Mayor. Good. All right. Good evening, Springfield. Welcome to the April 16th Township of Springfield Planning Board meeting. Adequate notice has been given in accordance with the sunshine laws. notice was published on March 13, 2026 in the township of Springfield official
website of Springfield-J. us. >> Let's do a salute to the flag. That's new. >> No more of the stands nationy
andice for all. Can we have a roll call, please? >> Mayor Harris Loer, >> present. >> Deputy Mayor Alex Kaiser. >> Mr. David Barnett, >> committeeman David Barnett, I mean, is
here. Yeah. >> Commissioner David Barnett is here. >> Okay. >> Mr. Richard Cedarquist >> here. >> Mr. Scott Wishna >> here. >> Miss Julie Tameo >> here. >> Uh, Mr. Kevin Ferraro, Mr. Kenneth Korn,
Vice Chair Aaron Laugher, >> and Chairman Jeff Tiger >> here. Yes, >> we have a quum. >> So, for the record, um, uh, Deputy Mayor Alex Kaiser and, uh, Ken Kor have excused absences. Um, our alternate one
does not, for the record, >> for our attendance policy. Okay. So, um, let's just we'll just go with the application since everyone's here. So, uh, the first application we're going to have is Congregation of Israel of Springfield INC 2-2020S,
339 Mountain Avenue, block 1801, lots 39 and 36. This is for uh a major subdivision. Um, if you want to come up, Mr. Disco, I know we talked about this this afternoon. We talked about this this afternoon. if
you just want to give the board a little high level overview of what what it is and that went to the property and then we'll let council take it from there. >> Sure. I'm sure the board members recall that congregation Israel was before for a subdivision and a major subdivision site plan before for the expansion of
the temple building structure and a new parking lot. The application tonight takes their property that's on pit road and dedicates an 18t deep by the width of the property parcel to the temple property or synagogue property part
proper. Uh Miss Herelic I'm sure will say that it is for play area for the children and >> she wasn't going to do that last meeting. >> Counselor, >> can you please instruct your client not to? We're not going to interrupt the
meeting. >> The subdivision um from a zoning perspective does not create any variances on the residential property on Pit Road and nor does it exacerbate anything on the Temple Synagogue proper property. I hope that suffices for the
introduction. Yeah. >> So, it's it's it's conforming. It's just existing variances. >> There's existing nonconformities on the synagogue property. um because they are gaining lot area and
there's no improvements other than the relocated shed. The coverages don't ex get exacerbated. In fact, they go down on the pit road property. The subdivision would have created a lot coverage variance. The applicant has
elected to remove lot coverage elements, patios to make that a conforming number. So there's no variances created by the reduced lot area on the pit road property. >> Okay. Councelor.
>> Thank you. Clara Herelic appearing on behalf of the applicant owner Congregation Israel Springfield Inc. The applicant is seeking seeking major subdivision approval with no variances requested to adjust the rear lot line at 18 pit road
block 1801 lot 39. a single family home owned by the applicant to create a play area for the adjoining property at 339 Mountain Avenue, block 1801, lot 36, the location of an Orthodox Jewish synagogue
known as Congregation Israel of Springfield, owned by the applicant. Both properties are in the S60 zone. The applicant owner house of worship is a permitted use in the S60 zone as is the applicant owner single family home. Both
properties were part of a previous application 9 2024s for preliminary and final site plan approval with variances and waivers and the consolidation approval in connection with a new construction
addition to expand the existing synagogue building and parking lot. and it was for a minor subdivision to adjust the rear lot line at 18 Pit Road to even out the property line for the synagogue expansion. All the previous approvals in
connection with application 9, 2024s were memorialized in a resolution dated November 7, 2024. The consolidation deed and the minor subdivision deed were both duly recorded in the Union County deed
registry on September 26, 2025. Subsequently, there was a modification of a condition of an approval related to 18 pit road which was memorialized by resolution on January 12th, 2026.
The reason this application is considered a major subdivision instead of a minor subdivision is because pursuant to the Springfield land use ordinance, any subdivision which involves a lot which was previously approved as a minor subdivision within a
three-year period prior to the application for another minor subdivision shall be classified as a major subdivision. As to lot 39, 18 Pit Road, the single family home lot following the major
subdivision, lot 39 remains compliant as to lot area, lot depth, rear yard setback, building coverage, and lot coverage, and all the pre-existing non-conforming conditions remain unchanged.
No variances are being requested. As to lot 36, 339 Mountain Avenue, the synagogue lot, following the major subdivision, lot 36 remains compliant as approved in accordance with the memorialized resolution for application
9 2024-S. The major subdivision improves lot 36 as to lot area, building coverage, and lot coverage. Again, no variances are being requested.
I will leave the engineer to testify as to the specifics for each lot under section 3514 schedule of zoning limitations of the land use ordinance of the township of Springfield in connection with the major subdivision. I will leave the planner to testify as to the planning
justifications for the major subdivision. Also, both will address the review letters from the township engineer Michael Disco and the township planner Michael Mesta. In addition, I will have the co-president from the synagogue testify
as to the need for the major subdivision to create the play area for the children. Before hearing the testimony of those I just mentioned, it should be noted that the single family home at 18 Pit Road is designated as the residence
for the synagogue's youth directors. The previous youth directors, a husband and wife, did not complete their contract of employment with the synagogue and as a result had to move out of the house. Accordingly, the house is currently
vacant. The current youth directors, a husband and wife, have their own home. They are the interim youth directors. A new contract is in the process of being signed for new youth directors, a husband and wife with three children who
are expected to move into the house in July 2026. As to the proposed play area, it is only used on the Sabbath, Saturday mornings, for approximately two hours, and on Jewish holidays. There are eight days of
Jewish holidays when the play area would be used and even less if a holiday overlaps with the Sabbath. For all holidays except the high holidays, the time of use is the same as on the Sabbath. Unless a Jewish holiday
falls on a weekday, the play area is not in use during the week. It is also not in use during inclement weather. The number of children using the play area is limited by age. Further, due to religious restrictions, electronics cannot be used on the Sabbath or
holidays. So, there are no music or video games being played, no movies being shown, and no loudspeakers or cell phones in use. The specifics will be set forth by the synagogue co-president in his testimony. It is very important to
note that the synagogue does not have a daycare, nursery school, or religious school. Appearing and testifying on behalf of the applicant this evening will be the following people in order of appearance. Dr. Josh Smileo, co-president of
Congregation Israel Springfield. Danielle Leser of Dynamic Engineering Consultants, a licensed professional engineer, and Matthew Seckler of Stonefield Engineering, a licensed professional planner and professional engineer.
Through their testimony, it will be shown that the relief requested will advance the purpose of the munuse law, that there will not be a substantial detriment to the public good, that the benefits will substantially outweigh any detriments, and that the intent and purpose of the zone plan and the zoning
ordinance will not substantially be impaired. At this time, I would like to call my first witness, Dr. Josh Smiler. >> So, there's going to be three witnesses. >> Yes. Okay. Could you uh raise your right hand? Uh do you
solemnly swear that the testimony or affirm that that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. >> Um could you please state your name for the record? Spell your last name. >> Josh Smileo. S M I L O W. >> Thank you. Council >> Dr. Smileo. >> Yes. Kindly tell the board why an
applicant needs an outdoor play area for the children. >> So even though the new addition to the synagogue will have room for the children to play indoors, the children have always had an outdoor play area and it's very popular due to the construction. The current play area is
closed and is greatly missed. >> Dr. Smiler, can you also tell the board why and when and how the play area will be used with the children? >> Sure. So on the Sabbath, Saturday mornings from 9:00 a.m. to approximately no later than 11:30 a.m., but usually
around 11:00 a.m. On holidays, which are the same as Saturday, except for the high holidays, which consists of three days on two days for Rashashana holiday, the time will be from 9:00 a.m. to approximately 1:30 p.m. And Yum Kipper, the start time will be 9:00 a.m. until
the evening with a break in the middle. The younger children While in the play area, they ride little bikes. Oh, thank you. Uh they ride little bikes around. They play with toys and they play ball. The older children mostly play ball. Uh
there is no music while they are playing because it's prohibited on the Sabbath and our holidays. The play area will not be used at night. So there are no lights are being added. And the play area will remain grass as it currently exists. At this time, there are no plans for
playground equipment and the children will not be in the play area in the winter or in any bad weather. >> Dr. Smileo, um, kindly tell the board the age categories of the groups of children using the play area and the approximate amount of children in each
group. >> Okay. So, the groups of our children are rotated in by age and gender. Um, beginning in first grade, the boys and girls are in separate groups and there are never large amounts of children in the play area at the same time. So,
Saturday mornings and holidays are the same. Uh, ages 2 and a half to three, boys and girls are approximately 15 children. PreK to K boys and girls are approximately 20 children. Grades 1 and two girls approximately 10 children.
Grades one and two boys approximately 12 children. Grade three girls approximately seven children. Grade three boys approximately six children. Grades four and five girls approximately six children. And grades four and five
boys approximately five children. >> And Dr. Smiler, can you kindly tell the board about that shed that's on the property? >> Yeah, there is currently a shed in the back corner. It stores the bikes and the toys. Uh and the plan is for it to
remain there as it is now. same use >> except our engineer will discuss the setback so that it's in the proper location. >> Okay. Also, Dr. Smileo, um the gate has come up on numerous occasions with regard to the synagogue and 18 pit road.
Can you please discuss that in light of the play area? >> Yeah. So, there will be an extra fence with an extra gate for just for the seat the children because the play area has to be completely enclosed. Okay. And let me ask you another
question, Dr. Smileo. Does the synagogue verify this? Have a daycare program, a nursery school, or a religious school? >> No. >> Okay. Now, in the summer, this is one additional question I want to ask of you. Um, for a short period of time, there is a little uh day program, day
camp program that you run. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> Okay. And that is for what age category? It's just younger children. Is that correct? Correct. >> And they will in the hot sun mostly be indoors with some small play time. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Thank you. And that's a very short period through the summer. Is that right?
>> Very short period. >> Okay. So, finally, Dr. Smile, the the conclusion I would like you to draw is based on your testimony, would you say that the creation of the play area is needed for the continuity of the children with regard to the activities that they've been accustomed to at the synagogue?
>> Yes. >> Thank you. I have nothing further. >> Thank you. Don't don't don't leave yet. Um I want to open up to the board. Well, first professionals any questions so that way we get the benefit of what you're thinking before we ask. >> I don't have any questions on this testimony.
>> Question. >> Okay. Thank you, Julie. >> During Shabbat, during high holidays, do the kids by age have a have a designated time slot or is it come as you are? No, they have a designated time slot. >> So, first grade boys or is X, fifth
grade boys or Y? >> Yes. Thank you. It's rotated in according to age group category. Are these kids going to be supervised? >> Yes, of course. >> We got a lot of So, for the board, we got a lot of complaints that no one can
hear us. So, make sure your mics are on. >> It's on. It's on. You got >> right now. Good. >> Okay. Okay. I'm sorry. So, I didn't hear your answer. >> Yes, they are supervised >> all the entire time. The entire time. Never be alone. >> Never be alone. >> Okay. >> And by the way, I would answer that. It's not just the youth It's not just
the youth directors that are supervising. There are hired people that are with each group and the groups are not all in at the same time. So the number of children that he read off, you don't have the two and a half year olds in there with the fifth graders.
>> No, I have no other question. >> Only you may have mentioned the gate, but gate remains closed. It only opens and closes to let one group in. >> Yes. One group next group in. They're not accessing it from pit road. >> No. Except for the modification that was
done of the resolution at the last >> children's access for this specific purpose. They are only accessing it from the existing temple whatever the original property before it was merged. >> Yes, that's correct.
>> Nothing further from the board. Thank you. But don't go anywhere because the public will have the opportunity to ask you questions. So, uh, your next witness. >> Thank you. So, for members of the public, we're
going to let the applicant put on all their their witnesses and then everyone will have an opportunity to ask questions from each >> raise your right hand. Uh, do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> I do. >> Uh, can you state your name for the
record? >> Danielle Leer. L E S C R I N I E R. >> And council, would you like to do your >> You can you can go ahead and >> She was for us before. >> Yeah, this the the I would just say that the engineer and the planner are the same engineers and planners that were here testifying on the original
application. >> Are your license active? >> Yes, it is. So, >> sir, you're gonna have to stop. You have to stop. They I She was just sworn in. You're going to have to stop, please. >> So, the board, we accepted her as a expert witness last time. Anyone have any concerns?
>> Okay. So, please continue. >> Thank you. >> It's good. >> If if you would kindly >> What's on there is the same as on there. >> Yeah. Y that some people it's one
>> that's that's correct that's correct that is the major subdivision exhibit on file in the offices here and that is exactly what is printed over there >> and that is what was submitted with the application >> right >> okay so premier if you would be so kind
as to explain to the board the major subdivision plan that you have before you and um the the specifics that were set forth in um Mr. Mstretta's letter as well as anything in Mr. Disco's letter. >> Absolutely. Um I just wanted to know can
I bring a microphone over there? Does it reach? >> I think it will. Don't get up. >> Yes. Thank you. So, as Miss Herellic has already mentioned, we were here a couple years ago for the proposed site improvements on the synagogue property. And I'm going
to be referring to those approved improvements as the approved items basically. So, rather than referring to pre-development and post-development, it'll be what was previously approved and what is being proposed tonight for this current application.
So here we are talking about lots 36 and 39 in block 1801 which is 339 and 347 Mountain Avenue which is county route >> just 339 it was merged. >> Oh sorry yes it was merged correction which is county route 635 and also 18
Pit Road. And for orientation purposes if you can't see that all the way over here for board members on my side this is the major subdivision exhibit. Um, it was already submitted and on file in the offices here. It was dated March 20th, 2026, revised through March 26th, 2026.
And North is located towards the top right of the page. So here, centrally located to the page here is the existing congregation with the previously approved building addition, sorry, congregation building. And in the gray
hatch along here is the proposed parking improvements which have already been approved as well. Nothing is going to change as a part of tonight's application. I would just like to highlight to the northwest of 18 Pit Road which is located right here. There
are five parking spaces which were previously approved. They are not moving. Nothing is changing physically with those spaces, but that is the area that we're focusing in on tonight. We are proposing to relocate a portion of this southeastern property line um 18.1
ft to the southeast and effectively that will increase the larger lot with the synagogue building on it and decrease the smaller lot 18 pit road and that's by about approximately 1,000 square ft in difference.
Also physical proposed improvements. We will be removing small portions of impervious coverage which are currently located on 18 pit road. That's because some math because of the reduction in size of 18 pit road that property would effectively the ratio of impervious
coverage would increase by decreasing the size of the property. So to offset that we are proposing to remove a portion of the patio which I understand is underutilized today and that is to the rear of the dwelling and also to the side of the dwelling on the right hand side of the page is a strip of I think
it's concrete that is going to be removed as well. So that impervious coverage ratio is offset. Therefore we are complying with the required imperous coverage ratio. So to just put some numbers on the record, the approved and existing lot 39
since the subdivision has already been finalized. That is currently 0.2 acres. We are proposing the reduction to.17 acres which is 7500 square ft and that complies with the minimum lot area. The lot depth is decreasing due to that
lot line shift to 126.3 which still complies with the 100 ft minimum. The rear yard setback is also decreasing and that is going to 53.1 whereas only 30 ft is required. So that is compliant as well.
The building coverage is effectively increased due to the decrease of the property size. So that is going to 20.7% whereas 25% is maximum. So that also complies. The maximum imperous or lot coverage is
36% and due to the removal of those impervious areas we are staying exactly at 36%. So that is compliant as well. No additional variances are required. So that covers the math of 18 pit road. Now to talk about the area that is being
conveyed to the larger property where the synagogue building is. Since that lot line has been moved to the southeast that creates an open space area just to the south of those five parking spaces. Now what was previously approved was
some landscaping and a fence to buffer those five parking spaces from the neighboring properties. All that landscaping at the head of those parking spaces that is going to remain the it will be remain as approved to be constructed to the south in this corner
here adjacent to lot 40 there was some approved plantings there some trees and shrubs all that is going to remain on the plan as well the fence instead of being the 6' high vinyl fence closer to the five parking
spaces that will be a 4ft high fence basically just to fully enclose the play area for safety for the children. There will be a gate to access the play area there just for the children to come from the synagogue to the play area. And then
the 6' high vinyl fence instead of being closer to the parking spaces will be at the new rear lot line of 18 Pit Road. So that will still be there to buffer the dwelling from the building addition and from the parking area.
There's been talk of this existing shed which is located right now roughly in the location that is shown on the plan, but we are proposing to move it one foot to the northwest so that it complies with the 5-ft side and rear yard setback
requirements for that structure. Could you speak about how the children are going to get from the building to the play area in terms of the river rock wall? Absolutely. So, the children can come from the parking area where they're
dropped off or from the main entrance of the building over here across the parking lot to the Riverstone path which is proposed directly adjacent to the most southwest parking space of that group of five that I keep referencing. The Riverstone path is still considered
a pvious surface since water can still penetrate and get into the ground underneath. And I believe that's only a twoft wide strip there. So, we're still able to fit in all of the plantings that were proposed in that area. There's no change in species or reduction in count for all of those plantings, and we're
still able to provide an organized and designated path from the building to the play area. And just um to correct one thing that was stated on Saturday and holidays, there will be no physical cars moving in the in the parking lot. No one
will be dropped off by a vehicle. They would only be walked in and then walked through. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anything further? >> Nothing further. >> We've covered everything. >> Yep. >> Mr. Disco. >> Again, I don't have any questions.
Anything that was in the memo has been covered. >> Mr. Ma, >> two quick questions. Is there any of that area? >> There is no regrading proposed. Everything will stay the same. The lawn that is there today is staying exactly the same. >> It's grass. The surface covers the
remains. >> That's correct. Yep. >> Can we can you discover you know the one thing the So I was there I went there the other day and it's there is a grading thing. Can you discuss the grading? It it seems like there is a grading slight to the back higher and
then discuss the Riverstone walks that >> just to clarify what do you mean by there is a you mean there's >> it seems like there is a grading difference. It goes up. >> Oh there is a grading difference. Yes, it does slightly go up in general the grades trend towards pit road for 18 pit
road, but we're not proposing any changes to those grades. >> Yeah. >> Can you discuss the are you done? Will you discuss the river the stones that I was seeing? >> Sure. Yeah. The stonewalk, it's basically going to be a stone pathway. Um some people have them like to get to
a pool or even from your front door to your driveway, something like that. Um, but instead of proposing a fully impermeable surface like regular concrete, we're proposing the river stone so that water can still seep through the stones. Um, people sometimes use them in very small strips of
landscaping if it's too small or inaccessible for a lawn mower or if there aren't really any plants that can grow in that area, just for reference. Um, so it's still considered a pvious surface. Water can still penetrate and get into the ground. It does not impact any drainage conditions
>> and that's why it was done. Correct. >> Correct. >> To keep a pous surface instead of an imperous surface there. >> That's correct. >> I'm going to open up the board, but I'll go first with questions. How are the rocks going to move from place to place? Like sometimes so holds them in place. Otherwise, they can go all over the
place. >> Uh they're not going to be like small gravel stones. They're going to be >> small. I'm talking if you have rocks and kids step on it, they can slip their ankles or they can wind up in 10 different places moving over. You guys
some Is there like a seal thing like I've seen which locks them in place like a mulch is done in some places? >> I'm thinking from the >> Yeah. Yeah. It's not the active play area. It's just to get from parking lot to the play area. >> Um
>> sure any material could move. Um you could put a landscape border on the sides of it to constrain it. >> But it's still I mean if a kid wants to kick it out kick out. I mean, >> maybe we look I don't think the two and a halfyear-old's going to do it, but
maybe the fifth grader. Maybe maybe a border. Okay. >> Yeah, that's fine. We can agree to that. >> Let me open up to the board for any questions. >> No, Julie Richard. >> The initially initially approved location of fence.
point that out. >> Yes. Along the property line right here >> has demised property line today. >> Where is the proposed location of the fence >> of the sixoot fence is along the new line. >> Move the fence further closer to the dwelling structure. >> That's correct.
>> What is the purpose from a functional perspective? I don't know if you're the appropriate >> it's fine >> party to field this but reducing essentially the backyard so there's less play area than there is today. The play area is located in this rectangle here. Oh, >> in Okay.
>> Yes. Yeah. So, it'll be a part of the synagogue space for those children. >> The fence is to enclose the play area. >> Yeah, understand. >> Scott, you good? >> Yep. Is there a shed permit? Did they ever get a permit for the shed
>> for the older property or for this proposal? >> For the older one. >> I I would we would have to check with the zoning off. >> If one's not there, they need to apply for a shed permit. >> Right. I can tell you that what the the zoning officer is going to look for on the new one is the setback which is five feet. So it would it is conforming.
>> So what they are proposing is fine. >> What they are proposing if they submit to the zoning officer will be approved. Okay. So that's fine. They have to they would have to apply for a shed permit. >> Okay. Fine. Okay. Uh nothing further. So don't go anywhere because at the end we're going to open up for questions. Council, why don't you go with your
third witness? >> I would now like to call Matthew Seckler from Stonefield Engineering. He is a professional planner and professional engineer. He was the planner at the original application. >> Raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm that the testimony you're about
to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> Uh, state your name again for the record. And uh, spell your last name. >> My name is Matthew Seckler. That's S E C K L E R. I'm with Stonefield Engineering Design. Address is 92 Park Avenue in Rutherford, New Jersey. And my license
is still in good standing. Um, sir, licens are still active. He presented before us before. Anyone have any concerns with accepting as a expert witness? >> Yes, >> he said that. >> Okay, go ahead, >> Mr. Seckler. So, if you would please for
the board as a planner give the justifications with regard to this major subdivision. >> Absolutely. And again, you've heard from uh both witnesses that we provided. Uh, and I think the key aspect here is that we're seeking no variance relief. Usually I come to boards, you hear boards to tell, hey listen, we're going
to balance the positives and negatives in terms of granting a variance. We're seeking here seeking no new variances for this application. In fact, there's a number of conditions that are being improved as part of this project. Uh this type of use, uh both obviously the single family residential use and the uh
synagogue use or house of worship use are permitted in the zone. The lot sizes are consistent with what your ordinance allows. And again, we're making, you know, improvements, some of it mathematically based on where these lot lines are moving. But I'm here not seeking any variance approval. But I
would still want to put on the record and remind the board that there's a couple of cases um that uh have gone all the way up to the Supreme Court in New Jersey related to uh conforming applications. One is the Piso Manton Group application uh uh case, which uh
vandolph, it's a 1994 Supreme Court case. It basically outlined that boards are or shall approve fully conforming applications and cannot require conditions that go outside of what the ordinance permits. Basically, there's a set of rules, the municipal annuity law
and your ordinance. And if applicants come here and they follow them to a tea, there's really nothing that boards can do to deny them. And I'm not saying that in a threatening way, just kind of stating the case for the record. Um, and again, as part of this type of project, you know, normally you hear
this positive, negative criteria. I'll list some positives as it relates to this project, but again, we're not here balancing because there's no inherent negative because we're not seeking any type of zoning relief as part of this application. Obviously, we believe this advances purpose A, which is health, safety, general welfare. Anytime that
you're consistent with the ordinance, you are advancing general welfare. That is the purpose of zoning is to advance general welfare. In addition, this is an inherently beneficial use or at least the temple part of it, the synagogue part of it is, which also again advances the health, safety, and general welfare.
I'd also believe that we're advancing purpose C, which is providing adequate light, air, and open space in that we are consistent with the ordinance requirements as it relates to the lot size, uh, you know, uh, impervious coverage, building coverage, and all those aspects as well. So again, normally you hear planners, we're not
saying we're not asking for we're not asking for that because we're not seeking variances and queso has shown that fully conforming applications uh specifically even subdivision applications are to be approved by uh boards like yourselves. >> Anything further?
>> I don't have anything further for >> Mr. MRy, you get to go first. >> Nothing from a planning standpoint. >> Okay. So I I had one comment that I didn't know who might best to present to. So I'll give it to Matthew. Good luck. Uh that was my item number 10
which uh and visav with respect to his testimony tonight about what is required and I know Mr. does not agree with my comment. I said comment 10, the opportunity exists on the Glazner uh side of the
subdivision because I looked at the praiser and Glazner as they look to the building that was approved previously standing in the back. Yes. Did Did the I didn't physically stand there. I imagine myself and again the landscaping on those two properties doesn't change what
would obscure or screen the the building >> because we added a bunch I remember on the >> and and they remain >> as defense shifts on the Glazner property which is lot 40. I said the opportunity exists to further
screen that 18 foot section only because their view of the new building to come that that that new property line or fence line that 18 ft only not the whole quarter of it. I'm not trying to take away play area. any screening there is
closer to the eye of the of the Glazner backyard to the building rather than 18 feet further away where the screening again I said the opportunity exists. >> What are you recommending to the board? >> Opportunity exists to enhance the screen.
>> So a sixoot fence any any green screening that will exceed six feet at some point is a better screening than a sixoot fence. Is there an opportunity because I know we put a ton and I was it was was the board's decision to put a
ton on where the parking spots come to the property line of Glazner. Is it do we put is there a way to move some around or is are you suggesting additional >> my question was really directed to Matthew. Um the opportunity exists. Is there a benefit to what I'm suggesting?
>> Again I I agree with the statement there's an there's always an opportunity for landscaping. Again, in this case, I don't believe there's any again variances or detriments that we're trying to prevent that landscaping is necessary. So, again, that would be my position from a planner perspective. Obviously, you could plant plants along
every fence, you know, on every property line uh in Springfield. But, uh again, I don't discreet opportunity exists, but I don't believe that there's a negative aspect that we're trying to hide or need to hide as it relates to the landscaping. >> I would just like to comment on that. Number one, there is already a fence.
The view is not changing. We're not putting up a structure. We're not doing anything. It's the same grass. It's the same everything. And the children are going from what was a play area in the synagogue property of approximately 3,000 square feet to a little over a,000
square feet. So once you start plantings, now you're making that area even smaller. I would also comment that to the credit of Mr. Praner, he had planted a line of trees on his property line side. And I don't see any reason why the Glazers, if they want to have
less of a view, plant something on their side. I mean, the fence is the fence. It's still there. We're not changing anything other than moving a lot line back. >> And by the way, one other comment. Because of the Riverstone Walk, all the
plantings remain the same, but they're a little more condensed, which makes it an even better buffer for the Glazner property. >> You remember we put a large amount of land, >> a large amount. >> We did. We did. on both sides. >> Let me open up to the board to to for any questions of this witness and and
also to give some comments on on item 10 which is the opportunity. So I'll go with you Mr. Wish first. I mean talking to your microphone. >> I guess the question I have when this was initially
contemplated why wasn't this part of the initial application? I can I can I can respond. >> Yeah, I'm not the witness for that. >> I can respond or we can call Josh Smileo back. I mean, when the when the project was originally done, um there's a very
large addition of a building that's being attached to the current synagogue. And I guess the thought process was it's a very large indoor area for the children to play. But it was realized, especially now that the construction is starting, that the children have lost
their outdoor play area, that the children really should have an opportunity to be on the outside as well as the inside. So, you know what? Everyone who planned it, they're human. It was an oversight and now it's being corrected in an easy way. you have what are your thoughts on do
you think there needs to be additional landscaping or comfortable with >> I mean if you were coming in initially you probably would have extended the whole from the from where you initially planned it and you would extend it all the way back to the where you're
proposing the lot line is modified I I would think that's how you would have done it >> brought it in if you brought this in in one cohesive way >> before we go Aaron, Mike, how many trees would you propose just while we're talking about this? >> It's an 18ft stretch. >> Yeah. So, if you plant on five foot or
six foot centers, >> you got one on each end and two in the middle. >> So, three or four plantings. >> Wait, I would >> That's for something that's not going to grow substantially wide. I'm thinking an arborite or something like that. You're trying to get upward. Yeah. >> You don't really The fence is hiding the
six foot. >> You need up. >> You're trying to get up. I would like to respond to one thing though. >> Sir, sir, you can't keep speaking in the middle of this. You really cannot. Okay? You've been warned twice now. Please, >> do you have counsel here? Council, can
you please control him? >> Please make sure that we don't have people. We have nobody else speaking. Please, >> I would just like to respond that when we did the original application, if you look at the plan, we did not put tree lines all along every part of a fence
that exists for the synagogue. We did it to cover the parking spaces. We did it to cover like where there was the the additional building part right here. This is like backyard to backyard still. We're not doing anything other than
moving a lot line backward. keeping the grass area. It's the same. It's just a lot line adjustment. >> I think we would have recommended that. That's how it were proposed. >> Well, I don't know that that's >> any kind of preapp hearings or anything
like that. That probably would have been something we would have recommended. >> I agree with that. >> So, >> um Aaron, >> well, having said that, all everything that Scott just said, I uh I think that having more landscaping only helps the situation as opposed to hurting. So, I
think It protects the view for the for the homeowner, but it's not always going to be the same person. I mean, that will change over the years. I see no reason why not to have the uh landscaping there. >> So, we're talking about five trees basically. >> Five trees. I mean, it's not a major
thing, especially if you're going upwards opposed to being wide. It's also a safety buck. >> I'm I'm sensitive to reducing the play error. I understand. So, we want to get a species that would go up. I mean, I'm just an arborite is just something that
grows up vertically up. >> We're not worried about infilling on the bottom six feet. Again, the resident is looking into their side of the fence and whatever landscaping they have. Again, I said the opportunity, it's not a requirement,
as Mr. uh Wishna perceptively picked up if they originally came in with the job, >> we would have had landscaping at some point at the close. >> I agree with him. That's a good point. >> We don't need the 18 pit road property
is their property. They don't need to accentuate the landscaping there. It does nothing to the other the other property owners. >> The one property is the landscaping doesn't change the view. Would you mind pointing out where you're
>> where the opportunity is on the screen >> so the board can see? >> Yeah. >> All I'm saying here closer to the eye. Yeah, and I agree and I actually now I really agree with Scott that's
>> done. >> Yeah, you left it open for the for >> No, there are requirement. It's not required by ordinance. It's only a result of the the that corner being a little closer that we
could enhance and help the one view to the building. I understand the headlights. Defense is going to do its job six feet and below. Headlights are generally pointed downward. >> I know. I I I think what Scott said makes sense. If this would have come in back in the day, I would have because I was the one that was very vocal on the
glazer property with where the parking was to put additional landscaping for three to five trees and we can leave it as open three to five that you can make a field decision in my opinion. But let's hear what the rest of the board has to say. >> So >> no, may I just add something? >> Let me go ahead
>> please. So I agree on the logic. Had this not been omitted from the original uh original uh plan as councelor mentioned um we would have addressed this exact thing there. So why should this suffer because of the mistake that
was that was made earlier. Um but at the end of the day landscape it don't landscape it whatever however we all need to decide. Um my question which might be for one of the three people or sort of a combination is so the temple
had a playground prior. Um what was comprised of that playground? Was there swing sets or things to play on or was it was it just open space? >> There was a playground set. >> Okay. So is a new playground set being contemplated for this space?
>> It's not being proposed at this time. there's an open space where the kids can go to play. So, why do this? You you already have the the the the the house on Pit Road. You've got the backyard. You have a gate to get from
the Temple property to Pit Road. There is no restriction that I know of that people can can't play on the property that you own. So, can you explain to me why this has to happen now. And why why
the push back versus just you've got a property, you've got a big backyard, you've got a house with facilities, bathrooms, and things like that. You have people to oversee the kids, you have the schedule all lined up with the intervals, which is great. Why just not use the current property that you
already own as is? Well, uh, I would say that the neighbors are the ones that have taken great issue with the fact that this is in their mind some sort of a daycare program that's being run on a regular Saturday morning
basis and or on a holiday basis. Um, it is a single family home. So, we have had uh a lot of issues with the neighbors with regard to if there were even so much as a few children that had come in or out of that backyard. Um, you know,
if if we would still want to do this subdivision, but if you're saying, "Hey, it's also okay for the kids to use the extended backyard," I'm fine with that. >> I own that house and I had a dance party there every single night until 7 o'clock when I got to stop being noisy. 11
o'clock. I any neighbor could could could could do this. So I appreciate what I think you're trying to do is make this, you know, codify this more so it's so it's not not a problem, but at the same time
seems to be going to quite a length what you're already permitted to do. >> And I think that has to do with >> and and I'm sorry and I don't see any difference whether kids are playing on this side of a fence or that side of the fence. >> Well, the difference is it's our property. the Congregation Israel property. So it's the groups of the
Congregation Israel. It's not the single family home residence. >> The Pitt Road is owned by Congregation Israel. >> I know that. >> Right. So it's also your property. So all we're doing is saying, "Okay, kids, you could be here but not here." >> So I guess I guess I'm I'm just a little bit confused. You do realize that at the
original hearing and at this the last hearing, there was even controversy over who could walk through the gate from the driveway or the front door of the house into the 18 bit road backyard and then continue on to the synagogue.
>> So, does the cotification of this help how does it help the neighbors just to move the kids to this space instead of that space? >> Well, first of all, it's going to be a subdivision. So that section is now going to belong to the congregation. It's not going to be part of 18 pit
road. >> The congregation property. >> Yes. The the synagogue property, the synagogue lot, not the 18 pit road lot, but you know I and I would like it to move because who knows in the future maybe that's going to be a benefit to the synagogue. However, and we left a
compliant lot at 18 p. But if this board, if this board is fine putting on the record that the children can also extend into 18 pit road backyard, I am perfectly fine with that. And bear in mind that when the youth directors do
move into that house, they're certainly entitled, as you brought up a party, they're certainly entitled to have a party at their house with children, with the children from the synagogue. They're entitled to do that without the police being called. >> We know that. I don't think there'll be
two and a half year olds partying after 11:00 p.m. >> So I look I I see this however this you want this to play out but to me this is seems like the scales are exactly the same. I'm putting kids at this side of the fence that >> let's open up to council's
other people. >> No Matt, do you think explain to the board? >> Well, there were you use Yeah, I will. There were use variance issues about the the use of the property. So, it's probably cleaner if the board feels this way to look for a sub the major subdivision.
>> Yeah, but by all means, let us use 18 pit road backyard. >> We're waiting into attorney uh you know, advice here. Um I from the position that's been presented as Mr.
Commission, >> I'm a commissioner too, David. like >> um the six in one hand half a dozen. Um I think what what Mel has presented was with an
application to make it that if it is play area designated by the congregation side of things then I guess the the perception is why should they have to go through it would be easier to just make it a
function of 339. Um, >> all right. Let's we'll open up for discussion. May >> um I guess this question should be directed to you. >> I'm still standing. So, >> yeah. >> On both sides of the property, Praiser
and Glazner, is there a sixft fence, a 4ft fence, one in one? What's the deal? So already six feet. >> Both are six feet. >> Yes. >> Yes. Which is why this landscaping is not necessary. And I was just given a picture. There's already landscaping on
the Glazner side. >> There's landscaping on the praiser side. >> Glazner side. >> Glazer. >> Glazer side. >> We put or proposed when we did the application. We put a good amount of landscaping on the Glazner side because
the parking lot was going to be adjacent. >> No, I'm talking about what they already have on their property. Yes. Yes. >> They're already shielded. >> That's why Mr. Disco was careful with his verbiage. >> Um >> I mean, we could leave it as a field thing as well, but let's at the end
we'll we'll have a >> is is the intent to put a playground there or is that still under development? >> You mean playground equipment? >> Yeah. >> It's a small area. That's not the plan at >> Okay. Yeah, that's that's what I'm asking. Um,
those are my two. >> I guess my one question would be is if you had access to 18 pit to use that to walk through and have a play area back there, would you be putting forward your motion here to use the uh
>> use the uh um area that you're seeking to get the variance on? >> We're not asking for a variance number one. >> Okay. We still want the major subdivision because it makes it part of 339 Mountain Avenue. And in terms of the use of the backyard of 18 Pit Road,
actually, we've had a lot of issues with the neighbors with respect to that. So, accordingly, we were being good neighbors. Um, but by all means, I mean, you know, we don't run a daycare center. We don't run a nursery school. We don't run a Hebrew school. We don't have any religious school. It's two hours on a Saturday morning and a few hours when
there's a Jewish holiday. So, you know, call it what you want to call it. It's what it is. But the when the youth directors move in, I mean, we are not going to be restricted from allowing them to use that property and have children over. >> Use your property. >> Well, I guess
we can't board can't take that away, >> right? Well, that was already an issue at the last hearing. Even how even who can go through 18 pit road? I mean, maybe that whole restriction should be removed at this juncture. accessarily this >> conversation
>> let's stay let's focus on subdivision >> anything >> anything further from both of you before we uh to the public just thank you don't go anywhere I'm sure you'll be there. So, at this
point, I'm going to open up the public at first. I understand there's an objector, an objector here for one of the neighbors. Let's proceed with that first and then we'll open it up to the rest of the public to speak. >> Well, yes, council. >> Council. >> Good evening, board members. Uh my name
is Peter Oliver. I'm an attorney with Hogland Longo, Miranda Dunston Ducas. We represent uh Robert and Mitsy Prazner, owners of 14 Pit Road Springfield. Um, as you could probably already tell, the Praers strenuously opposed the granting of this application uh for the
following reasons. The congregation has not been truthful about its intended use of 18 Pit Road. At the original site plan hearing for the congregation, Dr. Dr. Smileo testified that as for the single family residence located at 18 Pit Road, the house is occupied by the
youth director and their family, there is no intention to demolish the house for a parking lot, driveway, or walking path, and that no congregants will be permitted to use 18 Pit Road as a cutthrough to the synagogue parking lot. He testified that the applicant would
agree to maintain 18 Pit Road as a single family residence and that it will not be used as a parking lot. That's clearly not true. No sooner had the application been granted when the congregation began using 18 pit road for overflow parking and as a cutthrough,
subsequently filing another application for permission for guests of the use director, quote unquote, to park in the driveway and use the gate as a cutthrough. Presently, there is no one living in the house and dozens of people are parking on pit road and using the
yard as a cutthrough. Additionally, the congregation is now using the vacant house for babysitting the 200 plus children of the congregation without any adult supervision. I brought with us video. >> First of all, I want to know when was
this video filmed? What is it? I don't trust the authenticity of it. We've had this issue before. >> I have my client here. I could swear him in and he can testify, too. >> Let's see if we can make out and be comfortable with it. Is this the same video we saw before? like to know whether this is the video
from the prior hearing. >> I'm not a tech guy. And what is the date of this video? Who filmed it? >> Before we even ask that, you're telling us that your client >> filmed private property over a fence.
>> He was filming from his property. >> Hold on. >> By the people who are on that that that video, are those people minors? Again, I I don't know what the I can't see from here, but I can show that it's
people cutting through the yard. >> Is that not a private yard? Is that private property? >> Well, again, he's filming from his property. >> Is that >> I've already raised issue once before to this? >> Excuse me. Your client is is you're
saying your client >> put his phone over a pri offensive property >> pointed his phone into private property at what looks like minors and film them without permission. >> Would you like to enter this into testimony? I'm just going to ask you that question right now.
>> I'm not entering anything right now. I again I'm just showing the board. You are entering this into your testimony, this video of of miners being filmed without permission on private property. You're going to enter this video now into this
testimony. >> I am not. >> Then take it down. I've raised issue with this before. >> Okay. >> And I asked the last time when this was allowed in, >> very careful >> that it be blurred >> if this ever happens again. >> Understood. >> Very, very careful. >> Understood. And that's a six foot fence,
so he had to have filmed over. >> I didn't film it, so >> Oh, so what's the authenticity of >> All right, everyone, please. >> The noise of the unsupervised children disturbed our client's quiet use and enjoyment of their home. An unlicensed
daycare facility is not a permitted use in the R60 zone, nor is a private playground. There is no purpose of the New Jersey municipal land use law which is advanced by these unpermitted uses of the property. These uses scream negative criteria and you know it.
Uh in a bold-faced violation of the Springfield zoning ordinance in January, the congregation brought a bucket loader onto the property and without any permits dug the foundations for a playground equipment and installed the equipment. And I have a photo of that.
to put a playground up. >> Yeah, it would have to meet setbacks. Yeah. >> Just meet setbacks. >> Yeah. And and >> it wasn't installed. >> I I I what I can say is I know Mr. Herbert, the code enforcement, was alerted to it. He went out and the
person who was the contractor was told get a permit for it and that seemed to be the end of it. >> When we reported this to the zoning officer, nothing was done. When we spoke to the municipal attorney about this, nothing was done. Notwithstanding the precedent of past history on the site,
the congregation should not get to break the law with impunity. And there's, you can see right there. >> Are you entered into? >> That's not fair. >> We have other photos as well, which we can enter into evidence. I
>> I question when that photo was taken. I was in the backyard the other day and have a photo. It doesn't exist. >> Hold on a sec. First of all, I think counselor needs an explanation as to how this evidence works. We need to mark this into evidence. So maybe our counselor can so far. So if you're
entering into this photograph, I don't know if you have it printed out there or not. You need to mark it >> of this one. No, nothing's been marked on the screen. >> But I was told I I think this was forwarded I believe by my colleague Mr. Powers to you. So, can you identify it
then for purposes of of what you're presenting to the board? >> I didn't take the photo, so I can ask my client. >> Just identify it by by tablete. Is this exhibit A? >> Exhibit A. >> Okay. On on your on your client's behalf.
>> Yes. >> Okay. Um, and what are the remaining ones that you have in your hand? Is that a packet of them? >> Yeah, this is a packet. It pretty much depicts the same back was used on the property. Will they be referred to?
>> I can refer to them as exhibit B, >> but it's not there now, right? >> It's not there now. Anything in that photo? Is there anything like that now? >> No. >> What's the relevance of because >> sir,
>> this is honestly officers. This is the final warning. If it continues, please >> I'm giving one more opportunity. Please, I want you to take two minutes. Tell your client if he continues more, he's done because you're re speaking on his behalf. I do not need to continue to be
interrupted. >> We're going to take a two-minute recess. Let the record reflect that at 7:32 we taking a two-minute recess. the record reflect. Jen, we're we're going back to our planning board meeting for application 2-26
S 339 Mountain Avenue, block 1801, lots 39 and 36. So, continue counselor. >> Thank you, board. Uh, the congregation needs a use variance to build and operate a private playground and daycare facility in an R60 zone. Um, I was just told that the although the equipment's
not there, uh, the poles for the playground equipment still remain. So, the equipment is still there, just not the construction equipment. While it seems like a nifty trick, simply absorbing the illegal playground into
the temple grounds does not make the playground or unsupervised daycare facility permitted accessory uses to a religious building. This application should be denied and a zoning violation should issue for the playground and the daycare use unless and until a use variance is granted for a combined
daycare facility and playground in the R60 zone. We are disappointed in the reports of your professional. They know better. Bottom line, uh, this is what the congregation always intended for this property. They just were not direct enough to say so. This is a backdoor
attempt to circumvent the conditions of the congregation site plan approval should not be countenanced and this application should be denied if only to discourage their improper use. Thank you. Okay. At this point, I'm going to open
this up to the public. At that point, everyone will have five minutes. Each p each each person will have five minutes to speak. You can ask make statements. You can ask questions of the three witnesses that the that the congregation set forth. Uh but we're
>> question question. Mr. Chairman, >> do I get an opportunity to counter what was said by councel? >> Can you do it at the end in your closing >> if you want me to? Yes. >> At the end in your clos needed at that point and and the questions just so that everyone's aware the question period. You can ask your questions, but use your
five minutes. When the five minutes is over, the next person will get their five minutes. When everyone is done, that's when if any answers there are to be had, that's when they will be presented. It won't be a back and forth conversation. >> Okay. Perfect. Okay. So, at this time, I'm going to open the matter up to the
public for any comments, questions, or concerns. >> You can come forward. Sure. State your name for the record and your >> Sure. Robert Praner, 14 Pit Road, Springfield, New Jersey. >> Nope. >> Okay. Go ahead.
>> So, during the uh initial resolution, we were under oath by the dentist, not a doctor, uh Smileo, he swore under oath that there would be no gate access from the temple to 18 pit road. Is that correct?
That's what I'm asking. That's my question. So now there's gate access. There's still gate access. In fact, I have video of 20 people, not kids, Mr. David Barnett. Not kids, adults, right
here who were walking through from Pit Road to the temple. How is that allowed? I thought that I thought we were not allowed. During the original resolution, which you will receive, right? You've all received a copy of it. there's no
gate access. So, how are they still maintaining that access? So, what do you think is going to happen? Right? So, they're going to do they're going to move the setback closer. So, then is there going to So, my real question I want to know is if
it's this is granted. Okay. Is there going to be a gate access now that they've extended their property from the temple side into the pit roadside? There should not be any access from the temple to 18 pit road, which is my
original argument and I will stand by it. There should be no access. If you want to access the temple, you walk around like every other human being. You have two feet, right? You have two feet. You can walk around. You're making it
easier. You're I had somebody try to get through my gate. They're lucky I wasn't home. You try to get through my gate, there's going to be a problem. That's not a threat. That's not anything. Just don't go on my property. He goes to me. Oh, I'm sorry. I thought this was the the way to get to the temple. That was
his excuse. He's from New York. New York license plates. Okay, no problem. No big deal. But once you allow one, you allow two, you allow five, you allow 10, you allow 20. Is my math good? 40, 80,
right? 160. You see where it ends? It doesn't. That's the problem. I have nothing against them doing what they want to do. My problem is they feel entitled to do whatever they want to do. All right. Their garbage is on my yard. We
pick it up all the time. I even called Smiler one day. I said, "Hey, buddy. Would you mind if I cut down this tree?" Cuz I put a baseball I put a um uh batting cage in one of those batting cages in my for my son and all the needles from the pine tree keep falling in. I got to clean it out every day. And
I'm lazy. Everybody knows that, right? So, I asked him, "Do you mind if I cut down the tree?" He said, "No, can't cut it down." I said, "Fine, no big deal." So, he gets what he wants no matter what. Win, lose, or draw, right? I spend $10,000 a month on legal fees. I don't
give a I don't. Excuse my language. My bad. But all I'm asking is there's no access from 18 Pit Road to the Temple. That's it. We're all done. There's no arguing.
There's nothing. I don't care. I don't care what you want to do. You could turn it into a freaking jungle gym. I don't care. The point is no access from 18 pit road to let random strangers walk through properties. I have videos,
multitude of videos. Okay, that's it. All I'm asking. I'm not asking for anything hard. Just no access from the temple to pit road. That's it. Thank you. Have a good day.
Okay. Any other members of the public who wish to speak on this application? Forward. State your name for the record. >> Deborah Lel A L E 351 Mountain Avenue.
Do I need to be sworn in or anything? >> Nope. >> Quick question. You keep saying that there's going to be no playground equipment for kids and it's just going to be grass. What are the kids going to do? I used to
be a daycare teacher and kids need to move. And I understand that you need an outside area, but what are you going to have for the children to be occupied, especially all the different ages? Well, that was already testified to.
>> We'll we'll address that question when >> it would move better if you whatever questions you have, you just ask them during your five minutes and and rather than have it be a back and forth. So, you can if you have other questions. >> That was my question. What I I if it was spoken about, I just all I heard
remember was it was a grass area and there was no apparatus. So that's that was my question. >> We'll have them test address that. >> The other question, I'm not sure if it I can ask it in this meeting. The um
>> car chargers, the EV charging stations. I'm not sure where they're located and if it's going to be affecting the children's area or the parking lot or >> I'm I wasn't point that out or we'll have their engineer point that on the map. Okay. At
the end. Thank you. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> No, thank you for your comments. Any other members of the public wish to ask any questions on this application? >> Hello, >> Mity Pasner, 14 Pit Road. >> I just have a question. Where is the
Riverwalk going to be located? Is it coming from pit road to the back or is it from >> synagogue to the play area? >> To the play area. >> Okay. >> Property. >> Okay. >> Thank you.
>> Any other members of the public wish to speak on this application? Uh Tracy Glazner, 24 Pit Road. Um I don't really have too too much to say. My main question is what's next? Um what's going to be the next in the
next letter that I have to go pick up at the post office about the new request for something to change? because I brought this up at the last time I spoke. Um because I foresaw I foresaw this this coming. Um so I'm sure it's
going to happen again, but there's going to be more requests made. Um you know, so far everything seems to get approved. Um and you know, no offense to any of the board members, but it's probably easier for you guys to sit and listen and
approve because you're not the neighbors. um you might have, you know, different feelings if you lived next door and and you know, we're dealing with all this. Um so that's kind of my main question is is what's next? Um and
if with this change with this um property line change if in fact it is going to make my view from my backyard if I'm going to see more of the temple property or you know more of the building um like Mr. Disco said I would
request like you guys were talking about um more more trees be put up or something. I mean it might be kind of hard to see tell now because it's not there but um if in fact this goes through then I would you know I would want as much coverage as possible because obviously
you know having a backyard or a parking lot in back of me is not my most favorite condition but I really don't have any you know choice right now so whatever can be done. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Any
other members of the public wish to speak on this application? Seeing none, I'm going to close it to the public and go back to you with I wrote down some of the questions if your engineer or your planner or or Mr. Smileo can talk through. Um Dr. Smileo
can talk through um can you can you point out where the EV chargers are and at the same time illustrate um where the Riverwalk is so that way it's coming from you, not us. The EV chargers are located to the
southwest of I guess the western building facade right here. >> Nowhere near the >> No. No. Um, and the Riverwalk is located on the synagogue property near those five parking spaces. Um, so even before
this application, it's still just located on the synagogue property just right here to the left of the leftmost parking space in that block. >> And there what was the buffer? Because I remember we made them increase the buffer and move a parking spot.
>> Yes. Yeah. It the smallest portion is 4.6 six feet on the right side and then it it gets a little bit wider as the the curb is not perfectly parallel. >> Okay. And there's trees. >> Yep. >> Okay. Um
what's in the playground? Riverwalk. >> So I I don't know if you can testify to this or this may have to be the doctor about what's in the playground. What what what's going to be there in that area? >> Sure. um they can provide more detail, but from what I understand, there's going to be little tricycles and balls
and small play toys for them to play with in the yard space. >> Okay. Um Okay. So then the only other question is what's next? Well, let's talk about trees. If you were proposing in that for the board, what would you propose in
that 18 ft? Heard Mr. Disco. I think you heard the board. I I would have completely agree with Mr. Wishna that had this been common one we would have said just like we put trees there we would have put trees there. >> Sure. >> What would you put there as a proposal?
>> Um if we were requested or required to do so we would probably plant some arborvite along that fence there. Uh similar to what was proposed in this thinner area over here because they grow tall and they're thin so they don't take up as much surface area of the open
space play area but they would still grow tall. Okay. >> Yeah. >> Mr. Disco, are you comfortable with three to five make a field change? >> I'm comfortable. It should just be part of the plan. We don't have to, you know, whatever whatever they suggest in terms
of the number. Three, four, five trees. I think what do you think is appropriate >> in your opportunity? Again, if you're every five feet spacing, I think that's sufficient. >> Three. It's three. >> One on each end. Five and five. You need
four plants. Four plants. Okay, great. four trees. Is that acceptable to you? >> Yes. >> Great. Solves that problem. Okay. And they're six foot in nature. Is that what you do? >> Well, you would probably want to buy them at six foot height. And arbor
vites. I don't I'm not an expert, but I've always been told they grow a half a foot to a foot a year. So, you're going to get height. >> And if you specify at six feet, which would match the fence height, within a year, they'll be above, you know, creeping above. Perfect. We're going to specify six feet.
>> Yep. Yeah. >> Got it. >> Okay. Um, so I don't know how what the wording is, but like is there anything planned next? I mean, you know, what's the And I'll go not from an engineering standpoint, but >> Clara, do you want to take that in your
closing? Like what's is this it? >> Well, I I have a question for the engineer as followup to >> Sure. Go ahead. Yeah. >> And then I want to call Dr. Smileo back to answer the allegations that were made regarding the synagogue. Um, is the view
any different now than with the lot line movement than it would have been without the lot line movement? >> Um, no. Because the same physical improvements are being proposed in terms of the buffer landscaping. The parking is not getting any closer. The building
addition is not getting any closer. >> So, I would say no. >> And I just want Matt >> Not yet. I want I want Yeah, he has a followup. So, in speaking about playground equipment, >> say it again. >> I said in speaking about playground
equipment, there's nothing installed. There are no current plans to have anything installed. There's just temporary things that are going to be put in a shed. Correct. >> Pike bikes, balls, things like that. >> Nothing to be installed. >> Small area. >> It's less than a,000 square feet.
>> It's It's approximately 1,100 square feet. But the equipment that used to be on the playground at the synagogue, number one, was on a 3,000 square foot area. And number two, it's not in a condition to be installed. In fact, there was an error made. It was supposed
to be stored, not installed at 18 Pit Road. Nothing went back up. It's not going up. And the little piece that went in the ground is being removed. >> Thank you. >> So, is the condition of anything from the board taken out? >> It's already out. There's nothing there
except there's a little platform thing that's going to be removed anyway. You want to say it comes out, it can come out. We don't care. But I don't want to I don't want to ultimately box in the synagogue with regard to, you know, what's going to be there. I mean, right now we have no intention of having
anything other than the graphs. >> What you said is a perfectly logical and acceptable answer. >> Great. >> Okay. Do you want to bring up any >> Yes. I would just bring up Matt Seckler for a moment and then Dr. Josh. Mr. Seckler, I'm going to ask you the
same question I just asked the engineer. Um, is the view changing as a result of the movement of the lot line? >> There's no change in view from the neighbor next door to the building or the parking, nothing is getting any closer to that property. >> And from a planning perspective, given
the size of the play area, is it beneficial to have trees there? >> Again, you're you're already down to about,00 feet. you have the shed holding the little tight bikes and balls and things of that nature. So, in terms of the actual usable areas, probably less
than 1,000 square feet. Obviously, anything you start planting shrinks it. >> And when you have new plantings, you have children running around and everything, there's a good chance that they may or may not. Is that right? >> The plants or the children? >> The plants. Uh,
>> yeah. I mean, I'm not an arborist, but obviously, um, you know, not every tree takes to the ground. Okay. You want to bring up uh >> Yeah. Dr. Josh, smile up, please. >> You were previously You're still under.
>> All right. So, Dr. Smallow, I took notes with regard to council's allegations with regard to the synagogue, which I know are not true, but I need you to testify with regard to this. First of all, are we running a daycare center out of 18 Pit Road? >> No.
>> Second of all, are the children in our groups unsupervised? >> No. >> Third of all, were there ever 200 children at one time at 18 Pit Road? >> No. >> It's the first set of comments. Um, with
regard to the equipment, the playground equipment, is there currently the playground equipment from what was at the synagogue now installed at 18 Pit Road? >> No. >> Is there a little piece of something that's being removed by the synagogue? >> Yes.
>> Thank you. Um, the gate, this has been addressed in the last hearing. This was addressed in the first hearing and corrected in the last hearing, but I will uh address this now. First of all, we are entitled to use the
gate. I highly object to council's request and Mr. Praaser's request that we need to be blocked out of our own property and that the gate cannot be used from the synagogue to 18 pit road. However, Miss Dr. Smiler, what is in the bulletin that we put out every week to
the people of the synagogue about 18 pit rope? >> I don't have it in front of me, but it is specifically written that you are not allowed to use it as a cutthrough. I announce it from the pullpit every week. It's in our bulletin. We are not allowed to cross through from 18 pit to the
shaw. >> And with regard to the bulletin that goes out every week, does that go out to the entire membership? >> Yes. And are there also printed copies of that same bulletin available in the synagogue for anybody to pick up? >> Yes.
>> And have we been doing the notice about 18 Pit Road in the bulletin every week? >> Yes. >> Thank you. Okay. Next. With regard to 18 Pit Road, there's been a statement here tonight that there should not be a gate that
goes from the new play area into 18 Pit Road. Is that practical? >> No. >> And why not? >> Because we own 18 pit road. >> But aside from that, I mean, should we be should do do you believe the synagogue should be blocked out of
access to 18 pit road? >> No, not at all. >> And who will be living there effective in July? >> The new youth directors. And they have children, correct? >> They have three kids. >> So, their children are probably going to be playing in the backyard quite a bit. Correct. >> Yes. >> And the youth director should be allowed
to go from their house through their backyard into the synagogue property. Is that right? >> Yes. Okay. >> And in addition to that, um we were before this board in January. Well, the resolution was in January and it was
decided that the board was too restrictive with regard to telling the congregation how we can or can't use the house, how we can or can't use the driveway, and how we can or can't use the gate. And the congregation in a very amendable way actually agreed to certain
things. So, let's go over that. Um, did the congregation agree that the driveway holds about three to five cars? >> Yes. And that anybody that parks in the driveway invited by us to park there, us meaning the congregation is allowed to then use the gate. Is that correct? >> Yes.
>> With regard to the house, was it also discussed that the congregation has the right to say who can be or not be in the house? >> Yes. And was it also decided that the congregation can tell anybody that's an inviteee to the house, a guest to the house, a visitor to the house, living in
the house, that they can use the front door of the house or the back door of the house and go through and go to the synagogue? Is that correct? >> And would it be an extreme inconvenience for the youth directors to have to walk down Pit Road, down
Shuntpike Road, and around to Mountain Avenue in order to get to the synagogue? >> Yes. Just want to look over if I missed anything that was incorrectly stated by council. Yes. Um, it was stated that the
synagogue has been untruthful at past hearings as well as your testimony in the past. >> What is your comment with regard to that? >> That's completely not true. >> And was there ever a time that you stated that there never should be access from 18 pit road to the synagogue or the
synagogue to 18 pit road? >> No. >> And that testimony can be checked. Is there anything else you would like to add based on the comments you heard here today? >> No. >> What is your opinion with regard to the view and the landscaping
from the congregation's perspective whether it should be installed or not? >> The landscaping additional landscape >> there are existing trees there now. So I mean the Do we take down the existing
trees that are there to plant new ones? >> I think there's also a very large tree or bush on the other side that >> it's my only question if need. Yeah. >> Okay. I'm going to pull the board and let them make the decision whatever that vote is with the trees because it's five
trees, three trees. I would always agree with our board member that we it was me, I would have done made it happen. If it was in the second application of the first, you would have continued, but I'll let the board do that. So, I don't want to talk any more about the trees. You know, I we've heard enough from your planner and
and everyone else. Five trees. >> Anything further? >> I'm good. Thank you. >> Great. Do you want to do any closing uh summaries? >> I'll do I mean, I think we've covered it, but I'll just make it quick. Um >> covered it. We can >> Well, no, I'll make it quick just for the record.
All right. So in summary, uh obviously this is a compliant application. I've heard the terms used as of right. We are not asking for any variances. 18 pit road will remain compliant. 339 Mountain Avenue will improve. Um we are trying to
be actually neighbor friendly with regard to the major subdivision. I think it is a benefit to the synagogue to do this at this time. Um and I do think as Mr. Barnett indicated that the restrictions that have been previously
placed on 18 Pit Road um have been more harsh than than they should be. Uh I will also indicate that I will put it on the record that once the youth directors do live there, you know, again, if they want to invite children over, if they want to, you know, function in their
home capacity, in their youth director capacity, they have every right to do so. And I highly object to any idea that we should have to block off access from one property that we own to another property that we own. And the final
thing I would say is we've gone out of our way to make sure that it is not used as a cut through. And this idea that there may have been 20 people that walked through. Guess what? If you have five cars there and you got four people in a car, five time four is 20. You're
right. There could have been 20 people that walked through. So, in conclusion, I would say I would ask that the board approve this application. Um, I would ask that you want to lift restrictions on 18 pit road, we'll take that, too. And the last
thing I would say is, you know, we do not think that it's necessary for the added landscaping, but I would ask that the engineer be able before we are required to plant that we take a look at there what's there now so that maybe it's not necessary. I was back there. I
know that the glazers have some big bush that certainly goes above the fence and it is a six-foot fence and the view doesn't change. So that's where I leave it. >> I think I'll let the board vote on the trees, but it'll always be a field
change. Word will always to make whatever he feels in the field. >> Fine. Then let it be a field decision. >> If it's removing, if it's adding, it would be Mr. Disco's. Word's not going to go into Yeah, I thank the board for your
consideration. >> Thank you. Okay, so um so we've heard a lot open up for us to kind of talk through want to discuss like say your name as we go down just so we're that's all you were asking about
is trees or we >> No, no, you tell tell what you think. This is an opportunity for us to hear what each other has to say. Um, I don't know that it needs to be the same consistent landscaping across I'm looking at this application as if it
were if it were submitted in at once as opposed to three different times or once and two amendments um what we would have considered at that time. So, I do think there needs to be some landscaping buffer between that's on the temple
property between the glazers and that that side. Um, you know, ultimately it would be I think if this came before us as one cohesive application, I would have said keep the residents a residence, keep the play area a play
area and and you know the invitees of the um youth director can't be, you know, 50 kids from the temple. So that's how I would have viewed this if it were put in front of us at once. But as far
as this specific lot line modification, to me it's it's fairly dimminimous. >> Thank you. >> Well, I'm going to agree with with with Mr. Tiger and have Mr. Disco decide about the trees. It is uh you know, I
I'm not I hardly would consider myself an expert in that. I'll leave that be. As far as access from uh from from pit road to the to the temple, yeah, I I think that the people who live there and their guests and children should be able to cross into use the gate and go into.
But if there are people coming from New York, as somebody was said, and there's not part of that household, I could see how I do have a little problem with that and I I would like to see how that could be resolved in a way that would be have, you know, work out for everyone. I'm not sure we've we've gotten to that point yet.
>> We dealt with that at the last hearing. All right. But if you and I understand that the temple is giving out instructions, it's not to be used. But I don't think that people from New York are members of the temple and are probably have never seen this bulletin. So I just I you know I think people
there should be some kind of safeguard to avoid a massive amount of people to cross over. But for the residents of Frit Road, yeah, I think they should be totally free to go back and forth. And that's all we're talking about. We're not actually putting a vote through. I'm going to conclude my comments
>> that was addressed at the last hearing in the resolution as well. >> Right. David, you can go. >> Um, so I think I I've certainly said it earlier. Uh, clearly we realize that um that we cannot restrict the gate. Um, that was that was gone over tons of
times. So therefore, the gate exists and people can use the gate, right? um members non-members it's you know it it exists and we cannot restrict people on private property to do things. So um seeing no no evidence from opposing
opposing council of anything illegal happening or against this board has has voted on in the past. Um I also agree with Mr. Wish. I think the change to me it's 60 of one half a dozen of another and I would see no reason why I would
not vote with in vote for this. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> In your landscaping yesterday, however this go. Yeah, I make sense. >> Mayor, in terms of landscaping, I three trees, five trees. Just make sure
they're not 5' 11 because they have to be six feet. Um but I I defer to Mr. Disco on that. Um, I feel for Mr. Prazner, Mrs. Glazner, I understand you've been inconvenience. I'm sorry for that. Um, but I, you know, in terms of 18 Pit Road, I think it's a settled
issue. Um, I think the youth directors need to be able to operate as youth directors. It's, it is a temple property. Um, and yeah, I'm satisfied. >> Uh, I don't have an issue at all with the lot line. I do think it would be
more of a good neighbor if you put some more plants back there to cut that that view down. Um, and I understand that you put all your messages out to your members not to cut through. Most people listen. Not everybody
listens. I'm not saying they're doing it purposely to make somebody angry, but I just think if you're more striden with your request to them, they might listen a little bit better. Julie. >> Yes. I I don't have a problem with the setback
the line. I think it has been said it'sable change as to the trees. I agree that probably will make you a better neighbor if you put them up, but I'll leave that to Mr. Dope uh determination. >> Okay. And and I agree with Scott if we
and the board if we would have seen this application all once, we would have put the tree. So, we'll we'll defer to you to go in the field and figure it out to make sure it's appropriate. Um the if the board acts favorably, the one of the conditions that I wrote on approval would be that they have to remove whatever impervious coverage to balance
out that would be a condition of approval before signing of the subdivision deed that they would have to remove the patio concrete in order to balance it out and that you would work that out with the applicant. Is that okay, Mr. Da? >> Sure. >> Okay.
Anything further? So not seeing any further. Can I entertain a motion to approve or deny? >> So move. >> Well, which way? >> To approve. >> To approve. >> Okay. Uh, can I have a second? >> Second it. We have a roll call, please.
>> Miss To, >> yes. >> Mr. Cedarquist, >> yes. >> Mayor Ler, >> yes. >> Mr. Barnett, >> yes. >> Mr. Wishna, >> yes. >> Vice Chair Loer, >> yes. >> And Chair Tiger,
>> yes. >> Okay. Thank you very much for your time. >> Okay. The next uh business before this board is a master plan update. Uh I think you said what's about five minutes. >> We got three and a half. >> No, no, no. Important. This is Yeah.
Take five minutes or seven, whatever you have to do. some of the thinking that's been between uh some members of the board and from um our engineers and so forth. So, go ahead. >> Hey, counselor. Councelor Clara, do you
mind? Uh >> thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. >> Okay. Very quickly, um, as you know, we've been working on a land use plan element of the master plan. You're going to get a link next week on a document that's about 100 plus pages long. I
didn't want to send you that link without getting out in front of it. You have you will have this electronically, the document that I just handed out. So, I also wanted you to also have a hard copy. Essentially, what I wanted you to focus
on was the last portion of the master plan that you have not yet read and that you have not yet received, but I wanted to get out in front of it because I thought it would not the proper way to just send you a link saying here, read this and let me know what you think. I I
didn't think that was the right way. When you read the document, at the end of the document is the key a key portion of what this work is, you know, the meaningful work of of why we're doing this.
What are we saying should be recommended for improvements, goals, objectives of our master plan and guiding our land use over the next 10 years. What we try to do is summarize them in this document so
it doesn't get lost because they're discussed throughout this entire document. And if you go through it, it gets tiring sometimes. So you have it electronically and you have a hard copy of it. And what we're asking for is to read this. Nobody's I'm not asking
anybody to even make any decisions or discuss any of the items tonight. I just wanted to give you an idea of what's coming so you could start reviewing it because ultimately when we do adopt this master plan, this summary of these goals and objectives is the critical component
of it. The other part that I was going to very quickly touch upon is you got a separate email on the status of the housing element and fair share plan. Why has this document, our land use plan element, taking so long and why haven't
we gotten to the finish line? We did not want to recommend adoption of our land use plan element until our housing plan element was approved by the court. You got three documents today. I sent them all to Jen. You have them all electronically. One is a certification
of compliance valid for 10 years. This is what we've been trying to get which certifies our fourth round plan. That's the big start. Now, here comes the next one. We got that on April 1st signed by our judge overseeing our plan saying
we're good to go. Everybody has that. A couple days later, we get a letter from Fair Share Housing Center saying not so fast. >> All right. So after we get our certification signed by our judge, we get a letter from fair share dated April
7 saying time out. We still have may have some issues and then the judge issues another order saying okay they get an extension. So it's we came pretty close. I thought we crossed the finish line. However, we're back under review
by fair share. I want to see what those comments, if any, are on our housing plan before we adopt our land use plan because one could change. >> I'm sorry. >> Who's the lawyer?
>> Um, on this particular case, we have Joel Paul. So, they've been very good to work with. I'm not complaining. It's I just wanted to let you know the process because I'm kind of like slow playing the land use plan element until
I have the housing plan element fully approved. I thought I had it. I don't have it. They asked for 30 days, but that gives us 30 days. A little bit of time. Nobody's rushed. I want to get the next document teed up, but I'm asking you to do some homework. Take a look at
the emails that you have. Everything I sent out today is an electronic word document. So anybody can make any comments, edits. If you want to do it on a piece of paper, great. If you want to do it electronically, you have that also. >> Great. >> Okay.
>> Talk about it maybe next month. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> That's all I have. Thank you. >> No, no, we got to go. >> Any members of the public that wish to speak on any business before this board? >> You have anything? >> Anything? >> Okay. Seeing none, I'm going to close this to the public. We can motion to adjurnn, but I'd like everyone to say
please. >> My motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Second. >> All in favor? >> I >> I >> Okay, are we all correct?