religious institutions are allowed
to exist. The Kai Center has met those requirements. The Kai Center has as much right as any other church or synagogue in this town to exist and they have been denied time and time again. I ask you to please do whatever you need to do, but
make it possible for them to build and continue to grow here. Thank you. Thank you. I I apologize. People in in the audience, please don't clap afterwards just as I I don't want anybody to boo either. So, all right.
Courtroom decorum, please. Thank you. Name and address, please. Ei T A is the first name. H A R E L. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please
proceed. I have been a township resident for nearly 25 years. My wife and I raised our three daughters here. I'm a local builder and I have a great working relationship with many of the board's professionals and I consider some members on this board my friends. The
story of our synagogue, I presume, started very much in the same way as other houses of worship in the township. A small collection of residents simply looking to worship together. 40 years ago, in 1985, a group of residents began holding services in a home on Ola Road
in the Jewish Orthodox tradition because there was no Jewish Orthodox synagogue in town. Over time, this group became more organized and brought in a young orthod a young at the time Orthodox rabbi from Maplewood who would make the three-mile
trek on foot every Sabbath to lead our services. His name was Rabbi Bogamilski. The group formalized in 1992 as the Kai Center, and the rabbi and his wife Rifky purchased a home at 437 Milbourne Avenue where they began holding services. On October 4th, 1994,
during Yom Kipur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, members of our community were stunned by a surprised inspection. Three township officials showed up unannounced and demanded to inspect the property, temporarily halting our services. This would mark the beginning
of a 30-year pattern of harassment, intimidation, and discrimination by the township of Milbourne against our community. In 1994, the rabbi applied for a reverse subdivision of his properties on Milbourne Avenue with the intention to apply for a house of worship. Despite the approval of all the board
professionals, the planning board denied the reverse subdivision. In 1997, the Kai Center purchased an adjacent property on Milbour Avenue and in 2000 applied for a formal house of worship. The application was fully conforming, but for the 3acre requirement, the
application was denied. In 2003, the Kai Center attempted to purchase a three-acre parcel at 272 Old Short Hills Road when, as court depositions revealed, the then mayor, Tom McDermott, intervened. The mayor not only worked to dissuade the seller from selling to the
Kai Center, but simultaneously assisted a local developer in subdividing the property. The subdivision ultimately proved to be faulty, resulting in a multi-year lawsuit between the township and the developer, wasting millions of taxpayer dollars. In 2004, the Kai Center attempted yet
again to purchase one of the last remaining 3acre lots in the township at 105 Old Short Hills Road. On November 4th, 2004, shortly after the seller inquired in the township about the viability of building a house of worship, a draft ordinance was
introduced by the planning board to ban all new houses of worship. When asked why this draft ordinance was being introduced, the mayor stated on record, "Didn't you hear? The rabbi is trying to purchase a threeacre lot on Old Short Hills Road." The draft ordinance was ultimately dropped, but
the damage was done and the seller chose not to sell to the Kai Center. In 2010, the Kai Center applied yet again for another house of worship at 1 and 7 Jefferson Avenue. After more than eight months of hearings, the application was denied. Shortly there thereafter, the
township passed 12 additional ordinance requirements that made it even harder to establish a new house of worship. In 2021, the Kai Center applied for the house of worship at 437 Milbourne Avenue for a second time. The zoning board refused to even hear the application.
It's no wonder that this behavior caught the the attention of the Department of Justice who began a multi-year investigation of the Township of Milbourne into the violation of the Kai Center civil rights under our Lupa. It's also no wonder that the township of Milbour knowingly knowing their culpabil
culpability paid out a $700,000 settlement to the Bogamilskis rather than risk going to court. Now, after more than 40 years of failed attempts to do nothing more than just try to establish a house of worship for our community, a community of Milliburn Short Hills residents comes before this
board with a fully conforming application. As you must know by now, this board has no legal right to deny a fully conforming application. It has absolutely no reason to deny a fully conforming application. But if you deny this application, you'll only serve to
perpetuate the idea that our community, a community of traditional and Orthodox Jews, are not welcome in this township. So please, I'm begging you, do the right thing and approve this application. Thank you.
Thank you. My name is Igor Vishnavvetski. Get ready to spell that. V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V V I S H N E V I S H N E V Ts K
Y. I've been a resident of Milbour 58 58 pesio. I've been a resident of Milbourne for eight years. Got to one more time. Got to raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I affirm. Thank you. Now,
please proceed. Thank you. Thank you. I'd like to begin with the simple truth. This application is far more than zoning codes and lot lines. It's about legal exposure, community will, and responsible governance. For over 30 years, the Kai Center for Living Judaism
has been seeking a permanent home right here in Milbourne. After repeated denials that you just heard about and prolonged litigation that you just heard about, how many millions did we spend on defending against a federal lawsuit under Alupa? With the US Justice
Department formally supporting the Kai Center, not once, but twice. And the Department of Justice filings make it clear that Milbour's pri prior denial inflicted real harm and violated federal law. The Department of Justice also
explicitly warned towns like ours against discriminatory or burdensome zoning practices. So the question, and by the way, that letter is right here sent earlier in March. So the question is not just whether this board can deny this application, but how many millions in taxpayer dollars is the board willing
to waste defending yet another Rupa lawsuit? We must also consider real world consequences of a denial beyond litigation. The high center proposed site at 165 Old Short Hills Road combined with the neighboring parcel at 1 Jefferson creates 4.5 acres 4 and a
half acres assemblage with over 700 ft of frontage. An extremely attractive site for an affordable housing development. I personally know of one developer who would pursue around 350 units on that
site, especially in light of Milbour's long-standing failure to meet round four affordable housing obligation of 555 units. If the township continues to obstruct compliant development, we risk losing local planning control
altogether, handing over the courts or stateappointed officials and having a future owner build a large, dense, and inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood housing project. That outcome is not theoretical. It has happened elsewhere in New Jersey, and it can happen here again. And yet, for all
the legal and planning risks, this application is also a matter of community support. Over 13 public meetings, dozens of residents have spoken in favor of this project, not for personal gain, but because they believe, we believe, in building a space to
worship, to gather, to educate, and to serve. The loudest voices in this room may not have always been the most representative. Many of those speaking in opposition are the very same individuals who regularly object to nearly every application before this
board. Their input should be heard, of course, but it should not be mistaken for the will of the broader community. We are your neighbors. We are your constituents, and we're asking for a chance to build something meaningful. So, I ask you respectfully, don't be swayed by a local by a vocal few. Vote
instead with the community that has stood behind this application meeting after meeting and year after year. Please approve the Kai Center fully compliant as of right proposal not only because it's legally sound and avoids unnecessary litigation but because it
reflects the true values and wishes of Milbour. Thank you. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Uh my name is Pablo Marota. Uh Pablo P A B L O Marota. M A R
O T as in Tom A. Yeah. Address one Woodrest Avenue, Short Hills. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you very much. Please proceed. Yeah. So, as I
mentioned, I'm a neighbor here um in Short Hills, and I'm just a few steps away from the proposed site of uh Lehi. Uh my wife and I are here raising our two children, 10 and 13 years. Uh I
come here tonight not just as a neighbor, but as someone deeply committed to the values that define the community that are here present today. Um, that's inclusion, that's shared po purpose, that is
respect. And we've been hearing a lot, I think coming almost every Wednesday about the building. And I don't want to talk about the building. Uh, this is about what's behind the building, which is the people behind it. Uh, the
families that already contribute meaningfully to the fabric that makes this town. They're present that brings warmth, the warmth that uh embraced us when we first arrived here. Uh the connection and that deep sense of
tradition that enriches us all. Uh whether we are Jewish or not, let's keep religion out of this. It's about the community. The gatherings that we have are peaceful. They're fun. uh they're
rooted on community uh and grounded in the values that we all share which we're talking about compassion, we're talking about service, we're talking about learning. Uh we often speak about what makes a strong community. It's not just the zoning
codes, infrastructure or whatever code we want to bring. It's about the people that make the the fabric. uh its institutions that anchor families, that raise the children, and that foster
belonging. This house of worship uh will do exactly that. I respectfully ask for your approval as a neighbor and as a part of this community, not only because it is deserved, but because it will make our town
stronger. Let's support what brings us together and reflects who we are. um and what we uh what what we want to be. So, thank you very much. Thank you,
Tim Darv. Uh yeah, it's Jimmy from the first name. Tim, you got that one? Uh Darv D A V is in Victor R E. So, address. Oh yeah. Tony Park Road um right across the street from the
proposed Cupchai Center. Swearing in part now. Yeah, we'll do that. Please raise your right hand. You want it to be testimony, right? Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. So, so let me start by saying
that I believe passionately in the right of these folks to have a house of worship. I believe they should have um a place where their kids can go to Hebrew school, where they can have the proper infrastructure. I think all those points that they've made are very very
valuable. My issue is with the way this place is proposed and the design that we're looking at. One of the biggest issues that I have is every day I have to go in and out of Park Road. The idea of having another exit across
from Park Road terrifies me. I already take my life in my hands every time I exit that circle. It is I can't count the number of times I've almost had an accident. To have another road exiting with potentially garbage trucks like we
heard today terrifies me. I think that is one of my biggest issues is also the traffic and what's going to happen on Old Short Hills Road. Um it's already if
anyone who's already driven on that road, it is already terrible and it is already dangerous at many of these intersections. I think the second thing is as I've come to all of these hearings, I am so confused as I'm sure
you are. by the testimony from different experts and it seems like we keep getting contradictory information. I don't know who to trust, who to listen to anymore. Um, but what I heard today is that the application that you have
before you still is not conforming that it still requires variances and if that is the case, you are not in a position to approve that application today. It can't be. And the third thing is this is a residential
neighborhood. And just fundamentally for me fundamentally as I think about a residential neighborhood, there should be conforming architecture. There should be conforming places in that neighborhood that meet the rest of that neighborhood. So I've lived here
only for a year. I'm not like the 30 years everybody else is, but we moved here because of that neighborhood and that's what attracted us to this area. So, um, I'm speaking out against the application, but I'm not speaking out against the right of people to have
house of worship. And there's still this area in downtown, which would be a great place. Why not go back there? Why not have that area? Milbour needs to be developed. Why not develop the downtown? Thank you.
Thank you. Alexander Kersinbound, 291 White Oakidge Road, Short Hills, New Jersey. K I R S H E N B A U M Please raise your right hand. Do you
swear to God or affirm that the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I'll be quite brief. A lot of people spoke in support of this application. predominantly because the community of
high center is restricted in its ability to practice by the space by parking limitations and multip and was been hampered and uh by multiple previous denials but that's not about the past necessarily
it's what's in front of the board and I view you and I view the decision that this board has to make as an easy choice you know this project benefits a religious minority community that were denied the freedom and space to worship by this town for more than 30
years. Additionally, this project satisfies all the anoronian requirements for a new house of worship which would not be met by a single religious institution currently established in the town. The mere fact three acre of residential zoning
requirements makes the site of this among all the Milbourne parking lots a rarity of 0.1% or less rarity of all parcels where you can have where you can build anything. The 3acre parking
lot 3acre lot in residential area is such a rarity one in a thousand maybe even less. So as is township um creates almost impossible zoning restrictions or building restrictions
for house of worship in this town which might not be according to the federal guidelines. As a reminder, in New Jersey, house of worships are classified as inherently beneficial uses under state zoning law, which instructs the
boards to weigh positively such as designation in their decisions. Grasping at the straws that were provided by jack of all trades expert witness when the independent board professionals think
otherwise would feel quite prejuditial. As is this application has been dragging on for far more than the lasted 90 days with board members and I respect your work and volunteering with B board members willing to micro dissect mundane
calculations that are typically resolved by the applicants engineers and the board professionals in their behindthe-scene communications singling out a proposed house of worship an inherently beneficial development under New Jersey law on the fully conforming plot for
such an exhaustive microanalysis may appear discriminatory to an outside observer. I implore you to make this easy choice. Approve the fully conforming
application and let this community practice their religion in peace. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. Uh, my name is Joseph Feldman. F E L D M-n. I live at 26
Madison Terrace in Short Hills. Um, please raise your right hand, sir. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Uh, my name is Joseph Feldman. I live at 26 Madison
Terrace, Short Hills, and I'm here tonight to give my full support to the application for the Kai Center Kabad. Unlike many of the alleged opponents of this application, I live a few hundred feet away from the subject property. I do not believe for one instant that the
synagogue being contemplated to be built, which is before this board, will negatively impact the bucolic nature and beauty of Short Hills in general, or of this small area of Short Hills in particular. The Kabat has been in town for decades, serving the religious needs
of greater Jewish community in our town and the surrounding towns as well. The Kabad for years has been pursued of compliant sites and has with God's help found a fully compliant site which is currently before this board. The application presented to this
board is comprehensive. It presents a thoughtfully designed house of worship. The professionals, the architects, engineers, traffic engineers who have spent countless hours preparing the plans and testifying before this board have presented an application that is
comprehensive. The plan before this board are his thoughtfully designed house of worship which took into account all the zoning site planning ordinance related issues that were required. The letter dated April 30th, 2024 and prepared by the applicant's council sets
forth all the work and careful consideration that went into the application to count for all the board's concerns. Rather than wasting the board and the attendees present time going over the particulars of the application which is readily available to the township website and also on the website
of the applicant, I want to make known and have on the record the concerns I have as well as those who have who are supporting this application. As most of you are aware, there has been a torrent of misinformation and disinformation emanating from the from the opponents to
this application. I have been personally impacted by these fabrications and innuendos. These types of falsehoods are not only ridiculously false but dangerous. The opponents of this application have put forth on Facebook posts, Instagram posts, WhatsApp chats
that the property directly joining my house which is which is properties at 20 Madison Terrace was somehow going to be part of some sort of dormatory or housing for the Kai Center as part of this whole development. I've been informed that it was posited that the property was owned by some secretive
LLC. The ownership, which was masked in layers so as not to be able to be linked to the Kabad, some kind of like a proverbial Russian nesting doll. The property is in fact owned by High View Development, a New Jersey LLC, and I am
the 100% owner of that LLC. As a letter of the applicants council so eloquently states, the application has complied with any and all requirements needed to receive approval. This board is skating on some very thin ice if they believe they can reject this application
on the basis of the application of the opposition's dubious positions concerning such subjective standards as industriallook, intense, or gamecher. If this board hasn't taken notice, there's a new sheriff in town in Washington DC who has established a new task force
to combat anti-semitism led by Leo Terrell. Let's call the opposition to this application what it is. It is anti-semitism couched in the nuance of legal ease and real estate jargon. I'm sure the Trump DOJ would like nothing more than make Milbourne, one of
the wealthiest towns in the US, the poster child for its battle against rank anti-semitism and violation of the First Amendment rights. Milbour has already spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dire dollars in fighting Rabbi Bogamilski only to come out on the
losing end. If the DOJ decides to come after Milbour because of the erroneous and wrong-headed decision of this board, the potential liability will be monumental, both from a reputational aspect for our town as well as the potential damages in the hundreds, if
not millions of dollars. I say to the opponents of this application who are supposedly worried about how this house of worship will negatively impact their property values, they should instead focus on the declining reputation of the Milbourne school system. As someone who has metriculated through the entire
Milbourne school system school system from the age of eight and from what I'm being told by parents of schoolage children, the precipitous decline in the reputation of the school system is of alarming concern. Parents of middle school and high school students are making decisions to remove their children from the school system and
enrolling their children in private schools in the area. This is what my fellow residents should concern themselves with and not opposing the religious liberties and rights to worship for the Jewish residents of Milbourne and Short Hills. Thank you. Hi Sher Stein, 40 Taylor Street in
Milbour. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. So, I started out living in the town 29 years ago in the South Mountain section on Mountain View Road and moved
11 years ago to Taylor Street. I have seen many things evolve in the town that have caused traffic from Trader Joe's, which I frequent and am in favor of. and um I don't mind the traffic because I I do need that store. Um to all kinds of
things on Main Street, Melbourne Avenue, currently some of the new housing that is right across from where I live um near the police station in Melbourne. And all of that is very real, but that's what happens as a town grows. I do not believe in in any instance that the Kai
Center expansion would um involve any extra traffic of any proportion that we need to be concerned about. Um, I happen to be an Orthodox Jew who will walk to the Kai Center. Um, what I love about the Kai Center, one of the things is just that they welcome everybody. You
don't have to be an Orthodox Jew. In fact, when they have held celebrations throughout the town, you don't have to be Jewish. Everybody is welcome. Everybody feels that their warmth. And um, but for those of us who don't drive on Saturday, I do have to say the traffic won't be affected at all on
Saturdays on on many holidays throughout the year. you won't have cars coming in and out. And I don't believe there will be any significant traffic even at other times. And I'll just share one story that might help hopefully turn your hearts to making the correct decision to
approve of this expansion, making it more available, making what they provide more available to more people. Um I have a a dear dear friend Jackie Frerieded who lived in Milbourne and then Short Hills um and became very sick and and
passed away from ovarian cancer. She was not um uh she was a member of u Benet Israel in the congregation in Melbourne. But every single time I went to the hospital to visit my friend, the Bulgamis were there. One either the rabbi or the rabbitson was there. I
didn't even know that she knew them. They were there for her in every way. She was an artist and they invited her to do her art and welcomed her incredibly. And that is who they are. That is what happens. I can tell you of more instances, but rather than take up the time, I just really hope that you
make the right decision. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Uh, Eric Coliro, 44 Cambridge Drive. C O L C H A M I R O.
Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm the testimony you're about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Uh I'm here in support of the application. Um I've been uh in this neighborhood since uh
2008. Um and attending uh synagogue services. Uh I think uh this is a really wonderful opportunity for this planning board and I thank you for your service to really change the the narrative about our town. Um you've heard uh some quite
compelling testimony about the history unfortunately. But um this is a new era. you have uh there's something called tolerance uh wokeness if you will uh whatever you but you know a uh a Jewish
orthodox uh synagogue is just as worthy of being here as any of the other uh wonderful houses of worship and uh I really think um you could serve a tremendous service to this community to the reputation of the town uh I'd rather
focus on the positives than all of negatives, but they they do they do um concern me about uh you know, Department of Justice investigations because that history that that we've all sort of inherited uh just by the nature of our predecessors that all sort of weighs in
on the story unfortunately and it taints things a little bit. Um I want to talk a little bit about uh the importance of quality of life in the in the town. Uh, I walk by uh churches all the time in town and I'm sure you all have too. It
sort of adds to character of the neighborhood. I can't imagine I'm walking shaking my head. Oh, can you believe we have to walk past this? I don't think anybody even thinks that. And I think it's going to be the same way with a with a Jewish house of worship. I do want to turn a little bit
to something that's been a little bit of a concern for me. uh and that is the sheer amount of time that these hearings have dragged on. We're all, you know, somewhat familiar with the the concept of due process. Part of that is like an
inherent sense of sort of a speedy trial, if you will. I know this is not a trial, but there are costs involved. We have an applicant, the rabbi. There's been money spent to buy a piece of property, one of the very, very few properties that actually meets the
qualifications of the minimum three acres. It's zoned properly. to start nitpicking on definitions of buffers that are not readily apparent to an applicant before he or she purchases the property to try
to impose that 10 to 12 meetings into the hearings with an outsider uh to try to you know define it in its most narrow form. I ask you if that's really fair and equitable. Would you ever want to buy a piece of property and find out
that the planning board is going to come up with the most narrow possible definition when they had the power of the pen when preparing the zoning materials to put the public on notice if they were going to try to interpret it
that narrowly. Got to you got to um interpret these restrict zoning at the end of the day zoning is a restriction on land use. It's a restriction on free freedom of property ownership. If you're going to go and do it narrowly when you have the power of the pen and control it
is fundamentally unfair to someone who's purchased that property. I wouldn't want that to happen to any of your families and I wouldn't want it to happen to the Orthodox Jews either. Thank you for your time. Thank you. David Kazenov, 11 Grey Hills, Terara
Short Hills. K H A Z A N O V N O V and I'm sorry, your address 11 Great Hills Terrace Short Hills. Thank you. Uh please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that
the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. As a lifelong resident of Melbourne and current high school student, it saddens me to see the level of resistance within the community towards allowing a temple to build a prop a properly sized synagogue that
includes a small daycare center in a Hebrew school. All necessary amendments have already been addressed. Yet, the project continues to face unnecessary delays. When when I personally attended Hebrew school, it was first in a basement, then later in a temp in a temporary space at Kasa Columba. Kasa
Columbbo. The constant change in location made it extremely difficult for me to engage and I eventually had just got gone tired of it and just quit altogether. I was I was also one of the many children that were part of the temple that did not have a bar mitzvah
at the temple due to the lack of space. We simply couldn't just accommodate 100 people 100 guests for the service. At this point I respectfully urge the board to approve this project without further delay. The drawn out process is not only disheartening, but also a waste of time
and resources that could be better spent supporting our community's future. Let's come together and do what's right for the community for the next generation. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Uh Edward Melis, 37 Blaine Street.
B as in boy. I K A L E S. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you.
Um I My son is a uh high school student at MHS. My parents are Holocaust survivors, ages 96 and 94. They have spoken many times at MHS and at MMS and
have been uh part of of the community for a long time through through these advocacy efforts. Um, I'm I'm kind of shocked that I'm here in front of you because we've been
coming here for so many meetings for uh Wednesday after after Wednesday after Wednesday hoping that this would come, that this time would come. And it feels to me just having observed this, I'm just a lay person. I'm not a lawyer. I don't don't know much about this, but it
sure feels like this was an attempt at a filibuster, bringing up just one far-fetched objection after another, and circling back over and over and thinking that we were going to run out
of patience, that you were going to wear us down, that you were going to cost so much money to to the rabbi and to to the facility that we wouldn't be able to to go ahead with it. But let me tell you, as a child of Holocaust survivors, that
is not going to happen with this community. That is not going to happen. We are very glad that we found the high center uh and we have had so many wonderful experiences there.
Um, and there's so many things that we have not been able to do there. I don't know how many of you have actually been inside it, but the area to actually worship currently is probably from that
desk back back to that wall. That's that's the room that that we have to deal with. It's it's not it's it's not fair to the many people who would benefit from from this. It's not fair to our community and
I don't mean just our community as as as has been mentioned by others. There would be many events that could happen in a larger space that would be open to all of all faiths. We we need to have a real home. And
uh and we unfortunately have been going sometimes to to South Orange to a synagogue there. Uh be simply be we'd like to to stay in Milbourne, but simply because there's just not the not the
space to have the kind of events that that we want. um this there's not a nicer family that you're going to meet. There's not a nicer community that's more welcoming of and uh I would very much encourage you to uh approve this
conforming proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Evan Frankl, Ev Van F- R kel, 6 Park Road, Short Hills, New Jersey. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God a reformed testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth? It is. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, neighbors, and fellow residents. I'm going to read a prepared statement. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight, and thank you to this board for their efforts over the past 259 days.
You've sat through it all, plans, blueprints, testimony. You've listened to experts, to attorneys, to consultants. But tonight, I'm asking you to listen to us. To the people who live here, who drive these roads every day,
who tuck our kids into bed at night while headlights flash through our windows, who shovel the sidewalks, who pay the taxes. We're not lobbyists. We don't have lawyers in suits and binders full of renderings. We have lived experiences. So, let me
make one thing clear from the very start. This is not about religion. I am a Jew. I respect Rabbi Bogamilski. I respect his congregation's right to worship. But this application is not about religious freedom. It's about
reckless development. It's about a 22,000 square foot facility. 95 parking spaces, event spaces, a school, classrooms, lights that run 24/7, crammed into the heart of a residential neighborhood, our
neighborhood. We're talking about a structure seven times the size of the average home in the area. Seven times. We are talking about traffic that already makes Old Short Hills Road a nightmare now being doubled. We're talking about Parsonage Hill Road
becoming a parking lot every weekend. We're talking about destroying 60 mature trees that protect this neighborhood from floods, heat, and pollution and replacing them with concrete. Concrete and car horns, flood lights, and fumes.
This is not a modest house of worship. It's a commercialcale compound in disguise. And I have to ask you, what happens when this place can't sustain itself? What happens when the congregation membership declines and the bills add up and the buildings too
sacred to sell but too big to survive? Then what do we end up with? A derelic structure, another lawsuit, a zoning mess no one wants to own. This board is not here to rubber stamp a sight plan. We are the final defense. You are the
final line of defense. You are the firewall against irreversible mistakes. This is permanent. There is no undo button. Don't let the pressure fool you. This is not about religious rights. This is about land use, zoning, scale. Nobody
here is against faith. We're against bad planning. We believe in religious freedom. We believe in fairness. But freedom gives the right to overwhelm the no freedom gives us the right to overwhelm a neighborhood. This is about
fit. This is about impact. This is about protecting the integrity of our town. You don't have to whisper no. You can say it loudly and you can say it clearly. This is too much. This does not belong here. This is not in the public
interest because if you approve this, you're not just approving square footage. You're approving chaos. You're approving risk. You're approving the future that can't that this can't walk back from. And if you think this community won't forget, we won't. So tonight, I say this on behalf of the
hundreds of families who walk these streets, who raise their children's here, who believe in the future of this town. Don't mistake their absence and their lack as a lack of their support. I can tell you that this community is watching and we're counting on this board to get it right. So, vote no. Vote
no to an overreaching commercial scale compound. Vote no to gridlock. Vote no to stripping this neighborhood of what makes it liveable. And yes, vote yes to worship, but in a place where it fits. Not here, not like this. Vote yes to
common sense. And vote yes to Milbourne. Thank you. Thank you everybody. Please hold the comments and please whoever whoever is heckling in the back it it's very disrespectful
and please don't do it. All right if you need to do it or go outside but don't do it in here. Thank you. Hi uh Andrew Cap 18 Madison Terrace neighbor to the neighbor to the west kap. Please raise your right hand. Do
you swear to God affirmed testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Affirmed. Thank you. Please proceed. Okay. Uh, look, I've um I've been coming to these meetings. I don't want to be here. I'm sure all of you don't either. It's a
lot of time. I'm very busy. U My wife and I have lived here for nine years. Uh we we purchased a private private house. It's relatively set back from from all different places. Um, I'm not opposed to
to the the Chai Center. Um, I I really enjoyed listening to the supporters tonight. Um, and uh, and throughout this whole process. Uh, I do not want to get into all the
arguments here that have been made, but uh, personally, you know, just in it is my right to defend the privacy of my property. Uh I'm going from having a you know very uh undeveloped lot next to me
to a parking lot 25 ft from the uh edge of my property line. Um I think the buffer requirements and I'll let everybody else argue that uh is not spurious. It is real and I absolutely have the right to my privacy, my
security uh and uh my quality of life. And so to I it feels like this is a very complex development and lots of things have been accommodated. It sort of boggles my mind that we can't build a small fence to block the headlights from
coming into my living room window. Um that's it. Thank you. This one. Yes. Good evening. This one. Thank you. Christine Best, Fairfield Terrace. Speak. Thank you. Um, I've been
a resident for Oh, I'm supposed to speak. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes, Mr. Warner. Thank you. Please proceed. Christine
Best, 15 Fairfield Terrace. I'm a 27-year resident of Short Hills. My husband and I, my husband's name is Ira, we moved here because of the fact that there was a Jewish community here actually. And uh, you know, there was a
lot of comments about anti-semitism. I can tell you that many people that live on Park Road are Jewish and they're afraid to be here tonight because they don't want to be called that. And I stand here because I'm a strong person in support of my friends and people who
will be impacted because then it can happen in another neighborhood. This development will set precedent for other organizations, whether it's a school or another religious organization such as a Church of the Latter-day Saints that's
looking for space to build anywhere in town, anywhere they can accumulate land. So, it's very concerning to me. I care very much about land use issues. That is the only reason why I'm here and I also care very much about the Jewish religion
and I have empathy and I am very sorry for some of the things that happened in the past to this organization and I didn't have anything to do with it. So I I'm sorry. I really am. But I want to talk about quite a number of things. I had some evidence Mr. Warner to that I
submitted to you around March 19th. So I'm going to walk through I prepared a statement. I hope you'll let me read it all. A planning board can and must make building decision based on evidence, including witness credibility. They weigh the testimony of all witnesses,
including experts and public members to reach a decision. This includes assessing the credibility of witnesses based on factors like like their expertise, honesty, and consistency of their statements. As part of my public comment, I would like to speak first to evidence of lack of credibility by Mr.
Rabbi by excuse me, Rabbi ski. First, historically, the rabbi has repeatedly sought out pieces of property, which he has every right to do, and I fully support his interest in doing that. A lot of these applications never comply to any of the zoning restrictions,
township ordinances, or or happen to be in violation of master plan values, and neighborhood deed restrictions. There has been a constant twisting of the R relief law to intimidate planning board members and to mastermind schemes to
attempt to build what a group wants and where they want it regardless of the law and constrictions it places on neighborhoods residences lifestyle. The current application is a repeat of historic patterns that have been done in the past.
Oh, I'm sorry. One must also consider why would you buy property to build an institution in which you know the deed has land use restrictions to residential only. And then you have to wonder why would anyone get before getting approval
to build before planning or zoning board tear down an asset of an estates sized house in fine condition probably valued at a million to a million8. unless you had some type of inside track confirmation that you could build from someone aligned with your
mission. Why were both of our township foresters never or rarely present at any of the application meetings? Were they told to stand down? Why was the engineer absent at so many meetings and her assistant engineer never present at at any in her place? Why didn't Mr. Pedto,
our township planner, characterized clear township and zoning codes to be totally misconstrued in favor of the applicant on both the buffers and accessory codes as well as lighting codes. Was he told to do that? Why did the chair of the environmental
commission make aggressive comments to me when I asked about the high center violating the settlement agreement in a public meeting? Why did the EC chair submit environmental findings of facts statements calling out some concerns about lighting and storm water management and never show up to a meeting to support their statements on
behalf of the township or question witnesses or adden fluff about native plants versus commenting on the impact of the loss of mature trees and storm management issues. The high center's original land at the historic Wwell House required a variance. It was on an incredibly small
piece of property and was rejected. The application for variance of one Jefferson was also turned down because of the massive scale of the plans. This was not discrimination. That is following the rule of law that any homeowner would have to follow. I wasn't allowed to build a 7 foot high fence for
some reason. Then after all of that, he violates zoning regulation is fined to close to 500,000 and the township waves the fines. He continues to violate township ordinances and then is sued by the Welch family at 165 Old Short Hills Road among other neighbors
and the court upholds a ruling in favor of the Welches that he's in violation of deed restrictions proving with evidence that that services were going on. Then again in a TC meeting in 2024, I'm called out. I call out the violations of a settlement agreement and the deputy
mayor who is a friend and a congregate called me out as against a religion because I challenge why the township allows this egregious violation. As a matter of fact, my great-grandmother escaped from Hungary to Brazil to meet my great-grandfather during the Holocaust.
Among the rabbi in his congregants, it appears that this man will orchestrate verbal attacks on anyone that challenges the ability to follow the rule of law, let alone common kindness to his fellow residents. If someone wanted to have a house of worship, why did they not why did they not look to aggregate property
in commercial or mixeduse areas where there would be no challenges such as residential deeds and zoning restrictions? Discrimination would not would not be approving a suitable property. No property application like this has been approved in probably over 60 plus years. All the stuff that
everybody's talking about is grandfathered. If they really wanted to exercise their free exercise religion, why didn't the high center purchase Shunt Clair property for example? Clearly that would have been a suitable provable location that would not violate the master plan and residential lights
rights. But he wants a place in a residential neighborhood. I also feel miss best. How How much longer do you think? Well, I think other people spoke over four minutes. So, I I've been timing nobody over five. And I know you made a submission. So, no. I
know you've made a submission, so I appreciate that. I'm going to put this on record just so you know. Okay. Here's your evidence. I had a lot to say. I sat in almost every single meeting. Just so you know, I I was here. And there's also my
constitution. right for secular society not to be impacted. M you may want to speak into the mic so it's picked up. I think it's very unfair that you didn't tell people and articulate the amount of time we should have had because I
prepared a statement that I can't read and just go through and cut through. Okay, that's what I'm trying to say. So, let me just I'll cut that all out because you're not allowing me to do that. But everybody got their time. I I was going to allow it because you
did make a submission. So for you to substantiate what you had sub submitted to us, I think that's fine. Mr. Feld has also made a submission to us which I think then that deserves a little bit more time. So I was affording you that time. Okay. Just so thank you. Going
back to let me just talk to you quickly if you guys want to look through the submission that I gave you because I think walking through it would be helpful. the the uh you want to let us know what you gave us. These are copies. Are they all the same? They're all the same. Okay. So, for purposes of the Mr.
Lavine, not Can you give Mr. Lavine one? Yes. I actually know actually transmitted this. That's fine. Just get all you have to do is hand it to him. The the uh Mr. Lavine, do you have any objection to this document being uh introduced into evidence by Miss Best? I
believe she's going to testify with respect to it. I'm sorry. No objection, Mr. Warren. No objection. I'm going to for the record hand uh half of them roughly. Uh one one direction, roughly half to the
other direction. So the board members get them very quickly. Uh and keep one for myself. And we're going to mark it. I think it's safe to guess it's an O exhibit. So, here's more. So, uh, marked an X, but that's fine. That's Well, that's I just made up a number for you. No problem. The the, uh, what are we up
to on O exhibits? O3 013 for the record. Uh, and it's entitled Kai Kai Kai Center settlement agreement violation and it goes on. So, uh, so, uh, for the record, please proceed with the chair's
permission. Thank you. Please. So in terms of credibility, credibility is important when you're evaluating decision. Okay, it it actually is in front of planning boards. Mike, can you please not whisper between yourselves because it's really
distracting. Thank you so much because you told me to stand down in the last meeting. So going back to that, what I was trying to say is is that the Facebook page that the high center had was pulled down. and I haven't gone on
it lately, but it was pulled down about like a month or two ago. I had actually screenshotted um images of all the religious events that were there um because our township gave over $750,000 as part of a settlement
agreement which Rabbi Bogleinsky agreed to um uphold. So, he took the money and didn't uphold it. I'm making that statement publicly because it shows to the credibility as you're looking at that and that's evidence from it. I
don't know if it's been put back up andor altered from what I scanned. It's not liable. It's a screenshot. So, so there's no hang on. You just made a threat to me, Mr. Bogle.
He actually did. Mr. Chairman, you want to use the We We also do have an officer of the law. I'll reflect on the record here in order to help in help the chairman ensure proper civil decorum for these
quasi judicial proceedings. So, uh, if everyone can exercise adultlike restraint, the kind that our children might learn from, uh, and, uh, and those who
represent people, exercise your fiduciary responsibilities to help them exercise that restraint. Uh, we can proceed. I would ask you with with with qua with this qu with this with this quasi judicial proceeding
uh so that everyone gets due process uh and the planning board serving in a public service non-compensated way can represent their fellow residents by hearing the application and deciding it
in accordance with the law based upon the evidence presented to them. And none of that time that I just took should be allocated to Miss Best uh for whatever time she has. That was my time, not hers. Um thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let's
please proceed. Thank you. Um I can tell you I've started up $250 million company and um I've done business all over the world and you do not scare me. Okay. Your threats don't scare me. Might make me
nervous. Mr. Chairman, I advise that all witnesses speak to the board and not to each other. His threats don't scare me, but I I have to tell you based on that backlash because I'm just telling the truth. It makes me feel extremely
uncomfortable and I feel very threatened as a woman and I'm uncomfortable and I've I've actually witnessed and seen um other people members of this community be um harassed on multiple occasions and I'm putting that on the record. Maybe they will speak to it, maybe they won't.
Um so going back do you wish to take a break or would you like to continue? I just would like to have I'm very flustered because I just wanted to read my statement. That's why the chair may give you that opportunity if you want to take a break and gather yourself. And we do have an officer of the law standing
by very closely. Thank you very much. So I'm not going to re I'm not going to read this entire thing. Um but I will say that that type of tactic is not
effective and that is why I actually sit here and stand and make comments and have come to all these meetings. I care very much that people can exercise their religion. I want to point out religious rights do not override secular rights.
People have a right to live in peace in their home and not be disrupted disrupted by light. I successfully had a neighbor who has had lights that were probably 1/100th of the lights the neighbors will experience and
the township officer came and actually shut that down. Okay. So 100 car parking lot with lights that look like Best Buy is against and violation of code. I'm not sure if Graham understands that. I also want to talk about the accessory
use. I believe that putting all the accessory equipment on the roof is a way to meet the zoning requirements so he doesn't have to go in front of the zoning board. And I think that this entire application needs to be flipped to the zoning board and should have been done in the beginning.
The entertaining of all the changes was highly inappropriate and it is being spun by the high center as giving them a hassle when really what was presented was inappropriate. So I want to just talk
about the accessory use. Air conditioning needs to be in the back or sideyard. It's very clear in the ordinance. Says it right there. Cut and dry. There's no characterization of it as Graham speaks to it cannot be put on the roof. I don't think any neighbor
gets should have to like look at roof equipment of an industrial nature and it's very inconsiderate. At the very least fix that the fence and the buffer minimum. The fact that that hasn't been done just shows a lack of interest in
the local community and an interest in your own self. Stating it like it is. I'm almost done. And then the lighting, again, complete violation of township code. It is completely against the environmental commission's viewpoints and it should
not be allowed in a residential zone. And this should not be allowed in a residential zone. And I will remind that the board that there are there is case law which we have I've seen been choose has been chosen to be ignored that
supports the planning board to look at deed restrictions. Okay. There is a deed restriction that has been in place with a very very large group of homes and it says residential use only. I will leave
you at that. I'm sorry if I offended people. I just don't want a big development. That's all. Thank you, Miss Best. Hi, good evening. I'm Ariel Mazrai. I live at uh 176 Old Short Hills Road. My
last name is Mi Z R A HI. Um please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I Thank you very much. I'm I'm shorter than your last speaker. Some of us can
identify with um so much has been said. Um, I don't know if you understand that my dress is directly across from this property site. Um, my husband and I were house hunting uh before our children were born in 2021
um during the pandemic and we really struggled to find the right house. Um, to the point that when we finally came to Milbourne and our friends encouraged us, I talked him into looking at something that was beyond our means. I walked inside, I did a little turn on
the landing. Um, I thought to myself, "This is our house, but it's not possible." Uh, and on the way out, we told the next people that it was disgusting inside. Um, and lo and behold, um, we made an offer and this is our home. And before we, um, bought it,
we really struggled with where is our Jewish community going to be. And we looked at different towns in the area. This was maybe like our 30th house. And, um, we didn't know about the Kai Center across the street. And it was through this process of buying our house and
making these hard decisions and feeling like this is really where I'm supposed to be that we discovered the community was already there and it was um it met our observance level. Uh and we have since brought home two daughters and named them both across the street. And I
can't tell you that after listening to um the last speakers um in my mind I was thinking it felt like a character assassination. Um, I was not surprised that the rabbi left the room to collect himself. Uh, I'm in shock. I'm still shaking a little bit. Um, this has been
a family that has welcomed us to town, um, our peers and helped us create, um, the beginning of a whole future here. And so maybe I represent the group of constituents of Milbour that are at the beginning of something. um you know and
have some of the youngest children of people who have spoken tonight and really do expect to metriculate them through our schools and um have a home for Hebrew school and nursery school and all these things and you know I I don't know Christine best personally but I am
a member of Happy Milbour and I'm on my phone. I'm also an interior designer in town. and I work on many projects in the neighborhood, both new construction um and also some of our very beloved historic homes. And I have witnessed her comment so often. She's the first
poster, the first commenter against this project. And um so many things have come up that feel contrary to what I know as a resident across the street. Um and I think, you know, in the interest of time, we won't go through those. Certainly not my level of expertise, but
I want to tell you that as someone who pulls out of that driveway across the street from the Kai Center numerous times a day, all times of day with babies in the back seat, that if you just have a little bit of patience, you can make it out of your driveway without
taking your life in your hands. Um, it's not an easy road. It's the throughway, you know, really to get from Livingston to downtown. And I know that because I don't have a synagogue across the street to send my children to for nursery school. And so we do drive every day to Livingston to the Orthodox Shaw there. Um, and I wish it was across the street.
I wish I could keep Shabbat and walk across the street. Pretty much the only thing we don't do is drive on Shabbat. Um, because we have to go to Livingston and um, we spend a lot of money to do that. And I would really love to invest in our town. Um, and so I want to leave you with this idea of patience. Uh, it's
something of our other supporters of the synagogue have mentioned already. I have a lot of it and I'm so excited about this project. I want you to consider the families of young children. Um, and how I've only been in town for four years, but I bought my forever home and I'm not going anywhere and I have a lot of
patience to talk to you about this. Um, I'm excited to be a part of it and to build something new. Um, and I really hope that this is the opportunity and this is the time. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My
name is Natalia Kashuina. I live on 20 Park Road. Um I Do you need the spelling or are you good? No, I have it. Okay, you have it. Do you please raise your right hand? Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? I swear to all gods that the testimony about to give is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth. I'll take that as a yes. Thank you. Please. Please proceed. Yeah. Um, unfortunately, I don't want to talk about this really, but I certainly also was the uh at some point uh harassed on my own street from the attendees of the
synagogue. Um, I don't want to talk about that because I know everybody is different and I know everyone who attends the synagogue is different too. So, it's not about the religion, it's about people. It's a little short. Um, so um my grandmother also was Jewish. So, it's definitely not about religion.
And uh I keep on coming to this meeting and I the point I want to make today that it feels like a huge missed opportunity to me. We have three interested party here. We have the people of the rabbi you know his kai
center who's willing to build a building invest money. They have it clearly. Uh we have the residential neighborhood which wants to stay residential want to keep our peace want our homes want maybe historical neighborhood maybe just residential neighborhood. I'm sorry, I'm getting emotional again. Uh, and we want
downtown Melbourne to be restored. We want renaissance of Melbourne downtown, right? So, why can we not create this winwinwin situation? Why can you not include this synagogue as a part of
Melbourne Township master plan? I'm sure it's possible. You know, it's in your hands, guys, ladies. I mean, we can find the sides that is appropriate, that is compliant and build it there. I mean, we're not against the people. We want them to exercise their religion.
Um, give me a second. So, the huge problem for us is mainly a traffic because um Carson Hill Road and Short Hills Road is already very dangerous. People keep on telling me it's not, but it is. This the the
only way this project can exist if drivers take unsafe gaps in the traffic to take turns. Just think about it. Unsafe gaps to take turns. Just that phrase alone tells me this is a not sustainable
project. My neighbor, I don't want to name her because people are afraid, by the way. They're afraid to speak up. No, I'm not sure why I'm not incredibly crazy, but she had two accidents in the last 18 months with her first one with
her two children. First one was one year old, another one three years old. They were with her in the car. I mean, this is not okay, guys. I mean, we don't want to put our children at risk. I understand there will be a lot of children who wants to have a Hebrew
studies and have a school, but what about our children that live on our road? We have a lot of them. I mentioned that before, right? I don't want them to run to the playground. I don't want them to be in the car risking their lives. They're equally important, but I want everyone to win here. And I think it's
up to you guys for us all to win. And I think it's possible. And I don't want us to miss that possibility. Thank you. Thank you. Ed Maer, 119 Greenwood Drive, Milburn.
Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. First of all, I'd like to thank you all for uh your service to the town. Uh I
was um previous chair of the planning board and previously uh vice chair of the zoning board. I am biased. Uh I've been uh a member of the Kai Center since the 1980s
on uh Oval Road and we've been through all of the uh uh trials and tribulations trying to get a house of worship in this town. I am biased, but uh uh this would
be an easy application for uh me to approve if I were on this board. Uh this is a fully conforming application with no variances for an inherently beneficial use. When I was on this
board, we of course did not have any uh applications for uh houses of worship because none of the houses of worship comply with the zoning. All of those cases would go to the uh zoning board of adjustment. Uh when I was on that board,
I believe we only heard one case and that was uh an expansion of the Wyoming Presbyterian Church on I think the expanded one was going to be 8/10en of an acre. It still exceeded building coverage, lot coverage, and it provided
not a single on-site parking space. That application was approved in one meeting. I voted for it and I think most of the board uh felt the same way. It is important to uh uh support religion. Uh
that is uh part of the fabric of this town and uh as houses of worship need to evolve to uh meet the present day needs. Uh I felt that uh uh it was important for that uh uh to be done.
I'd like to just emphasize that there's been comments about why don't we move uh somewhere else or get another lot. Uh it it's it's understandable. Uh neighbors have a right to be heard by this board.
Uh but uh uh as you uh all are well aware uh houses of worship by the zoning in this town have to be in residential uh areas. In fact, every one of the uh
11 houses of worship in this town is in fact in a residential area. Uh there's been u comment made uh several meetings ago. Why don't you find another lot? Meaning get one where there
aren't uh as many people uh uh objecting to it from the neighborhood. And uh the simple answer is we did try uh to get other lots. It's very difficult trying to get a 3 acre lot in this town. is uh
as I think somebody else alluded to it uh uh it's about one out of every thousand lots is 3 acres has had sufficient frontage is on one of the uh required streets. Uh in the past we did
uh attempt to purchase uh two of those properties as uh somebody previously mentioned at 272 Oldroid Hills Road and at 105 Old Short Hills Road. 272 Oldroid Hills Road was adjacent to the park. Uh
if people wanted a location where uh there weren't a whole lot of neighbors around, uh that was it. That was a property that had less than 100 ft of frontage and should not have been uh
subdividable. Uh the mayor at the time, Tom McDermott, uh when he heard that we were interested in buying it, got involved and uh encouraged the uh uh owner not to sell to us and that he
would uh help him get a uh um subdivision for the property. Uh there was a subdivision granted with uh uh I believe eight variances and four easements. Uh the uh access to the
property had to be through Old Short Hills Park. Old Short Hills Park was purchased in part with state funds. The state was not asked to grant uh an easement for uh these lots.
When the uh uh state found out about it, they issued a stop work order. Uh the builder ended up suing Milbour. Uh the state had an action against Milbour during the uh deposition of the
builder's planner, Larry Keller. Uh he was asked uh some uh some questions about the involvement of the mayor. And I'd like to just read a few sentences from that. Uh the mayor was Tom McDermott. Um Mr. uh Keller stated in
his deposition, Mr. McDermott informed me that I said I didn't think it would be in the best interest to lose the house. And Mr. McDermott said something to the effect that if the rabbi were to purchase it, well, we could always
condemn the property. I said that would be a lengthy litigation. and he indicated we are the town litigation is pennies on the dollar compared to what anybody else can spend on the lawsuit. So if any of you are ever uh in
Old Short Hills Park and wondering why two houses uh have access through the park, that's it. Uh the other property that uh Pardon me, sir, it's going you're going over at 6 minutes. All right, I'll be I'll be brief. Okay,
thank you. The next one was old 105 Old Short Hills Road. Uh this one uh when the may have found out about it again, uh the uh slipped into a zoning ordinance that houses of worship I I'll just read
it. It's quicker. Uh sub paragraph, this is from the legal notice in the item sub paragraph 606 uh.2D1 2D1 providing for houses of worship as conditional uses in the R3, R4, R5 and R six zones is
repealed and then they go through the reing of the others in effect with no discussion. And the township committee at one meeting just decided basically with no public input to ban house try to ban houses of worship. That would of
course grandfathered in every uh existing house of worship and uh just prohibited anywhere in the town any new house of worship. At that point the uh owner decided that we would not be able to uh get approval and declined
to sell to us. I would urge you to uh to do the right thing to stop this three decades of uh harassment. This is an should be an easy application. Uh it's uh variance-free. It complies with all
of the uh conditional uses and I hope that you'll approve it. Thank you. Thank you. Jeff Goldberg, 103 Metobrook Road. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony about to give is the
truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. My name is Jeff Goldberg and I live at 103 Metobrook Road in the Glenwood section of town. My wife and I moved here in September 1998, which is almost 27 years ago. One of the things I
noticed when looking at the neighborhood and surrounding area was a Judeica store on Milbourne Avenue. After closing on the house, we went over to the Judeica store to purchase musas, which are encased doorpost scrolls. The place on the right side doorposts of our home,
something common in a Jewish home is a reminder of God's presence and a symbol of Jewish identity and faith. That is when we met Rabbi Bogamelski and his wife Rifki. Rifkkey invited me to attend services and since then our family has been regular attendees at
events held by the high center. During the period we have lived here, the high center has had several applications for a house of worship in front of either the zoning board, planning board or both. The first application was on Milbourne Avenue across and down street
from Milbourne High School in a residential neighbor in a residential neighborhood. The application consisted of merging three properties into one and building a house of worship. The application required several variances. The main variance having to do with the merge properties being less than 3 acres
in size. Needless to say, the application was turned down with the main reason being the property was less than three acres. Moving forward 10 years or so, the Kai Center again applied for a house of worship. This time it won Jefferson like Milbourne Avenue. It was also an application where
two properties were going to be merged even though this application included larger properties that did not meet 3 acre standard and was turned down. Two of the requirements for a house of worship are it must be in a residential neighborhood and the lot size needs to
be at least three acres. If you look at the map of the township of Milbour, there are very few properties meeting that standard. I've been told that there are currently only five pro potential properties in town. Four of them are on Hart Shore Drive and the fifth one is
165 Old Short Hills Road, the location of the current Kai Center application. I thought I'd mention this because the question of why this site was chosen has come up several times during the meetings. It is three plus acres and it is in a residential zone.
During this application process, I would like to address a few other issues that have been repeated during this process. I've heard comments regarding deed restrictions. From my understanding, there are no enforcable deed restrictions to stop the use of this property as a house of worship. Another
comment is about this property being in a historical site. If that were the case, why was a permit granted to knock down the existing structures on the property? The simple reason it is not a designated historical site. There are people who wish the property to be in historical site, but their wishes are
not reality. Regarding the water management system, the people impacted most from a faulty water management system would be the rabbi and Rifky Bogamilski who live in the closest proximity to any water related issues. Getting back to the communal need for an
Orthodox house of worship in this town for myself and my family. Our preference is to attend Orthodox religious services which we do every Sabbath and holiday. Presently there are no Orthodox houses of worship in town. The closest ones are Congregation Israel in Springfield and
Kabad at Short Hills which is in Livingston. Let's see. I am 100% in support of this fully compliant application for a house of worship and hope the board will be in support also. Thank you. Thank you.
Nomi Harel, 45 Woodfield Drive. N O M I H A R E L. Ple please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. My name is Nomi Harel. I'm 17 years old and I was born and raised here in this township. My whole life, my family has always prayed at the Bogumilskis under Rabbi Bogamillski and his lovely wife Rifki. I in fact could
not imagine this town without the Kai Center. I've heard comments about how people have been harassed, but I have been subject to that. This year, on one of the most important holidays of the year, Russia Shana, our Jewish New Year, me, my sister, and my mom parked in
front of a friend's house just as we've done all 17 years of my life. And I was bombarded, screamed at, and harassed by a couple that is actually here today. We were given papers that had stated that the police had been called and were
shrieked at. And this ruined one again of the most important holidays of the year. Me, my sister, and my mom proceeded kindly and responded with comments such as, "I hope you have a nice day." And we proceeded to go to the synagogue across the street and prayed
on the most important holiday of the year. My two sisters and I were all about mitzvah at the Kai Center. And while we are very thankful, we did not have our we had our we did have our events in a tent often in cold temperatures as well as I was not able to have most of my friends at my bal
mitzvah due to space constrictions. I'm asking you to please approve this application so that when I grow up and have a family of my own, I can move back to this town that I love to have a B mitzvah for my kids and a proper synagogue that I've always dreamed of.
Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I'm Ser Harell, 45 Woodfield Drive. Um, please raise your Thank you. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Um, I know
it's late. I'm going to make this very brief. I want to thank the board for many, many nights um listening to our application. Um, I've lived in town over 20 years. We've raised um our family here, our three girls. Um, I met the Bogamillskis, actually met Riffky at the
Fourth of July um, carnival that we have every year. And I we had been looking for a synagogue. We'd been in town a year and we'd visited synagogues in many neighboring towns and we just didn't find the right fit. And um, I met Rifky. She introduced herself and then the next day she brought Akala to our house and
the rest is history. We've we've been um praying with the Bogamillskis um since then. And as a I've heard a lot of talk about, you know, being a resident. I'm a resident. I'm a long-term resident. I work in town. And I just want to reiterate how important um this application is and that there are a lot
of taxpaying residents that really want this. Um it's not just sometimes I think I hear talk, oh, the rabbi, the rabbi like it's he's like a lone wolf outside group. Like he's a resident, we're residents. And there are many of us that that really want this conforming
application and we've waited a really long time um to have the privilege of praying in our own synagogue. Um one final story because I'm I'm still shooken up by the accusations about the rabbi um and his character. And when my
husband's u mother was dying of cancer, she passed away in Chicago and the rabbi flew out um to surprise him for the funeral. And um you know to this day that's still so touching to me that you know he cares so much about um our
community and we're we have a close-knit community that we hope continues to grow and um I I strongly urge you to approve this application. Thank you for your time. Thank you.
Robert Daly, D- A L E Y, 15 Edgewood Terrorists. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. I've resided at my
residence um for mentioned residence uh for nearly 28 years. I'm sure that all present here tonight will agree that there are are many things that make Milbour a great place to live. From my perspective as a member of the Jewish community, the Kai Center under the
leadership of Rabbi Mendy and Rebbitson Rifky Boilski is one of those things that makes Milbour special to me and to many of my neighbors. I'm here tonight to add my voice in support of the application before this
board. In deference the time, I will not repeat comments and testimony made earlier this evening. I will simply state the following. The high center has contributed positively to my quality of life in the
township. I implore you to approve the the proposed expansion and welcome a fully functioning Orthodox synagogue in our town. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, Kimberly Colchmero. C O L C H A M I
R O 44 Keambridge Drive. Um I've been living in town since uh Sorry. Yes. I swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you. But you can't steal my line. I still have to do it. Do you swear? Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Um I've been living in town since 2008. I met the Bogamillskis when I was looking for a preschool for my second child um who was ready for preschool. We were looking for something in the Orthodox tradition
and it didn't exist at the time in the township. Um and Riiffky said we were looking to do, you know, to create a preschool, but unfortunately it doesn't exist today. uh we left the township at that point to uh find another preschool to send him to and then my daughter who
was born later. And I just want a point of clarification for people who are not so familiar with the Jewish faith. Um because you know you hear people testifying saying I'm Jewish and clearly this isn't anti-semitism because I'm Jewish and as a Jew I can't be anti-semitic. And within the Jewish
faith, one of the things that's been most painful uh for many Jews over the last few years has been Jews speaking out against Jews and Jews speaking out against different sects within Judaism. But there are differences in what the traditions are at the different levels
of orthodoxy, whether you're reformed, conservative, orthodox. And the really, really beautiful thing about Kabad and the Kabad tradition, which the rabbi and Rifky um support, is that it's so inclusive to everybody regardless of what level your faith is. So there are people that come to the synagogue who
have no religious background whatsoever. Their whole mission in life is just to teach people and help people wherever they're they're at and meet them wherever they're at. But for the people who do want to practice within the Orthodox tradition, there is no other place in this town where you can do
that. So while they will accommodate, you know, people who know very little or reform and want to practice that way, um they're welcome. But then the people who do require a more religious observance and an orthodox traditional teaching um and and
practice are able to find that there which is not available anywhere else in the town. And for people who say just go somewhere else to get that if you're really Orthodox you can't because you don't drive on the holidays. So leaving to go to Livingston or Springfield or another town it's not possible. And so
it means that either people are are violating their religious observance to drive as somebody said she's doing now on Sabbath. Um or they're not moving here at all. Um at at the moment it's just not inclusive to people with Orthodox traditions. And so I hope
you'll all consider that as you make this really important decision. Um and I am very sensitive to the neighbors very close by who feel so impacted because it's very understandable what their concerns are. But there are a lot of people in town whose needs are also not being met today who are taxpayers in
this town and really really need this property to proceed. So thank you for your careful attention. Thank you. I'm Ryan Andrew Lenny, Seven Park. Ryan Andrew Lenny. Andrew Lenny. L U N Y.
and seven park sir. What's your you what what's your question and maybe we can help have a brief presentation. Okay. And you want to make it how is there some way to display it? Display what's on your
computer. I'm going to uh ask Eileen Oh, if it's going to be on a uh Well, we have video and and you'll be able to take down what's the the spoken word. Obviously, you didn't take down you didn't take down what I just said. Okay.
Okay, they we're going to do our best to try to accommodate with the chair's permission. I'm sorry to Absolutely. I figure you'll hit me or tell me to stop when at the appropriate time. We still have objectives closing
arguments and what we're uh to sit. I don't know what's coming. I got to ask. Well, I don't know that everybody's going to be able to see it see it and certainly all the members of the public and
applicants etc. should Yeah. Is it you don't have any hard copies? Okay. Can you verbally express what it is you'd like to present? Sure. We do
car or well well bear with me one second. The chair has this a potential suggestion. So we're we're getting close to our 11:00 hour. Would it be possible for maybe you to come next time to do it if we have anybody else after you that could fill in the time until 11? Let's
see how many other people if you confirm there is a next time then yes. That's actually a good point. Um how how many uh public comments do we have yet? One, two, three. Okay, we have a lot about a half dozen. And Mr. If I may, Mr.
Chairman, Mr. Lavine, you Mr. Lavine. That's okay. Mr. Levine, the the the uh you had mentioned you were reserving your right for uh rebuttal. Uh and we do have it uh I'm not I didn't count well, but at least a half a dozen I think I
saw individuals still to comment. Uh we're approaching 11 o'clock, our termination hour, if you will, for the evening. The um is the applicant willing to extend the time to act so that we might have one more meeting
and very possibly only one more meeting to conclude these hearings and give everybody a full and fair opportunity due process to present their respective positions uh and the board sufficient time to deliberate and vote on the
application. Excuse me. Um so Mr. as I had indicated earlier and I've spoken to my client during the course of these proceedings I do not have authority to grant further extensions. We had discuss, we had asked earlier, could we start an hour earlier?
That was declined in the past. There's been a willingness to extend beyond 11 to a certain extent. If we observe the 4-minute time limits, if there are six folks to speak, that would be completed before 11:30. Uh I do not have authority to to grant more extensions. We'll be
more than happy to um we'll be more than happy to uh work this through this evening as long as it takes. Uh I think we're very close. There's been a lot of There's been plenty of time to think about this application. Certainly been discussed to
death. Well, I'm going to see whether or not the board wishes to ex uh make a motion to extend beyond 11 to continue or not. And based there on I'll advise the board thereafter. We've been at this a very long time. Uh
I think everyone understands that and appreciates that. Um it seems like there are a fair number of people that still have to speak. Um ordinarily I would say at this point I mean I'm wide awake so I can go longer but I don't want to speak
for the rest of the board. Um really I think we could go either way with this. We have mechanisms in place if they don't want to extend. We feel that the public hasn't had adequate time. uh we have mechanisms to you know protect their rights and protect this
process and then we can utilize those um so um like to get so um I think we should finish this today and extend the meeting until whatever it takes I'm tired I have to wait tomorrow at 5 in
the morning but I'm willing to to extend my hour here to finish this application it took so long and I think that this unfair to ask for one more meeting. That's my opinion. I concur. I'm willing to extend only on
one condition that may I please get a one minute bathroom break members of the audience probably. So, so just just to be clear, I I too am willing to extend. Uh, however, um, I know that Mr. Feld probably wants
to put on a wholesome comment. Uh, so I just you we just have to be realistic. Is Is there some sort of time limit that we're going to put in? Well, perhaps we could ask Mr. Feld how long he thinks
his objector's case will take. Okay. Mr. Fel, we're aware. We saw the hands. The question was asked of you 10 to 15 minutes. 10 15 minutes. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fel.
Thank you for your courtesy. So in consideration this decision there's also many people who wanted to be here tonight who couldn't because they found out so that respectfully that does occur and and it's not uncommon in in proceedings for before land use sports
that there's always a last night and if the people aren't here it's unfortunate but we can't the nature of the notice it was not like people didn't find out about this until this week. Well, these have been going on. It's been In any event, we'll uh back to the
board. I think the board's trying to determine whether or not to extend and if so, how long? Midnight seems obvious because that's still the 21st. After that, it's no longer the 21st. I think we have an extension till the 22nd, but but that's true, Mr. Well, I
wasn't worried about the legalities. I was just No, I'm I'm I'm And and nobody's going to turn into a pumpkin, I hope. But I I do imagine that this could take actually we would need to get an extension at least for a few more hours
because if the extension that we have expires at midnight then it doesn't it doesn't perfect I I can confirm that my extension that I granted last time was through uh May 22nd. Yeah. Perfect. Um I just understand I I don't
know that this will end at midnight. It might be one o'clock, but I'm willing to stay if the other members of the board are. Does some Mr. Chairman, does someone wish to make a motion to extend for a certain period of time? There can always be another one. Anybody like to make a motion?
I'll do it. I'll make a motion to extend uh by one hour and we can reassess in an hour. Second. Okay, here's all favor. Uh uh well why don't we do an all in favor and if it's not determinative we'll make sure we have a majority one way or the
other. Okay. All in favor say I. I. All opposed. I think it's determinative. Okay. We have an extension till 12:00 I think with a I move for a bathroom break. Yes. The five minute recess.
Okay. That's fine. No, that's fine. Yeah. Maybe we can get him going in time too. I have a question. Once all the comments are done, do we deliberate together or do you deliberate in public together or you vote?
I don't know if we have enough bathrooms for Absolutely. Now I do. I didn't at 7:30. I did not. But now I do. Is it a power computer?
Unless we have something to grab on to that gives us the right to only the answer is does it to me because it made those conditioning if it's got it done. We have to improve it. I also
think I'm moving the driveway and all the other things, you know, Oh, absolutely. Yeah, I know. Right. Right. Right. Right. Just because I know just because I'll hold you 15 minutes. Excuse me. In order to
facilitate this issue, would he be able to be asking? Well, I am not worthy. What do you think? You going to go past 12?
I think it's it's going to it's going to be close. I don't think it's going to take him 15 minutes. I think it's going to take him a lot longer. And then when the story comes up, I have no idea how long this closing arguably. No, maybe not. Yeah, just email. Yeah. And then
possibly allow her to display It's getting an older PC. Yeah. So, the connector doesn't work with that. Uh, cast them. So, they're having difficulty projecting that. Um, can it just be emailed to Eileen and then she can just
go to the website for public? Yeah. The problem he's having is that the connector uh he has the connector really is for a modern box. So, as long as there's a more moderate box that he does, it's old. uh then he can mail it
to that person. That machine in turn Yeah, you could try uh Sarah or or a board event box and they can't do anything with that's that's Mr. Ber has a Linux machine which
I admire because I've worked on the Unix operating system but it doesn't really work with that cloud. you guys. I mean, Burke is nuts. I'll see where we are. Does anybody need a shot of coffee? I don't think I can make it's just you
know the thought right. Thank you. Huh? Is it that you person? I guess it's like ridiculous. They get the chance to speak, but it's got to, you know, be within minutes. So,
I feel like the people are calling. There's 26.7 seconds left in theory six game. Two minutes at least. Well, game in overtime. in overtime though. Second second half of overtime. Yeah.
This is crazy. Somebody was texting me. He's like, "Are you watching this?" I'm like, "I wish I was." I was like, "I assume you're not talking about the planet. 18.9 seconds left. I guess they're in like a foul every 5second territory or
18 seconds. Is that our new town hall? No, by the time I sign in. Apparently, there was a gun. Apparently, there's no defense in this game. And who is winning right now by one by one? Which game is
this? Seven. Oh, first game. Okay. Looks like it's video. by three now 15 seconds by 15 seconds. I don't know if everybody's uh
looks as if Michael's there. Yeah, we down in 50 minutes. Uh yeah, not a bad idea. Thank you. But if everybody can get back in, we are going to start up again, I believe. You want to wait for the next game to be over? By the way, you can't vote. You
can't vote tonight, you know, cuz you didn't get to qualify. can't risk after all this, you know, having it mucked up. So, so we're down to one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. We have nine.
Well, three, five, we have eight, which isn't You don't need nine. You need at least five. Um, I prefer an odd number over an even number for perhaps obvious reasons, but but
Okay. Yeah, we can run the I think half half, but We went back to work. Are we reconvening? Yeah, I'm just waiting. Yeah, Eileen, I think we're starting up. Is he ready? No, it's going to have to be verbal at
this point. Would not say Hammerson. No, I didn't know. Just for the with the chair's permission, just for the record, Eileen, can you give us a quick roll call to make sure everybody's back? Cory Biller here. Allison Campfield here. Michael
Cohen here. Frank Sakamandi here. Jorge Mastro, Michael Zion, Jonathan Baxter here, VJ here. Gaston Halper here. Oh, we got it. We're pick continuing with public comment. Goodness.
Continuing with public comment. Uh, apologize. And I candidly forgot if I swore you in already. I don't. I did. Thank you. Okay. Uh, thank you. Um, so I'm I'm not here to talk about religion tonight because this is not about religion. This is about land use and population density. So the the project
that's being proposed comes with several negative externalities. Increased traffic loss of green space, mature trees, noise pollution, light trespass, increased flood risk, and degradation of neighboring property values. So then you kind of ask
yourself, why should the development desires of one property owner at 165 Ultra Hills Road have a negative impact on the 30 property owners in the neighboring community? So, I did prepare a presentation which might be hard to see from all the way over there, but
this map here shows 165 Ultra Hills Road highlighted in red. And you'll see the adjacent neighborhood which is Park Road and Park Circle where there's 30 property owners. And the item I want to emphasize here is that that's a dead-end street. There's only one way in and out of that neighborhood and it's via Old
George's Road. Okay. And Mr. Lavine, any objection to the four slides that I believe this witness is going to show from there? No. Okay. And uh Oh, Eileen. Oh, what what
are we up to? 014. Thank you. I don't know if this can Can Yeah, I guess you could take the laptop, right? Because we're not plugged in. So, it's there we go. Okay. So, the the second thing to emphasize here is that
Park Road is downward sloping and when you want to make a turn on Old Troll Hills Road, there's BMS of land on either side. You're on the second slide now. Correct. Correct. Thank you. Please continue. So, anybody in the room who's made a left turn from Park Road onto Old Turtles Road or from Jefferson or from
Parson Road knows that it's a very dangerous turn. So, the application current slide three now. Correct. Correct. The application currently proposes a driveway exit directly across from Park Road. What I'd like to emphasize is how dangerous this
is because it's a very uncontrolled intersection. Old Tro Hills Road is downward sloping down toward the town. There are a high volume of cars that come down this road, some going 50 m hour. There's a small crosswalk there that anybody who lives in the
neighborhood knows the cars don't stop the first time. Anyone walking their dog, any anyone taking their kids out, anyone going down to the middle school, anyone going down to the train station knows that it's a very dangerous intersection today. So, this is a short 18-second
video. Okay, this is slide four, correct? Slide four. at the intersection of Park Road and Oort Hills Road and can uh well uh applicants council if he wishes can uh put himself in a position where he could view all
this for the record. I assume are you going to spin that so it's fully facing the board? Sure. I think he was asking because he wanted to see where he had to stand, but that's okay. The the the uh will allow Mr. Lavine to stand behind the deis uh for
this purpose. So, it's an 18-second video. You'll see the cars. This was taken, I think, on a Friday around 4:30 recently. Pretty steady stream of traffic here. So, if you were standing there trying to make a turn, how you going to make your turn? Now, imagine
there was a driveway directly across from you, uncontrolled once again, where there's cars trying to make lefts and rights from old 165 Old Trails Road out into the regular old Shorter Road. So, the thing I want to emphasize is this
was an 18-second video, and if you were counting, there were 16 cars going back and forth. And I can tell you from experience, and can many people in the room, if this video is taken at between 8:00 am and 10 a.m. in the morning, or say in the evening after school, the traffic's even worse. It's outright
dangerous. So, you took the video? Yes. And you took it when again? I took it on a Friday recently at 4:30 p.m. Okay. Thank you. Just for to authenticate it. Thank you.
So, just backing up one more time just to make sure everyone clearly understands this. This is a map of the proposed development. That's Ultra Hills Road. There's Park Road. If you had cars making exits out of 165 Ultra Hills Road, there's no way to do that safely. If you're someone turning left going
south into town from Park Road, there's no way to make that left turn safely if there's people exiting in cars from 165 Ultra Hills Road. And again, that particular slide was that you're showing right now is slide three. Thank you.
So my my message to the to the council here is for those of us that are residents of the Park Circle Park Road community, so much of our lives are oriented south, right? You go down to town, you go down to the middle school, you go down to the train station. Making
a left there shouldn't be like a dangerous experience. It's already trepidacious, but having cars coming out of a development with 95 parking spaces only makes this outright dangerous. So, I would encourage all of you when you're considering this application, come stand
on the corner of Park Road and Ultra Hills Road and watch how dangerous it is today. Watch how fast those cars are going. Watch how there's people trying to use the crosswalk and they they totally ignored. And just think about how much worse that would be if there was a new development with the driveway coming out
like that. So, you know, my my final comment is that the application in its current form is outright dangerous and I encourage you all to come see it in person. Thank you. Thank you. Try
to Charles Bambber B A M B A R A 37 Keats Road. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God affirm testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Okay.
Um first thing uh uh the um NJAC 7.8 uh New Jersey Code for Storm Water Management. Uh my read of that uh paragraph paragraph
7.8 uh- 5.3. My read of that uh uh of that storm water management is that u for a lot size exceeding 2.5 acres a uh
a special waiver is required from the New Jersey state D. Uh so I encourage you to look at that statute. Maybe I'm wrong in my read. Uh, but from from what I could determine,
uh, there is a special waiver required from the New Jersey state D to use a sand filter uh, in this uh, application according to the green infrastructure standards. Uh, the second
comment that I have um, regards uh, there was uh mention made uh by Miss Christine Best uh who's a dear friend of mine and I I can attest that she is not anti-semitic in the least. Neither am I.
This is not about religion. Um there was but she made reference to a letter from Barton Ross and partners architects addressed to Alex McDonald uh referencing said property
uh uh recommending uh that that some exploration archaeological exploration be done of the property. Uh, and I believe this was entered into evidence, but if it hasn't,
I would like to enter it into evidence because I she asked about that and was told it wasn't pertinent to that particular witness. That was question. Eileen, is it one of the exhibits? I it would probably be an o exhibit.
It's dated November 12th, 2024. As an exhibit, it's a letter from Barton Ross and partners to Alex McDonald, Burough Administrator. referencing this property. So I know that Miss Best Have you shown it
to applicants council? I'm familiar with Do you have any OB if this gent if this gentleman is intro wants to introduce it? I don't know that he has any personal testimony with respect to it, but I don't I just it was a report. So
you do Oh, it it's it's not an exhibit, but it's a report that was provided to the board. So, it's on the record already. You can continue. We got it. The board has it. Okay. I I don't know. I I get the impression that that was not done. So, my recommendation is that
uh if the historical preservation committee maybe weighs in, but if it if there's a concern, perhaps it should be done. Um okay. So then let me just say you know one brief sentence one brief uh
uh look I'm sorry this this is like trying to put a square peg in a round hole this project I mean we've been dancing around the multitude of of issues and flaws lot coverage storm water management buffering of neighbors
uh traffic light pollution a bunch of other factors each time coming back to the planning board with iteration after iteration ation of the plan, blaming it on appeasing objectors, but in reality correcting defect after
defect in the application. This application must have been printed on latex because it's been stretched and reshaped so many times. It's difficult to fathom what we're looking at from one reading to the next. As a member of the public, I've had a
lot of difficulty with that. It keeps we're trying to hit a moving target here. uh what we looked at one time had changes promised for the next round. Meeting after meeting over a year I admit that uh I understand the
applicants are growing impatient. It's a long drawn out process but most of it was caused by shortcomings and deficiencies in the plan and the engineering that needed to be
corrected. And yet the residents were being blamed for having their their right for public comment question the scrutiny and wasting time. The fact is it's the iterative design process
that's caused the delays not we residents questioning or objecting or asking questions. uh uh home I I don't think homeowners applying for for something for this board would have afford the same luxury
of tying you folks up for a year u with an applications the way this has gone. Uh uh meanwhile any objectors or or public comments are are threatened, harassed,
and again tonight called anti-semitic, which is is not the case at all. Uh folks that are Jewish that know me know very differently. Uh some of the object objectors are Jewish.
uh and we've been harassed because we dare to oppose non-compliant construction and objects strenuously to being bullied. And I myself had to write two letters to the chair and to the
attorney uh objecting to being harassed and uh and feeling very uncomfortable and very threatened. Uh I was party to uh uh the police responding to some of that harassment after one of the
meetings and after that you've had a policeman in attendance and thank you very much. It's it's been great having you. Sorry that you have to tie you up for every night you and your your associates, but Mr. Barbara, you're at
six minutes. Okay. All right. Um so let me wrap this up. Um I think the issue is perhaps one of scale. You know had the applicant presented a scale which would not have stretched everything to the limit lot
coverage and everything else I don't think we would have had so many design iterations. So you know maybe the issue is one of scale maybe it was a little bit smaller. Lot coverage wouldn't be an issue. Uh so let's uh maybe you want to
think about that in the application. But, you know, enough with this nonsense. Do the construction the right way. Be respectful to the neighbors. You know, lay out the parking, the sidewalks, and everything the right size and configuration for the lot. And I think
that would be deal with storm water efficiently. You I think a lot of the problems would be corrected if this if it was scaled back a little bit. And that's my recommendation. Has nothing to do with religion at all. has everything to do with some common sense. So, thank
you. And please no threats to people. It's It's really upsetting. Thank you. Hello. Good evening. Um, my name is Raundo Kalcano. Rui Mu N O. Last name C A L C A N O.
Uh, 10 Park Road. I've been a resident I'm sorry got to swear you in. Do you do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Thank you. I've been a resident of the very special Park Road Park Circle neighborhood and
the broader Milbour Short Hills community for 12 wonderful years. My home sits just outside the 200t notification radius for this development. But I'm here tonight because my family and many of my friends and neighbors will be will still be deeply affected by what's been proposed,
especially because of a major design flaw. The new four-way intersection being proposed at the only entrance to our culde-sac neighborhood. Until tonight, residents like me haven't had an opportunity to speak publicly or to the formal weigh-in on this
proposal. So, it's only now at the 11th hour that we're being given the chance to describe the real world consequences of this intersection design change. Consequences that will drastically alter the safety and character of our quiet deaden neighborhood. For close to a
century, this neighborhood has had a simple tea intersection where Park Road meets Ultra Hills Road. It's the only way in and out of our neighborhood and it's used daily, not just by drivers, but by children walking to and from the Milbourne Middle School. Many of us
chose to purchase homes and live here precisely because of its quiet and safe culde-sac, especially for families with school-aged children. This isn't just about traffic, it's about quality of life, and it's about safety. This proposed intersection would introduce a new level of risk and disruption we've
never had to deal with before. Cars will now be turning left and right out of a busy new driveway directly opposite our street with no traffic light or protected crosswalk. Children and pedestrians will be put into conflict with unfamiliar and potentially distracted
drivers. A simple walk to school could now mean navigating vehicles approaching from multiple directions. I have to ask, why wasn't this predictable hazard avoided? Why didn't the planning board tell the applicant to close off the exit to Oer Hills Road and require all
vehicles to use the Parsonage Hill entrance? That section of Parsonage Hill is much less is a much less busy road and poses less risk to children, joggers, and local families. Beyond traffic, we're facing increased noise, overflow parking, and serious light
pollution. The landscaping plan may look nice on paper, but it calls for maple trees to serve as a visual screen. As you know, maples are not evergreens. These trees lose their leaves in the fall, leaving homes like mine fully exposed to the glare of headlights and
the 25 polemounted light fixtures throughout the darkest months of the year. That's not a four-season solution. It's a partial one and it fails to address threequarters of the year. While I understand the development seems unavoidable and that faith-based institutions want to grow, I ask the
board to also consider those of us who are being asked to bear the brunt of that growth. The proposed intersection design change will transform our quiet, family centered culde-sac into a high conflict traffic zone and not because of anything we've done, but because of a project we
had no seat at the table to shape. I want to close with a border point about fairness. This project may be anchored by a faith-based organization, but that doesn't exempt it from scrutiny. Zoning and planning aren't just technical tools. They are
part of our social contract. A promise to residents that their neighborhoods won't be transformed without due process, transparency, and a meaningful chance to be heard. For many of us, that promise feels broken. Yes, we want our
town to be inclusive. Yes, we welcome community serving institutions. But inclusion also means protecting the people already here. And it means not privileging the interest of one group over the shared well-being of many. Development, especially large-scale
development, should happen transparently with meaningful community input and in a way that respects the unique character of all our historic neighborhoods. Growth must be responsible. It must be thoughtful. And it must not come from the it must not come at the direct
expense of long-standing residents whose concerns have until tonight gone unheard. I urge the board to take a hard look at the impact this intersection and this development will have on Park Road and Park Circle and to ask whether this change truly balances the interests of
everyone who calls Milburn home. Thank you everyone. Thank you. Hi Jean Pastnac 342 Hobart Avenue. It's P A S T E R N A K. Please raise your right hand. Do you
swear to God or affirm that the testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you very much. Please proceed. Thank you. I'm a 28-year resident. Uh I served as an elected school board member in Milbourne and I've been very active in our community
endeavors. Uh thank you all for serving our community. It's a big job and we really appreciate all that you're doing. I thank the neighbors as well for all their interest and passion in this application. This is a land use application for a commercial property that includes a house of worship,
daycare, and preschool. The daycare and preschool were not disclosed initially in the required notice to the public, even if allowed to be hidden in the initial disclosure to the public. I don't believe it is ethical. The applicant knew this project to be a substantial change for the historically
single family neighborhood. It is preceded. The applicant had the choice to disclose that to the public and he chose not to and I wondered why this application was renoticed. Can this township and its residents trust the applicant to hold to the things agreed
to in the process of this application? There have been very there have been very difficult to keep track of numerous adaptations to an initial plan submitted mostly at the last minute before meetings. The repeated testimony by the applicant's experts was impossible for
the layman to follow and perhaps some of you as well. There have been extreme lengths taken by the applicant to just come under the lot coverage requirement. The many plan alterations fall outside the norm for this board. Can the planning board members in good
conscience state to the public that this has been allowed in other applications before you to this extent? My understanding is that the normal process for applicants before the board is that the applicant submits their plan, presents experts, questions of the applicant's experts are taken from the
board first and then the public and finally any opposition cases put on including the opposing party's experts. That same process occurs with questions of the expert and then finally sworn testimony from the public. At the end, the planning board makes a decision. In this instance, the planning board has
allowed numerous revisions to the applicant's plan so that the original application is no longer before you and instead the sum total of all these revisions. Which one is the final plan? Which are you actually considering? Up until last night, there
were still things being changed. Experts have presented and then represented new testimony, but if there were questions that arose from the new testimony, those were disallowed unless they related to the new testimony. How can anyone responsibly follow this constant revision process? This is one of the
most confusing application processes ever before the planning board that I am aware of. It is nearly impossible for each of you to follow, let alone members of the public. Questions that would have been asked of the experts have been forgotten or put aside by members of both the planning board and the public.
I'm wondering if this was coincidental. I think the process has been fraught with issues due to the constant changes in these plans and liberties taken by the applicant of the planning board rules and process. I ask you in all sincerity, have a different set of rules been applied
here? This presents a fairness issue for past and future applicants and I think this should be of great concern. The applicant was allowed to make changes every time they presented a new plan that resulted in meeting lot coverage ratios. to stay under the ratios. The applicant instructed experts to do almost anything, even allowing a two-
foot wide sidewalk. This latest plan, I believe it's revision E, appeared that the driveway configuration changed, so it was a square entrance into the roads instead of the radius turns that were there because even that small amount of pavement for the radius would put this application over the limit. This week,
yet another revision. Also, the applicant could not gain sufficient storage under the main parking lot with the storage being so shallow above the water table. So storage was added underneath a side parking lot in the main driveway. What about the lighting plan in the northwest corner that the d lux density of the lighting now
infringes over the fence onto the neighbor's property? It is strain upon strain to meet the town's rules. The planning board should follow its own rules. Hear an application in its entirety before giving substantive feedback. In this case, you have allowed continuous changes in this application
where nonconformity has been noted during allowed questioning the applicant's experts. There is an inherent conflict in that the applicant's experts could not be fully questioned by planning board members nor residents. The issue has become for me as a neighbor and resident is that the applicant has ended up providing too
much incremental and disjointed testimony to allow for an accurate and complete application to come before this body. There is evidence that the application has not been a rule following neighbor. There was a settlement agreement whereby the town paid the high center over $700,000 as a
way to settle a lawsuit filed regarding their other property at one Jefferson. Plans for building a house of worship at that address were under scrutiny for 10 years. The center was denied the application to build a house of worship at one Jefferson and also lost the lawsuit filed in federal court, but the
town decided to pay a settlement for reasons the Milbour business administrator has not shared with the public, even asked in public. In addition, the settlement required that rules around activities at that location be strictly adhered to. According to police records, there have been consistent violations of the terms of
the agreement, such as hosting large groups for services and parking in violation of town parking rules. The applicant acrewed $500,000 in enforcement fines, but this amount was reduced by the town to $1,000 as verified at a township committee public meeting by the town's business
administrator, Alex McDonald. Subsequent to the payment of that settlement, the high center purchased a property at Milbourne Avenue across from the education center and had intended to have the house of worship there. According to a former and longtime former Milbourne mayor, Sandra Hayoff,
who lives in Livingston now, and felt it was inappropriate to attend this meeting in Milbourne. But after speaking with her at length, she told me when we talked that she dealt rather extensively with the applicants over various issues related to the use of township property
for various high center functions. She said when the applicants were told they needed permits to expand their activities into Taylor Park, for instance, they failed to do so and went ahead anyway with activities that required a permit. Master back here at six minutes. Okay, I might be another
two. The applicants had held meetings with neighbors when the township committee at the advice of the historic preservation committee endeavored to implement long-held plans arising from the town's master plan to designate two neighborhoods and some properties along Old Short Hills Road, including 165, as
historic. It is my understanding from people present at those meetings that the applicant and his surrogates only discuss with those neighbors the costs of having their properties designated as historic. The neighbors were given lawn signs to place on their properties and to hold up at township committee meetings to loudly object to the
historic designation. You might remember seeing them along Old Sher Hills Road. Here's what I find troubling. When a planning board member asked the applicant when he provided his expert testimony under Earth, quote, "Did he ever discuss his plans for the house of worship and daycare preschool with the
neighbors?" And his answer was no. However, at the time, the applicant was meeting with the neighbors and stirred their opposition to historic designation. The Kai Center LLC had purchased the property, and the applicant was aware of his plans. He failed to mention those plans to his
neighbors, nor did he mention that if the property had been designated historic, the existing home could not have been demolished, nor the plans he had for the property for this application could not have gone forward. I was shocked that a neighbor gathered and organized neighbors to tell half the story in order to ostensibly favor an
outcome in favor of meeting his goals but could not could result in detriments to those neighbors. Some members of the public tried to ask questions of the applicant about the LLC ownership of the surrounding properties. The questions were disallowed by the uh planning board attorney. I know that the applicant
firsthand I know this that Gal Gambodi who lives at 11 Jefferson Avenue and nearby adjacent property, a woman who is in her 80s, was asked if she would be interested in selling to him. Other members of the public turned to ownership of 165 when asking questions of the applicant and he testified under
oath that he was not the owner and did not know who was the owner. I'm not sure how an application comes before a planning board when the applicant testifies that he does not know who the owner of the property is. Are you coming to I'm coming to an end. Yep. Uh I think this point was already
made about the affordable housing law allows for challenges until this August of our latest round four of the require required minimum development under affordable housing and this presidential uh uh application could be a pertinent issue uh due to that being allowed. Um,
and despite the anomalies in this application, the primary reasons given by residents for objecting to this application is that it sets a precedent to go into any part of our town and purchase property parcels and file lawsuit against the town to permit highdensity housing
development. Finally, I'm just going to make a very quick note. Harassment is real. I can tell you that I was um felt very threatened at a meeting on March 19th to the point where I called the police. Uh I was being followed out of the meeting after being uh having
someone literally in my face from the uh congregation I believe and accusing me of things that were false. Uh there was a police report filed. I decided to take no further action but clearly that was meant to chill my speech and as you can see it did not. Thank you very much and
I trust your judgment. Thank you. Thank you. Um, good evening again. Jeffrey Fel address 11 Alexander Lane, Short Hills, New Jersey. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth? Yes, I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Um, it's getting long tonight. I want everyone to understand my brother is a Balshua or ultraorththodox rabbi. So I don't want to hear anyone saying that I'm prejudiced against the religion.
That's not the issue. Today is a rule of law and focusing on municipal land use. I've been saying since September that this planning board jurisdiction, you do not have you go
back to this first September hearing. I raised a question about a turnaround about gravel and the expert testified if you added that number you were over the coverage ratio. At that time you should have
divested the case. In addition, earlier today, I tried to refer to the development review committee memorandum that you all received. And on the last page, there was testimony or comment by the rabbi saying, "We generally only
have 40 attendees for Saturday services. Harder to tell for educational component, which we are expanding for our preschool component. Earlier today, we heard many people talk about nursery school. But on the first application and
for many application, what was missing? A playground. And if that playground was added, the 900 ft and then the fence around it, you would be over the coverage. What have we been wasting time for? This case should have been
dismissed at that time. The word we keep on hearing is application. Is it application or applications? Ram a couple meetingings ago testified about the priorities and what has
supremacy. You start with state constitution. You go to the municipal land use law. I believe you go to the master plan then you go to local ordinances. And that's the key. One piece is look at the master plan. Does this application
comply with the master plan? More importantly, you go to NJSA 405D-46B, which provides if the planning board requires any substantial amendment in the layout
of improvements proposed by the developer that have been the subject of a hearing, an amended application, I'll use that word, an amended application for development shall be submitted and proceeded upon. time. I only seen one application. It
was filed on May 6th last year. One thing I've been asking since I've been coming here is why two pieces were in there. What did the the FBI investigation, the Justice Department investigation had to do with land use?
You heard tonight all about the threats that needs to be divorced. We are dealing with municipal land use law. Start with the statute. How many times has this application, the site plan been amended? Didn't that require a new
application? When you went over the coverage ratio at the first meeting where we didn't even know about the the playground, but when I mentioned the turnaround that you needed for the fire department and then the expert said you had that number in your
over to coverage ratio. What would happen if the playground was in there? We wouldn't be here. These are some of the issues we had. We had all the changes with the parking lot. You know, again, the word you're going to have to use substantial amendment. I think by changing the
parking lot, changing the storm water, those are substantial amendments and that maybe you'll be directed to get a definition. I don't know if any that's going to be your judgment and looking at a dictionary what the word substantial means and what the word amendment means. When we had the nursery school, I don't
think anyone's testified whether opening a nursery school is subject to other regulators. Is it a state? Is it unregulated? What's the space needs? I don't know. That's never been addressed. But what's also
been interesting of all the changes with the parking lot and we heard today about changing the size of the garbage truck you want to turn over. We only received an expert report or report from the fire and and the police as to the changes in the first meeting.
We have never had an updated fire and police report as to the changes that they're doing about the circulation of the of the traffic on the streets or within the parking lots. I think that's something that you really need to look at. And it's late. I'm rambling. I'm
sorry to ramble, which I usually do, but a lot of things are who are the checks and balances to protect the community, the applicant and the rest of the community, where was our municipal planner, where was our engineer because if you look at the letter that came back
to the engineer, she's re as to when you're talking about coverage, she's relying on their expert. Has she gone out with a wheel to measure to see if we have the right coverages? No. what's going on, who's protecting
everyone in this room to make sure it's fair. I mean, you're going to have a long deliberations to have because you have to weigh the credibility of the various experts and everyone that testified today and you see who's been
credible. But look at the application. Remember, there's something that's happened here. one of the plans, the hard copy was lost and that's I put put point puted out in the evidence here. The original copy was
lost and we had to get a recording of the um piece of it. Who's the zoning officer for this town? But who approved the application that it was complete? Was your municipal planner? Why? who signed up that it was
the that the notice was correct, the original one in September or in August when it got to publish. It wasn't the zoning officer. It was the municipal planner. There are crazy things have happened in this town. No, we had to say
what is going on. The question I am saying and also in the case that I provide all of you, the Diamond Chip Realy LLC case, which Mr. Warner is very aware of because he's involved in that case. There's lines in there that during
the course of this proceeding. There are two new members that are making a decision who weren't able to ask anyone questions to what occurred before January. You guys had a right, the new members to ask questions
about the application because you're going to vote tonight. But you were denied that right. You know, you're talking about fairness in the rule of law. This is case law. There's a statute. We've been hearing about, you know, the master plan, you know,
conditional proof. But as the question I've been always saying is, we're in the wrong body. We should have been at the zoning board since September. And the question is, why didn't someone call that out? That's something you when you have your deliberations, hopefully you'll consider again. Thank you. So, I
know I've been coming up, but also remember, look at the video of the first September meeting. What happened after I pointed out the turnaround that you overextended? Look at who confronted me and say, "How dare you object to his
application? What kind of Jew are you?" Well, I am Jewish. I stand up to my brother, but this has nothing to do about this right and wrong. Has nothing to do about religion. Thank you. Thank you. It's going to be hard to follow that. My
name is Francisco DelCampo. I live at 28 Park Road in Short Hills. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God affirm testimony about to give us the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. And at the risk of sounding very repetitive of things that
have been said previously, I'm only repeating simply because it is so impactful to the people at Park Road and people at Park Circle. It is nightmarish to get out of our street in the morning. I leave at 6:30 in the morning to go to
work. Not a problem. So just today, car was in the shop. I drove my wife to work and then went to work. She starts the day at 8:30. It took us about three minutes, fully three minutes to get an opening. Now, my wife, quite honestly,
is not as inexperienced a driver as I am. She doesn't even make an attempt to make a left turn onto Old Shore Hills Road. She goes the long way, a right-hand turn and goes up and to her place of work. It's very dangerous. and
the prospect of an egress from the proposed center right onto Old Short Hills will only complicate that greatly. Uh so it becomes a safety concern for drivers as was mentioned earlier, a safety concern
for pedestrians who never, you know, who are at risk of their lives when they try to cross Old Short Hills Road. Cars don't stop. Um and also bicyclists. So, there are several safety issues. Another
safety issue was pointed out by a doctor here who works at uh Cooperman in terms of delays. I have a heart condition. Thankfully, it's I'm I'm I'm standing up, but pity those who may be stuck in traffic or
stuck behind one of those lines of cars that form largely on Old Short Hills Road when attempting to make a left turn onto Parsonage Hill. And now there's a need to get through that traffic. That's another safety issue.
There also was pointed out the the storm water issue which I think is very real and which impacts several of the houses on our park road, not necessarily mine because it's more elevated and further down. But it's a very serious concern and you've heard how as it is it
presents issues with increased overflow from uh the proposed center. It's only going to exacerbate that already existing issue. Again, I know it's repetitive, but this stuff is so impactful to the
people in the neighborhood. And you know, I feel for a lot of the residents here who have spoken on behalf of the rabbi, it's clear that he's had a significant impact on their lives, spiritual lives, um li community lives,
and that there's some certainly something to be said for that. And you know, it's terrific that he's doing the work that he's doing. I think quite honestly, and it's not a nimi issue. I think this project, the scope of the project, the placement of the project is
illconceived and I urge the board to vote accordingly. Thank you very much for your time on this late night. Thank you. Uh good evening. Uh my name is Robert Freriedman. live in the uh I guess you call it the pilgrim section of
uh Shore Hills. Don't What's your address? Exact address? Yeah. Uh 10 Winthrop Road. Okay. And by the way, uh uh we've been relying on council for There you go. I promise I won't
sing. The the the the council for the uh uh objector, Miss Dory. Um, can you still represent since you haven't disclosed to the individual or individual members of the SRDR uh can you still represent that that individual
uh has not asked any questions uh with respect to uh any proceedings this evening? Thank you. Uh that individual or individuals can nevertheless testify notwithstanding the fact that they're represented by council. Um, so, uh, if
that individual has testified or is going to testify, uh, that's okay. I just wanted the board to be aware of that. The, um, and but yes, we do need, but you provided your address. Yes. Thank you. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the
testimony about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I do. Thank you. Please proceed. Hi. Uh, I didn't intend to come up and and make my comments. Um, I actually came to the meeting to uh drop off an architectural book uh for ideas for the uh municipal building. Um, but I've been
to this is my I guess my second uh planning board meeting as an observer and um I just feel compelled to say and I say it with a very heavy heart. Um um I I just want to preface by
saying that not only Jewish, I'm I'm an observant Jew, uh lifelong Jew. Uh my late father was a Holocaust survivor. Um deep deep affinity to Israel. Um
but I also come from a family of real estate developers. I'm a private investor. I invest in companies, not real estate. Uh but I I am pretty familiar with a lot of the issues um dealing with real estate. And I just feel compelled to say
that with a heavy heart that I just don't think this project is appropriate for this area. Um, I would be more than happy to contribute
uh for another site in Milbour and get other people to contribute also. Um but and I would love to have as many synagogues as possible in this area, but
for the reasons that have been mentioned before, safety, quality of life, mostly safety, I just don't think this this project is appropriate for this neighborhood. That that's all I really want to say. Thank you.
Thank you. I I think we're approaching the midnight hour. Let's never say the the the uh uh the uh it may be incumbent upon the board to decide whether it wishes to do another motion to extend. Um we have one member of the public. Are there any
other if I may, Mr. Chairman, members of the public? I think everybody might have testified already who's in the room. Um the the uh uh the then the proper procedure is Miss Dory as an attorney for the representative objector would
provide her summation if any and then Mr. Lavine on behalf of the applicant would provide his summation if any uh assuming there's no rebuttal. Uh and uh and then the board would deliberate and vote. Uh so with that perhaps help uh
you can decide whether or not you want to extend further and if so how much. I move to extend until we're done. Second. Why don't we put Why don't we put a time frame on it? Be it 30 minutes, an hour, what have you. At least for now, an
hour. Okay. Second. All in favor? I. All opposed. Okay. We've extended uh until at least for now till 1:00 a.m. Uh if uh if we don't finish beforehand, your name and address,
please. Linda Perry, 37 Blaine, Milbour. Okay. And please raise your right hand. Do you swear to God or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, all truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you. Please proceed. The Milbour community stands at a
critical juncture. For 30 years, our Jewish neighbors have been denied a fundamental right to a Jewish house of worship, a space that is more than just a building. It's a sanctuary for the soul, a cornerstone for the community,
and a vital thread in the fabric of our town. Without a local synagogue, families have faced the hardship of traveling long distance to religious services, life ceremonies, and community events, disrupting traditions, weakening
cultural continuity, and developing and depriving children of essential religious and cultural education. This is an injustice that is rooted in systemic bias. While other faith communities in Melbourne have
access to multiple places of worship within residential communities that are not conforming to the local codes, our Jewish neighbors have been denied the same. This disparity undermines the
principles of equality, fairness, and inclusion that our town allegedly stands for. A synagogue will bring many benefits. Not just spiritual fulfillment for Jewish residents, but a stronger,
more cohesive community for everyone. It will serve as a place of reflection, dialogue, charity, fostering interfaith understanding, and mutual support. Studies show that spiritual
spaces reduce stress and promote resilience for everyone. regardless of faith. Moreover, the synagogue will meet practical needs, offering educational programs, social services, and communal
celebrations, strengthening our community's moral and cultural fabric. Importantly, it will be built to meet all safety standards, ensuring that is an integrated and respectful part of
Milbour. If there is a nightmarish happening on park in regards to traffic, that is a separate issue that the town should have been addressing all along and has nothing to do with this
application. The core issue here is justice. The delay of three decades has caused an unnecessary hardship, a denial of religious freedom for our Jewish neighbors. And that is a
shame. We have a chance now to correct this wrong. To show Milbour is a town that embraces diversity and rejects discrimination. Our community community
is already rich with various houses varied houses of worship but nuns cater specifically to the spiritual and cultural needs of our Jewish residents. Approving this synagogue isn't about
favoring one group. It's about fairness, inclusion, and justice. I call on all of you to do your jobs, to uphold the duty to all residents, to
stand strongly against prejudice, and to approve this project without further delay. Let's build a stronger and more inclusive Milbour where every resident has a place to pray, to learn, and to
celebrate. The time for waiting is over. The time for justice and unity is now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you're seeing no more members of the public to comment, then I
believe you are closing public comment and then you are moving to summations. Well, actually, first Mr. Lavine uh has a right uh on behalf of his client for rebuttal if he wishes to present any rebuttal.
Uh no, Mr. Warner, Mr. Chairman. No, he can certain he doesn't have to avail himself of that. the uh then I believe we're at summations and summations are would start with the representative objector followed by applicants council and then the board can deliberate and
vote and I'm happy at that point in time to uh assist the board with relief sought uh before voting and uh conditions that were stipulated too uh if appropriate. All right. Uh, Mr. Chair, members of the board, um, and also the board's
professionals, thank you very much for all of your time. I know this has been a very lengthy process. Um, I appreciate you hearing the concerns of sustainable development for Milbourne Township. Um, as you know, Sustainable Development for Milurn Township is objecting to this application because it doesn't meet the township's ordinances. It doesn't meet
the conditional use standard for a buffer. Um, and the applicant hasn't demonstrated compliance with the township storm water requirements. Um, I heard one member of the public say to you this evening, "This should be an easy application." This should have been an easy application. When I started
attending these meetings last year, I had no idea that I would still be here with you today. Um, uh, I asked Mr. Keller many times over the course of these hearings. I don't understand why the applicant won't just wait, do the required soil testing, submit a compliant storm water design, and comply
with the buffer requirements. And I don't think we've gotten answers to those questions over the course of these many meetings. Simply put, the applicant has not met its burden of proof to satisfy the conditional use standard for a buffer um which requires this application to be
transferred to the zoning board for a D3 variance. Providing adequate light and air is a fundamental purpose of zoning. A conditional use is not a permitted use in the zone unless this planning board finds that all of the conditions of the conditional use are met.
In this case, the applicant refuses to provide an adequate 25- ft buffer to the adjoining residences, leaving the existing and long-standing residences having to bear light pollution, noise pollution, and a substantial increase in intensity of
their neighbors property. So, that's the reason for the 25- ft buffer in the conditional use standard. The ordinance doesn't say that it's a setback. Excuse me. It says it's a buffer. I know that there's a difference of legal opinion here with
respect to whether the board um the board's planner and the board's attorney has expressed um that the board may have jurisdiction over this application irrespective of the fact that the applicant does not comply with the buffer requirements. Um but the simple point is
is the applicant does not get to choose what's in the buffer. The township has an ordinance that specifies what should be in the buffer and this planning board has to evaluate whether the applicant is meeting the conditional use standards and the township's ordinances with
respect to buffers. The ordinance is explicit in section 609.3 what should be in the buffer to shield adjoining residences at the very least from parking and loading areas. And that's also specified in sections
516.3 and 516.8. 8. The applicant has not complied with the buffer requirements with respect to spacing of the plantings and fencing, and there's no protection from headlight glare um from this uh 95 car parking lot. And as
indicated by the board's planner, um the case of CBS Outdoor requires that these details for the conditional use requirements for the applicant to demonstrate that the conditional use requirements have been met to be on the site plans before the board can take a
vote. And while this applicant has revised other applications before the zoning board to provide appropriate buffers, for some unknown reason, it refuses to do so for this application. There's been concerns
raised during the the course of these hearings. Will cars be parked in the buffer? Will one Jefferson be used for overflow parking? These are all concerns that this board should consider in evaluating this application. As one of the neighbors said at the
beginning of these proceedings, these proceedings are about finding balance. That balance is found by complying with the township's ordinances. This applicant is not challenging the conditional use ordinance. We're disputing here as
whether the applicant has actually complied with the conditional use standards. And the township's governing body set for set forth those standards for buffers for a reason. The narrow interpretation of zoning and the zoning ordinance presented attempts to read the
word buffer out of section 606.2D1, which is the conditional use standard, and it ignores completely section 609.3 and chapter 516. Regarding buffers, the intent of the ordinance is clear to provide a
separation between residential and non-residential uses. Regarding storm water, it's to ensure appropriate and functional storm water controls so that development does not negatively affect nearby properties or negatively affect the township's storm water
system. The board should not grant a variance from these standards. You heard the testimony of our expert, Mr. Keller. This applicant has not sustained its burden of proof to demonstrate compliance. has not shown a
compliant storm water system and has not demonstrated compliance with the buffer requirements. No renderings were provided to the board. No landscape architect has testified and the limited testimony provided by the applicant's witness does not demonstrate there will
be adequate buffer to the next door residences to the west. Another significant issue with the application is the failure to comply with the town storm water ordinance. There is no proof that this system will work as designed. The board is tasked
with ensuring compliance with the town's storm water ordinance and that hasn't the burden hasn't been met here. For traffic, the applicant refuses to provide any traffic mit mitigation even though this has been a significant concern for the
public. So, the board should consider all of the objectors exhibits that have been marked here. Um, with regard to the length of these proceedings, um, I just wanted to emphasize that, you know, the the applicant has changed this application over the course of these
hearings. Um, and that has contributed, as one of the members of the public said, the iterative process of this application has cons has contributed to the length these proceedings. Um, there's also been a lot of comment during the course of the public comment regarding RUPA and
fairness. um and the history of this congregation. And I just wanted to mention some of the information that I had put in my letters because I know there's been questions by the board members regarding some of the history of this property. Um I became familiar with this property over 10
years ago. Um in addition to land use, I also work in title litigation. I was working in the title litigation regarding to this property um at one Jefferson. Um and I represented the former owners at 165 Old Short Hills Road. And I can tell you from the the
facts from that title litigation um and it's explained in my letter, but I just want to summarize them here. Um and some of the exhibits I included was the settlement agreement with the township with some of the members of the public also spoke about this evening. Um
there was title t title litigation filed by the owners of 165 old hills road because they wanted to pres prevent the adjoining property one Jefferson from being used as a house of worship um contrary to deed restrictions. was a
residential deed restriction. And even though there was a settlement agreement with the township that restricted the use of one Jefferson, and even though the zoning board of this township denied a D3 conditional use variance for an application for one Jefferson and seven
Jefferson to be combined and used as a house of worship, the applicant continued to operate at the property at one Jefferson in defiance of a 2014 court judgment. And then when that 2014 court judgment was enforced,
um they continued to use the the property as a house of worship. There's also the 2019 settlement agreement with the township that restricted the use of one Jefferson. So it would not be used as a house of worship. So that's the reason why some of the operations from One
Jefferson were moved to other locations in the township. The applicant has now testified before this board that the operations of One Jefferson will be transferred to this property. Considering the settlement agreement that states that One Jefferson is not to be used as a house of worship
and considering the applicant's testimony that One Jefferson is actually being used as a house of worship, but it stipulates that it will return this property to use as a home, this applicant should p should um put reasonable conditions on any approval
for this application. so that there are not two houses of worship operating next door. There should be no extension of house of worship operations from 165 Old Shills Road to One Jefferson. All house of worship operations set forth in the settlement agreement should be
transferred to 165 Old Short Hills Road and not continue at one Jefferson. Once represented zoned as a single family residence and the township zoning board has denied an application for a D3 variance for failure to meet conditional use standards. The township
has an agreement with the applicant that clearly states that one Jefferson will not be used as a house of worship given the history of this matter. The planning board should carefully evaluate evidence. Is our position that the application should be denied for failure to meet conditional use standards and
for failure to meet other township ordinances including stormwater requirements and buffers for this significant change in use. Um, and these standards are reasonable and rational standards that
the township should be should enforce. Thank you very much for hearing me considering my position. Thank you, Mr. Levine. Mr. Chairman, members of the board, uh thank you very much. I do want to thank you for uh your willingness to uh to stick it out this evening. I know it's
not standard operating procedure. um you've all invested a lot of time and effort in these proceedings and I thank you for uh uh hearing this thoroughly, giving everybody their uh due opportunity to be heard and sacrificing some of your additional personal time to do that. So, I do thank you for that. Um
there's been a lot said um more than anyone throughout these proceedings, I've been arguing against duplicative and overly repetitive testimony. So, I promise you I will not be guilty of that myself. Um just very briefly a handful of items that I think do need to be uh
emphasized that may have been uh lost in the wash. Um there seems to be some notion that um having an evolving plan that's responsive to questions and concerns that have been raised by the members of the board and its consultants and and
the neighbors is somehow uh you know a nefarious kind of of operation. and it's, you know, you should just come with a single application and I gets approved or denied. It's in the applicant's interest as well as the board's interest to at the end of the day have a development proposal that's
consistent with the land use ordinances. It's the land use ordinances that the township governing body adopts that sets out the rules of the road. It's an expression of what the powers that be in town have determined advances the public
good, advances the general welfare. Um so continuing efforts to meet those standards should be encouraged and and is a good thing and this applicant throughout this process has done that in in a variety of ways. I mean the whole uh issue that's come up with regard to
the storm water stems from you may recall early on we had a more conventional traditional storm water management plan with above ground basins and there's a great deal of consternation that we were going to lose a lot of mature trees and it was not it's much more impactful and uh the applicant voluntarily undertook a
radical redesign of the storm water plan uh and to put it underground preserving more trees making it less impactful uh more open uh green space and there were you additional studies and tests that had to be done in order to uh to implement that. Um you know we are
proposing a sand filter that's entirely underground that would have shown nothing but a a swale at ground level within 25 ft of the uh property line. It wasn't request that that be removed. We removed it. There were questions and complaints and concerns about a rain garden that we were proposing along the
driveway and whether that's truly a rain garden is we eliminated that. Get rid of the issue. We'll put a a a compliant storm water management uh feature underground. Um replacing the sidewalks along Old Short Hills Road, relocating the trash enclosure. This is as common, as I'm sure all the board members are
very well aware, a standard process in processing and considering and ultimately taking action on an application that at the end of the day results in better development, more more consistent with the township's expression of what constitutes appropriate zoning. uh by having gone
through that process. The applicant has also uh agreed to a host of of conditions that they've stipulated to if uh if this application were to be approved. Uh most of them are itemized at the end of Mr. Pedo's most recent uh review memo
where he kind of summarizes recommended conditions of approval if the if the board were to approve the application. Um these include um agreeing to uh noise testing post installation with regard to the roof mounted HVAC uh system. And if I could
just by way of of clarification and correction, the applicant actually submitted exhibits and renderings showing the uh roof mounted uh HVAC, the screening and that confirming that that uh that equipment would not be visible uh from the ground
located central to the roof and screened as it's as it's proposed on the architectural uh plans. agreeing to limits on hours of uh garbage pickup to nothing earlier than 7 am uh to keep and maintain the six foot screening fence that currently exists on the west edge
of the property. Um putting shielding on all of our uh parking lot lighting to the point where the uh board's engineer has confirmed that it complies with all of the lighting design standards and that also confirms that there will not in fact be any light spillage across the property lines. agreeing to make those
lights dark sky compliant. Um only having uh security lighting on after certain hours. There is not a 24 247 uh light impact that will be uh that will be that will result from this application. Agreed to coordinate with the local police department during the
celebration of high holidays for traffic control uh and security. Um all of those uh conditions agreed to by the applicant. Probably most importantly, the board and certainly Mr.
Warner uh will instruct you appropriately, the board's authority is extremely constrained when you have a conforming, permitted, or conditional use. And I I know for many people that's frustrating. It maybe is counterintuitive, doesn't seem right.
The the cases are very clear as to this. And it people may disagree with it, but that's simply the way that that this land use process works. And those cases were summarized at length. I won't reiterate them here. My May 7th, 2025 letter brief to the board highlights
those cases in detail. Simply speaking, as I said, the ordinance is what is the expression this this is the determination in Milbourne as to what constitutes appropriate development. This board simply is not permitted to substitute its own judgment
for that of the of the governing body as it's expressed in the zoning ordinance. There's this notion if if the applicant complies with conditional use standards and I know the objector's attorney challenges that. Uh if the conditional use standards are
met, this board simply does not have the lawful authority to say, "Well, I don't feel that this fits in with your neighborhood. I don't think that it's appropriate for the neighborhood. I think this is too intense or or uh overly developed site. cases are also
clear that by virtue of making this either a permitted or a conditionally permitted use, there's been a determination by the governing body that um it's appropriate and therefore offsite traffic conditions and perceived
adverse off-site traffic consequences do not form a legitimate basis for uh the board to to fail to approve an application such as this. Um, there was also uh concerns expressed about the architectural design, whether it was appropriate, whether it would fit
in with the area and the neighborhood without specific design, architectural design criteria in the zoning ordinance that would dictate specific standards that an applicant could refer to and understand and follow. just a sub a
subjective notion of what uh an applicant's design of its building should look like again is not a lawful grounds for denying uh an application. Uh and as been has been stated by a few folks here, I think the board should also definitely be mindful that this is
just not a generic non-residential use, right? This is not a widget factory. This is a it's a house of worship that's been identified as a matter of law as an inherently beneficial use. uh our planner um Mr. Ricky had testified that
inherently beneficial uses by definition advance the general welfare in all zoning districts throughout the state of New Jersey and as as has been discussed certainly they're very important and compelling constitutional and first amendment implications here as well.
Um we certainly believe and feel confident that the applicant has demonstrated that of the 12 conditional use standards which include a 25- foot buffer from residential that this uh application has has demonstrated compliance with that. Mr. Pedto and his
uh planning consultants memo certainly agrees. Um, as to this question, this open question of whether or not there is a design waiver that may or may not be required from section 516.3, the applicant's position
initially is that no, that that does not apply and is not required. Um, there's been lots of testimony. In fact, one of the objectors exhibits submitted was the resolution of denial in 2023 from the zoning board of adjustment in that application which I was personally
involved with. excuse me, called for uh a house of worship for the high center uh along Milbourne Avenue with an existing residential use directly adjacent. In that instance, it was le it was less than 25 ft away from
from the property line. This uh a design waiver uh was not identified as having been required for that application. In fact, even in this pending one before the before this board, there was no design waiver identified uh as being required pursuant to section
516.3 until over 6 months into these proceedings. Um and when you when you think about it and apply common um rules of construction and statutory interpretation, if you have on the one hand specific definite conditional use
standards that say a house of worship has to be 25 has there has to be a buffer of 25 ft uh from a residential use. But then also at the same time say well no there's another section of our ordinance where in point of fact
um you can't have any uh development whatsoever within 50 feet of the uh of the adjoining uh residence and there must be a 6ft fence and there must be zigzagged uh landscaping when the conditional use standards only require 25 foot buffer and actually also permit
a parking lot an active functioning parking lot within 20 ft of the property line. Um the spec the the general rule of thumb in terms of statutory construction is the specific uh governs over the general. The specific standards with regard to conditional use should be
governing over the general. Um and again Mr. Ricky had provided testimony as to why this might make sense, why this might be the case. And it's because uh a couple of things. one, he had testified it's in recognition that houses of worship may be less
impactful than many other other non-residential uses where uh a more extensive buffer might be more appropriate or required. He also provided fairly extensive testimony that uh traditionally and historically uh houses of worship have been cited in
residential areas. Presumably, that's part of the reason why the governing body has made them conditionally permitted in a number of residential zones in town. um also uh recognition that they have an inherently bene beneficial use status probably also uh informed that decision. But assuming
even for the moment that a design waiver is required, a couple of important things to understand. It doesn't even rise to the level of a variance. Um the NJSA4055D-51B is what governs uh relief uh granting design waiverss and relief
from design standards. And what you need to look at is whether or not what the what the applicant is proposing is reasonable and within the general purpose and intent of that standard. And certainly the applicant uh maintains that the six-foot fence that
we will repair and maintain and as as a condition of any approval keep along the western property line in addition to the uh substantial evergreen landscaping that we're proposing which we've now also agreed to install at six to 8 to 10 feet in height at planting. uh certainly
is consistent with the general purpose and intent of the standard. And it's also important to appreciate the burden on the applicant is not to completely screen and make invisible uh its development and to have it have be completely imperceptible to the
neighborhood. Even if a variance were required for this, which is clearly not a bulk variance I or D3 variance for that matter, even if a bulk variance were required, the negative criteria as this board is well aware is the applicant would have to demonstrate that there will not be a substantial
impairment of you know impairment of the zone plan and and zoning ordinance and a substantial detriment to the public good. Not that there's none, it have to be substantial. the the the burden the bar is even lower with regard to a a
design waiver. Um the uh not so not only with it being within the general purpose and intent of the standard but also um 55D-51B also talks about uh that fully
complying with the requirement would be impracticable or involve undue or unnecessary hardship. You know, in in this instance, people should remember and understand that this is this is not an excessively or overused site. Um the
building coverage is much much lower than what's uh than what's required. Um 13% is permitted versus 5.83% which is proposed. Um F 25% is permitted versus 14.53% is proposed. and lot coverage.
Although we're certainly very close with lot coverage, we still have taken great pains to make sure that what we propose complies with the lot uh coverage standards in order to have a house of worship that's functional, that meets the needs of the congregation um and and
provides the enough parking that's required, taking in all all the other considerations, there simply is not 50 extra feet of space along that western uh property line to to uh have devoted uh exclusively as a as a buffer. I do
want to remind the board, you know, have the plans right in front of you. There is a 25- ft area that has absolutely no, you know, physical improvements, whatever. No parking, no lighting, uh not even an underground sand filter at this point. Um there is an existing
fence that will remain. There's dense evergreen landscaping that's proposed. Um, if that existing fence were to be pulled back five feet, which is one of the aspects of the buffer as it's defined in 6093, our plans clearly show that that
would interfere with existing mature tree growth that the applicant is trying to preserve, which everyone certainly the neighbors and the board is generally in favor of of of trying to preserve. So even assuming that a design waiver would be required uh for that certainly
the applicant uh feels that uh that a waiver of that sort would be more than justified. Um finally someone said earlier and I I I couldn't agree more. I think there's there's really an opportunity here for this board. Uh an opportunity uh to end
this saga that we've all and it's not it's it's a sad story and it's involved this congregation and folks here in town and it stretches over many decades. Uh it's an opportunity to end some of the acrimony. Um, it's an opportunity to say yes to your neighbors, your fellow
community members, longstanding members who who have come before you and and shared their their shared experiences. It's an opportunity to further the goal of the master plan, which is to recognize and encourage township organizations and activities that
strengthen business and social networks. It's an opportunity to further the purpose of the zoning ordinance, which is to foster development of the township in a manner which will promote the public health safety, morals, and general welfare, as this faith community will certainly do
by proposing a house of worship. There's also a sober reality here, and we've heard a lot about it this evening over the course of of several hours. There's been years of fighting. There's been years of litigation and depositions and legal fees. You know, these folks, they they
just want to worship and celebrate their faith together here in Milbour. They have demonstrated a dogged pursuit for several years to do just that. And they've they've shown their commitment. They've shown their faith. They've shown their determination before you this
evening. That's not going to stop. They are determined. They have the resources and and they will they will persist and this sad saga may continue. And if we can't agree on this plan, this
is not an Isanic zoning board of adjustment plan. If we can't agree on this plan and instead take the position and an inconsistent one in my view that somehow this 50-foot buffer is required and then further take the position that
what's being uh proposed and offered is not satisfactory. It has to be 50. It can't be 25. And you can't have a screening fence on the property line. It must be pulled 5 ft back from the property line. And you can't just have landscaping behind the
fence. You got to have landscaping in front of the fence, too. And we like zigzag plantings. So the plantings you're proposing, they have to be zigzag. They can't be straight. If that's the position that the board ins uh insists on taking, then I I believe
this board will lose. This board will lose. And I take no pleasure in that. And I believe the town will lose. And after discovery and depositions and document production and legal fees, at the end of the day, there may be a house of worship
here. But in many ways, I believe the applicant will have lost also because they never will have gotten an official yes from this town. They will never have received a yes. You are welcome to add your house of worship here in our town.
They will never have received a yes that you can worship and learn and celebrate in a new facility that meets your needs. Yes, you have done enough under the purposes of your zoning ordinance. It aspires to be a Milbourne
aspires to be a small suburb of the highest quality. So please, I would urge this board to take action befitting a small suburb of the highest quality and approve this application. Thank you, Mr. Lavine.
Um, Mr. Chairman, if you wish before opening up to the board for deliberation and vote, uh I can just uh go over hopefully relatively briefly what the relief is that the applicant is seeking if that would uh be a benefit to the
board members. Please, the uh first of all, the applicant is seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval. Uh the applicant is seeking conforming conditional use approval.
Uh our planner uh has in his planning report number three, May 6, 2025 uh for several pages 2, three, four, well no two and three, excuse me, uh has explained in detail why he concludes uh
that the buffer standards set forth in the conditional use ordinance is satisfied. And this is not a application requiring a D3 uh uh uh variance from the zoning board of adjustment, but that this board
has jurisdiction. Um, I may not do it justice, but essentially it is pursu and pursuant to section 67A of the municipal land use law, a zoning ordinance may provide for conditional uses to be granted by the planning board according
to definite specifications and standards which shall clearly set forth with sufficient certainty and definitess to enable the developer to know their limit and extent. And when he has viewed those 12
conditional use standards, including specifically uh section 609, uh he has determined that and he can correct me if I'm wrong, uh that that 25 ft standard uh is satisfied by the
applicant and that they have a conforming conditional use application before this board. Hence the notice would be sufficient for jurisdictional purposes. Uh I would advise that while the applicant subsequently added and supplemented to that notice uh that was
not proof of a deficiency in the original notice uh by referencing if I recall correctly the daycare uh and uh the board planner has determined that that is uh accessory uh to the uh house of worship use which is under the law an
inherently beneficial use. Uh the um our planner has also determined that in addition to the site plan relief and the conforming conditional use relief, there is design waiver relief required from
sections 56 well section 516.3 and 8. with respect to that 50-foot buffer and various items that are required uh to either be within that buffer or be outside of that buffer. Uh and I my
understanding is he has determined that that design waiver is required of the applicant. Correct Graeme? So the relief sought is a not a fully conforming preliminary and final major site plan
approval but one that uh has one design waiver requirement with respect to that buffer requirement. The standard is 51B. It was accurately cited by applicants council. It's a reasonable or impracticality impracticable type
standard and uh I'm not going to get into the reasons why you've heard arguments on both sides. you'll make that determination as to whether the burden of proof was met or not. Uh with respect to a conforming conditional use, uh the applicant is
correct that there are uh there's a fairly limited uh uh uh uh jurisdiction that the board has over such a use. If indeed it is fully conforming, our planners analysis in my opinion is
reasonable. uh it I am not saying what the planning analysis is. I am saying his planning analysis is reasonable and a reasonable interpretation of the MLUL provision 67 and the uh applicable ordinances to make the determination
that the buffer is uh standard in the conditional use ordinance is satisfied and thus this board has the jurisdiction and it's a conforming conditional use and I believe it's also reasonable his determination uh as the planner for this
board that a design waiver is required ired. In addition to that, it is the 51B standard. So that is the relief sought preliminary and final major site plan approval conforming conditional use and one design waiver under section
516.3 and8 with respect to the 50-ft buffer. Uh as mentioned, if it's a conforming conditional use, there's very limited planning board discretion for such a use. It's a permitted use. uh and in essence the applicant the the role of
the planning board is as gatekeeper to confirm that it is in fact a conforming conditional use. If you make that determination they've effectively satisfied the obligation with respect to that conforming conditional use. The site plan approval even if there were
not a waiver uh is also a limited jurisdiction that this planning board has. However, it has some jurisdiction uh and that jurisdiction is while you cannot consider offsite if it were fully conforming off-site traffic conditions
uh you can and this is what we call the Dunkin Donuts doctrine under the Dunkin Donuts case and and its progeny you can consider sight circulation and ingress and egress and particularly safety associated therewith in making a
determination even if it were a fully conforming site plan whether or not the applicant has met their burden of proof with respect to same and as I mentioned here there is it's not fully conforming to the extent that there is this buffer requirement under section 516 which is
clearly as interpreted by the planning board uh uh planner and in my estimation a reasonable interpretation it is a design waiver standard not a conditional use standard. the um I've already mentioned why I believe
the notice was and continues to be uh sufficient uh and the board always had jurisdiction to hear and decide this application and still does and I'm trying to address some of the other legal issues that were
raised uh with respect to deed restrictions. Uh first of all uh there have been arguments made that there is no prohibition against the house of worship visa on this particular site visa v those deed restrictions but more importantly
uh any potential restriction whether it exists or not is not the jurisdiction of this board. If you find that the burden of proof has been met to meet uh the uh preliminary and final major site plan conforming conditional use and design
the one design waiver uh that is a condition of approval. If indeed there is a deed restriction that may or may not be applicable that's either for the parties to that deed restriction to resolve contractually amongst themselves or for a court of law because we're
quasi judicial but we're not judicial. we don't decide those issues uh then a body a court of law would would decide that issue to the extent a court of law has not already decided that issue. So just like any sub uh other agency approval that would uh be a requirement
uh for any applicant to satisfy or or any law or regulation uh uh for any applicant to satisfy if they receive your approval uh on any application that is a condition of approval to be resolved by them not to be resolved by
this board. It's outside our jurisdiction. If I recall correctly, the case Klein, K L I N E versus Burning Burnersville, uh uh is one case that stands for that proposition. Um I think those are essentially all the
legal issues uh that have been raised and I wanted to provide some benefit uh uh uh with respect to same uh if indeed the board it's a majority for passage uh it's been brought to my attention that while it may look as if we have nine
board members who can vote this evening uh regrettably we have eight Uh um the uh our board member to my immediate left uh uh has informed me that there was a problem with the audio in the recording uh for the last hearing that he did his
best to qualify himself to vote for this evening but was not able to do so. Uh so we do not have nine, we have eight. Uh it is a majority uh for passage. Uh, so obviously that would be at least five
out of the eight qualified board members who can vote this evening. Are there any other questions of me? Yeah, I have a question. Can you just review the standards for approving or denying a design waiver? Sure. It's 51B
uh a design waiver and Mr. Pedto can weigh in uh uh because he does this as well. It's a fine line between law and planning when you get to the criteria. Um but uh the standard under 51B first of all
you have devariances. Then below them if you will you have bulk variances. It's a lower standard. The lowest standard for the the three types of deviations are design waiverss or site plan exceptions. So this has not quite rise to the level
of a C1 undue hardship or C2 benefits substantially outweigh the detriments type bulk variance that you're more used to perhaps. Um but the standard for design waiver is set forth in 51B uh with respect to site plan approvals. Uh
and it is uh the board has the power to grant such waiverss or exceptions as may be reasonable. You decide what's reasonable. uh and within the general purpose and intent of the provisions for site plan review and approval of an
ordinance uh adopted pursuant to this article, the MLU, if the literal enforcement literal enforcement of one or more provisions of the ordinance is impracticable or will exact undue
hardship because of peculiar conditions pertaining to the land in question. It sounds a little bit, as you know, like part of the positive criteria for C1 undue hardship variance, but not quite
the entirety of it. And uh there is no negative criteria. The negative criteria being no substantial detriment to the public good, no substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. That does not come into the analysis.
So uh uh that is the standard for the design waiver. Uh and and Graham, I'd have to ask you if you want if the board needs to hear exactly what extent you've concluded that design waiver uh uh uh to be a deviate well I should say the plan
to be a deviation from that design waiver. I know there's uh the fencing the uh uh uh the plantings are are not entirely compliant. Yes. Oh, he needs a mic. Um, yes. So, as I've indicated in
my memo dated from uh May 6th, um the buffer standard contained within 516.3 requires that all parking and loading all loading areas and parking lot shall be buffered from adjoining streets, existing residential uses and residential zoning districts in accordance with section section
609.3. Um and I indicate that the applicant as the application as presented does not comply with 609.3A which requires a 50oot buffer. However, the standard is distinct and apart from the conditional use standard uh in DRZ 606.2. 2.D.1 which requires a minimum 25 foot buffer. So we have a difference in
uh numeric uh requirements for the buffer standard. Um and then in addition the applicant requires a design waiver for um 609.3b which requires that fencing installed within the buffer area shall be set back from the property line at least 5 ft and landscape training shall
be provided between the fence and the property line abuing the residential user zone. Um the applicant proposes to maintain the existing fence in its location along the property line. Um, and I believe that Mr. Lavine indicated in some summary comments that um, there are some existing trees or mature trees
in that location that may inhibit the ability to relocate that fence uh, 5T from the property line. Um, so those are things for the board to consider. And as I understand it, Graham, you're considering that one design waiver, albeit perhaps it's a 1A and 1B com.
That's correct. For those of us who have OCD. Okay. Uh so is it correct that we would we would first have to make a determination on the conditional use and then if approved the design waiver? Well, you
look at the application as a whole. Uh uh you've you've heard competing versions from the experts obviously for the applicant and the and the objector. You've heard your planning advice from our planner. You've heard our engineering advice from our engineer uh independent uh uh uh for the board.
Um the application is presented as a whole. It should be considered as a whole and only one vote in my opinion. Uh and it should either be a motion to grant preliminary and final major site plan approval and a conforming conditional use and the design waiver
with all the conditions stipulated to uh or in the alternative a motion to deny. Uh it should not be broken up. Um in the context of your discussions, if somebody uh thinks that uh uh there
is a conditional use uh condition that is violated from you should discuss you should discuss it. uh but uh I don't want to say too much uh other than what the lawyers and uh what the experts uh have have testified to in their
respective positions and our independent board experts have testified to. So, so I guess the question though is what if we did break it up? And I know you just said you didn't want to do that, but what if we believe that the
the conditional standard use the the 12 conditions have been met. However, we're not willing to grant that design waiver. Well, that's then it's a it when you deliberate, you explain why your vote is a yes or a no. uh but
uh it should be one one vote or else uh bifurcating it and and and and and leads to problems. But that can be a condition of approval. We approve this based on that we don't wave the design.
it the if you have to determine whether this is a conforming conditional use uh as per the testimony you have to determine uh whether a design waiver is necessary or not uh and if you determine it's a conforming conditional use uh and a
design waiver is not necessary then it's just a a fully conforming site plan on a conditional use. If you decide it's a a condition conforming conditional use and there is a design waiver, then it's fully conforming. But for that one design waiver, you have to decide it. Um, but
uh they have to have met the burden of proof for all the relief that you determine is required. So, can I just ask I before it gets too late and I'm getting really really tired. I have a well, it's probably a 4-minute statement that I'd like to read uh for the board.
Um before we continue with the deliberations. Is that acceptable to the chairman? Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. It's a prepared statement, but this is not prepared. I want to just say that uh you know a house of worship is deemed to
be legally a beneficial use and I think it's clear from the testimony from the congregation tonight that it's a lot more than legally a beneficial use. It's clearly a beneficial use. I just want to put that out there. That's not part of my prepared statement. So uh this application seeks
approval for a house of worship in the R3 residential zone which is permitted only as a conditional use. One of the mandatory conditions under 6062D1 that governs the conditional uses is that a 25- foot buffer be provided to any adjacent residential use or zone.
However, the term buffer is not defined anywhere in the township zoning ordinance, not in 6062, not in the general definitions, not elsewhere. That leaves it to this board to interpret what a buffer must do, not just what it must measure. Fortunately, the ordinance does
offer us some guidance here. 609.3, which governs buffer areas in commercial and office zones that are but residential zones, provides the township's clearest articulation of what a buffer is intended to accomplish. It states in 6093C, quote, "In the remaining buffer
area, a solid and continuous landscape screen shall be planted and properly maintained to conceal the parking area, eliminate eliminate the glare of automobile lights throughout the year, and screen the building from the abuing residential areas. And
609.3E confirms that the approving authority which is us may consider the effectiveness of existing vegetation in providing the designed screening and may consider other factors which may alter the design of the buffer. While 609.3 does not formally
apply to conditional uses in the R3 zone, its principles are both relevant and necessary. This section reflects the township's own policy judgment about what buffers are meant to accomplish. It is therefore an appropriate and reasonable guide for interpreting the buffer requirement in
6062D1J. With that standard in mind, screening, glare elimination, and protection of residential neighbors, we can evaluate the applicant's response. The applicant has made multiple revisions to the proposed buffer over the course of several hearings, but none of these revisions satisfy the
functional requirement. At the outset, the applicant declined to quote touch the fence unquote on the western boundary despite that being the only physical separation between the parking lot and adjacent homes. They later agreed to repair the fence, but explicitly rejected the standard set out
in 609.3, claiming they were inapplicable. Eventually, the applicants submitted a revised landscaping plan, but this was peacemeal and reactive. It never directly addressed the functional goals outlined in 609.3C. The proposal fails to eliminate
headlight glare, does not establish a continuous and effective visual screen, and does not mitigate the visual intrusion of the parking lot or building. The applicant's engineer testified that the boundary fence would block automobile headlights, but this claim is contradicted by the site's topography. The parking area is elevated
above the adjacent residential properties, meaning automobile lights will shine over any fence installed at the lower boundary line. Some board members have suggested installing a second fence closer to the parking area at a higher elevation which would actually mitigate this impact. The
applicant declined to pursue that approach. We are told that any remaining deficiencies may be addressed through a quote design waiver, but that misunderstands the scope of our authority in my opinion. While some design details might be waveable under certain conditions, such as the spacing between trees, the type of evergreen
used, or the material of the fence, the underlying purpose of the buffer, which is to screen the parking lot, eliminate glare, and protect residential properties, cannot be waved. That is a mandatory condition of the conditional use. This application does not meet that condition. The applicant has also
suggested that other commercial developments abuing residential zones lack buffers, but those examples are almost certainly grandfathered under prior ordinances. The fact that older developments were built before current standards were adopted does not excuse new applications from complying with the
law as it stands today. The buffer as proposed does not function as a buffer. And crucially, the applicant has not argued and the record does not suggest that compliance with the buffer requirement would burden the applicant's religious exercise. There is no Arl Looper issue here. This is a straightforward zoning case, a
non-residential use next to single family homes and a proposal that fails to provide the protection that the ordinance requires. If we approve this application, we effectively declare that the word buffer means little more than a 25t setback with some plantings. That would set a dangerous precedent, gutting
a key protective standard and inviting future applicants to do the same. For these reasons, I will vote to deny the application. If the application applicant wishes to proceed, I believe they should return with a plan that meaningfully satisfies the buff buffer condition and addresses the legitimate and wellfounded concerns of the
neighboring residents. Thank you. I concur uh with the statement we just heard from Jonathan. Um throughout this process, there have been individuals that have said this is a fully conforming application. They say it again and again. That doesn't make it
true. The truth is this is not a fully conforming application. It does not satisfy the buffer requirements and I don't believe it satisfies the storm water requirements as we've heard testimony tonight that inadequate testing was done. There were parts of the storm
water control system where they didn't do any borings. They completely left out the middle and as we've heard testimony there they are indeed three separate systems. Now we have
extended every every every latitude. We have we have gone above and beyond and we have bent over backwards to accommodate this application. I cannot remember another application uh before this planning board that has been allowed to go through so many revisions
and that's made it very complicated because what happens is something comes up they make a revision but then members of the public can't go back and and question the original testimony of the experts uh you know in in light of the revisions that were made. So, you know,
I I I think that this has been problematic from the get-go. Uh, and I I think that we should not have allowed it to go on as we have. Uh, I also have serious concerns about the um accuracy and efficacy of the
professionals that are supposed to be working on behalf of this board. Um, it if it wasn't for if it wasn't for the objector's expert, we may never have found out
about the numerous issues and deficiencies within this application. And while they may have tried to correct some of them, there are major issues that remain. The buffer requirement is not satisfied. Therefore, uh that in conjunction with
the storm water requirements issue, I think makes this uh an application that should be denied. Furthermore, I don't think that this is something that can be remedied by adding additional conditions. We've heard testimony and there's evidence uh in place that makes
me question the credibility of the applicant. Um, I have grave concerns that if we put conditions on this application, they may get agreed to, but I don't know that they're going to be followed. We have seen evidence and
we've heard testimony that this applicant has violated settlement agreements. We have received evidence that suggests that. So, I just don't think this is an application that can be cured by imposing additional conditions.
I don't think the application is com it it it's not fully conforming and that's what we have to vote on. This is not about religion. I I really like it. The stories that we heard tonight do tug at the heartstrings. Yes, this group of
individuals should be able to build a synagogue and and worship as they see fit in town. The thing is throughout the years, every time they've tried to do this, they have never presented a fully conforming application. They've had opportunities
to do so. They had an perfect opportunity to do so here. If they had shrunk the size of the building, I think they would have a lot less problems, uh, but no, they chose to maximize lot coverage and they chose not to follow the buffers and they chose not to comply with the storm water management
requirements. So for all of these reasons, I think we need to deny this application and uh you know, if they want to come back with another application that's fully conforming, we can consider it. Then I want to start off my comments by saying uh I am a Jew I am Jewish. I am a
staunch staunch supporter of my faith and Israel, but I don't think this has anything to do about religion. I think the people who are opposed to this application are opposed to it because of the practical implications it has on
their lives and their houses. That being said, I think the conditional use ordinance is clear. It outlines 12 conditions to be a conditional use. The only really relevant one here that we're debating is the
buffer. 6062DJ outlines that there must be a minimum buffer of 25 ft to a residential area. The term buffer is not defined in our in the township's regulations. It is a lowercase buffer.
It does not include any cross reference to any other sections in the regulations like other conditions actually do. If the township wanted to use the definition of buffer and the description of buffer in 609, it could have cross
referenced like it has in other parts. Therefore, I do not think that 609 applies and that while I personally disagree that 25 ft is sufficient in this instance and I do wish that the
applicant had instead of agreeing to fix a dilapidated fence if you drive by it is very dilapidated and just sp you know the the applicant did did comment that they have the resources to fight this. Well, if you have the resources to fight
this, why just appease your neighbors and put a new fence up? That's a lot less cost than litigation. Having said that, I still think that they are unfortunately in compliance with the statute. I don't think that the issue is
or I should say I think the issue is the statute unfortunately and on this board I am compelled to interpret that statute and and as it stands I do think it it com complies with the statute while I disagree and wish that the applicant was
more conforming and I use that term conforming to the wishes and thoughts of their neighbors I do think it's a conforming application By the way, one just one very brief comment. I'm sorry I'm butting in here. I think we can I I separate the 50ft issue out that we had
plenty of testimony that if the definition of buffer applies, the 50 foot doesn't apply. So that's not an issue here. The real issue is what's in the 25 ft. And I completely concur. If you have the resources to fight to the death, you're really fighting to the death over putting something in there
that's going to satisfy the intent of 609.3. That's what you're fighting to the death over. It doesn't make any sense to me. So I don't have anything in writing to say but during the whole evening today I was feeling
very attack because everybody was saying that if we don't approve this is against your religion. This is is an act of discrimination. I moved to this town. I'm part of a minority group too and I
always was very welcome. My kids go to the school and we are very welcome. Most of my neighbors are Jewish people who moved to this town because other towns there was um aggression between with
them and they moved here and they were feeling very safe. So but today here I said oh maybe I move to the wrong town and I heard people in favor of this application saying this is for the
community. This is for coercive for community for inclusion. I'm sorry but you divided the community today because if we don't approve this we are the bad people. This is how I feel. This is very personal. I don't know if I can say that but this is personal. This is not just
as a board member as a neighbor I feel attack today. For me, the biggest issue here is I don't know who I should trust about the I'm not an expert on storm water management. We have two different
opinions and of course we have our engineer from the town that we should trust but also I should trust the other engineer. Why I cannot trust the other engineer? The other engineer said you shouldn't approve this because this is
going to be problem for the future. So now I don't know what to do. I don't know if we should approve it. I don't know if we shouldn't approve it. So I'm very confused and I don't know. I hope to hear everybody else to to see if I
can make a decision. So I think it's very interesting what you just said where we you don't know whether you should or you shouldn't approve it. And part of the responsibility of the applicant is the burden of proof. If if you're in a point where
you're not sure, they haven't met the burden of proof. They haven't proved their case. So I think the answer is clear there. In absence of that, all other things being equal, I think you have to ask yourself, did they meet the burden of proof? Did
they adequately convince this body uh with their testimony and their experts that this should be approved? And it sounds like there are still outstanding questions, their outstanding buffer issues. Uh I don't think they've met the burden of proof and we've heard testimony consistent with that.
Also, I want to add one more thing. Uh we are talking about the house of worship which of course we should have a house of worship in our residential neighborhood because people needs to walk to those places. But when I asked in one of my first meeting here are you
going to have a sidewalk on on you are going to have one on all short hills road but not on the other one. So it's it's a contradiction. you want people to walk but you you are not willing to provide a sidewalk which is safety and I said at the beginning and the attorney
said we are not going to do that so that's also a contradiction that I feel about community residential neighborhood but you are not willing to work with the community as here he said how much cost to move the fence nothing you are
spending a fortune here I know how much money you are spending because I work planning boards all the time. But you are not willing to move a fence. You're not willing to build a sidewalk for your community. I'm not talking about me. I'm living far from that area for your own
community so they can walk to your house of worship. So that's also I don't know something that bothers me a little. I think regarding the the burden of proof uh and and Steve you could you can
reiterate what that is but we're not in a criminal proceeding so it's not beyond a reasonable doubt. Um so just something else to consider when when you're we do have they have to satisfy a burden of proof but we also have to consider what that burden of proof is in this particular instance
standard was provided and yeah the applicant's burden of proof it's it's not beyond a reasonable doubt but certainly a prepoundonderance of the evidence so I asked not balance probability so so I asked my question about the
design waiver because I I think I think that's what a lot of this turns on. You know, I do believe that it is a it is a conforming application and I can even understand that it's it's confusing because it's in two different places whether it's 25 ft or 50 ft. But the
fact that that the fence that they refuse to move, which is clear-cut and requires a design waiver, I don't see why we need to grant that. I mean, there are mature trees. they've knocked down plenty of mature trees and they can replace them on on both sides of the
fence like it like it says you're supposed to do and there's no willingness to do that. And that's why I asked if that sinks the whole thing and Mr. Warner said that it does. So that's the way I have to vote. Well, I would just go one step further too because I think the intent of the buffer is more
than just moving the fence 5 feet or doing this and that. And you could argue that moving the fence 5 ft could be subject to a design waiver if it was impractical, but the intent which is to block the glare and the other requirements in 6093C uh are still not met. So I think
whether one piece of it or not is a design waiver, but it's not impractical to move the fence. You could No, no, I agree. I agree it is practical. But I'm even saying even if it wasn't, it's the difference between a cosmetic thing and and you know avoiding a cosmetic thing and and the intent of the thing which we can't really avoid.
because we're not being fair to the neighbors if we do that right. I agree 100% with what's being said. Um good things is okay. Did they prove traffic? Traffic I think there's no way of getting around
it. It's not a great street to begin with. So adding more in it's not you can't do anything about it. It is what it is. Uh, storm water. I have my concerns with storm water. I am an engineer. Uh, I don't like it that we
already have problems. We're adding into it. We've had the storm water design change. Uh, it's increased the flow outflow in this last re rendition. Um, there's still a question
out as to whether or not the sand filter is allowable by the D. was brought up by the green commission or the environmental commission. Um, and we've heard two different answers on that. Uh, yeah, again, the the borings
to make sure that the storm water is going to work, spend the extra couple dollars, you know, instead of going to litigation on whether or not it's going to work later on. Should have happened. the buffer very simple to comply even if you know even if it's not required the
intent everybody knows the intent and you're trying to be a good member of the community for the little extra money again I think it should be done um conditional use I I don't I don't have a problem with that I think they
meet meet all those right outside of the buffer but as far as the 25 foot what I think is important there that takes precedence over the 50 foot that's met. It's it's the safety u and yeah the the storm water. Let's say we do have a
problem. The manhole the manhole does start overflowing resurging and that would cause a traffic problem. That's that can't happen. All right. So that needs to be thoroughly vetted before that actually happens.
Um, and I don't think it is an undue hardship and I don't think it is impracticable to do the things we're asking to get them fully compliant site plan. That's where I stand also on the on the traffic. Um, so Mr. Warner
pointed out what we can and cannot consider with regards to the traffic and I think what he said we could consider is the site circulation and the ingress and the egress. And I do believe the way that it's structured now, the ingress and egress are going to have negative
externalities and cause problems on Old Short Hills Road. Um I have concerns if someone exiting park is taking a left and someone exiting uh the driveway is trying to take a left. There's no traffic signal there. Um I was recently at an intersection that was similar and
someone tried to take a left and I was about to take a left and realized I can't do that because I would collide with the other car. Um so I I do think that there are issues with the ingress and egress. I think it will cause a danger uh in an already dangerous road. Uh so I think that you know needs to get
considered as well because we are allowed to consider that. Just explain one more time. explain one more time about how we we can say it's conforming but not give the design waiver somehow.
The the with the chair's permission they're two separate items. Uh they're two separate items. Uh the if you determine uh as our planner has determined that a design waiver is required that is a separate item of
relief. So even if you find that it's a fully conforming conditional use and even if you found it was a fully conforming site plan otherwise uh and and uh even if you did not have the concerns that you are allowed to have and the jurisdiction you're allowed to
have with respect to site circulation and ingress and egress. Even with all of those things, they still have to separately and independently establish an entitlement to its design waiver for
516.3 and point8 uh that buffer requirement. Uh and that is that 51B impracticable or undo hardship type standard. So that is how you can do that that is why it is and how it is separate.
And it is true applicant has the burden of proof uh as to all items of relief. Um I'd like to uh say the applicant has not submitted a site plan
that is compliant with storm water management. the buffer. We, you know, we could go on, but to me, this application and it, to me, it is not
complete without this site plan. And we've gotten variations and versions and revisions and all this other stuff. But what we haven't got gotten is actually what are they doing and what are they not doing? and the
storm water to me um the storm water management I'm yet proof that um you know it's been resolved so I have a question so the storm water management that many of us
feel that doesn't comply is part of one of those conditions that they have to comply as a condition of Where is that in this? As I it's not a conditional use standard. Uh and and Mr.
Pedle can weigh in as well, but uh a feasible storm water management system uh uh is something that the board can consider in the context of a site plan application irrespective of uh uh any
variance relief or design waiver. the uh there are certain items in a site plan application for general welfare safety that can be considered and and they have to be able to have a compliant storm water management system and to be able to establish that to you.
Um whether they did or not, uh that's up to you to determine from the evidence you heard. You heard one expert engineer said they did. One expert engineer said they didn't. uh and and a third or independent engineer concurred effect essentially as I understood it with the
applicant's engineer. So, but it is a it is a uh it is a component of a uh even a fully conforming site plan application that needs to be established, I guess, is the best way to put it. Graham, would you concur or feel free to disagree?
I concur with your assessment. So, So with regard to the storm water management, um I did have reservations and concerns uh that at after probably the 10th
meeting we had, we learned that there were actual concerns with the storm water system and that um our engineer had to take a new look at it. But now they they've the applicant has done a lot more boring and yes they
have not done boring in the middle section. Um we have been in informed that part of the process is that when the town goes out to do an inspection before any systems are put in the ground if there is an issue
with if there is an issue with the water table in that particular spot then the town won't approve it and the site that and the engineering plan would have to be rectified. So between the extra boring findings that they had and the system and the fail safe of having our
inspector on site I comfortable with the storm water um system just to add to that I I think I'm too as it stands just based on the profiles I don't know what's going on with this mic
but I can 13 or two. So moved. Where are we? I can't see 2:00. I think we're make a motion. Everybody, everybody, everybody, everybody in the audience, can you
please quiet down? Our court reporters reporters having issues hearing. No, we we have our motion. So, uh, please continue and complete your deliberations in your vote. Unless anyone else has anything further
to say, I make a motion to deny this application. Um, for all the reasons that have been stated forth during our deliberations, um, I I think this should be denied at this point.
A second. Roll call, please. A roll call vote. Why? Uh I don't know yet. Yes. Yeah. I I don't agree. I'm sorry. I don't agree with the
motion. No. So you're voting no. No on the motion. on the motion to deny. Yes. Yes. On the motion to deny. Just again, a yes is a is a is a deny and no is it not?
Yes. Motion to deny. Yes. Corey Biller. I think it is conforming application, but I do not agree with the design waiver. So, which says that yes, that's they have to
get them all. Okay. Jonathan Baxter. Yes. Gonert. Yes. Or Master P. I think you have enough votes. You don't need me. I do need you. I need So,
yes. That's a motion carries. Yeah. 7 to one. Motion to deny carries. The matter is closed. I don't know if Yeah, if you want. You're welcome to it if you want. No, but come on.
Yes. It's a pleasure. It's been a long ride. Mom, what do we have to do? Fuel fuel. The uh