June 18, 2015

Mr. Steck stated that the property is located in an R-4 zone and he detailed what is permitted by the Township Ordinance for that zone. He said that a conditional use is not prohibited in this zone; he said that a conditional use has the status of a permitted use if it meets the conditions. Mr. Steck presented a copy of the summary of relief requested that outlines the six conditions that must be met. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck if he prepared the summary of relief requested dated 6/18/15; he replied yes. Chairman Buechler asked to have the summary of relief requested, dated 6/18/15, marked as Exhibit A-26 for identification. Mr. Steck distributed copies of Exhibit A-26 to the Board Members and began detailing what six (6) conditions must be met. He said that the applicant does not meet four (4) of the six (6) conditions that he just described. Mr. Steck detailed all of the variances being requested, what is required by the Township Ordinance and what they are proposing. He said that as a House of Worship it is an inherently beneficial use. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck what factual documentation he has to support his statement regarding the House of Worship being an inherently beneficial use; he said he did not have any. Chairman Buechler asked Mr. Steck if he can site any cases to support his statement; he said no but there is federal law RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) to support his statement. Mr. Steck stated that this will have a minimal impact on the zone due to the hours of the week they worship and a minimal amount of people being there. He also said that the care takers house was already operating as a house of worship at one time. Chairman Buechler called for a recess at 9:39 pm. Chairman Buechler resumed the meeting at 9:51 pm. Mr. Steck continued with his testimony after the break and referred to the New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration book written by William M. Cox and Stuart R. Koenig regarding Churches and Houses of Worship being an inherently beneficial use. Mr. Steck stated that the applicant is requesting a parking variance but the parking that is being proposed is more than adequate parking for this use.