February 7, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting Minutes

Ms. Bennet, attorney, called Mr. Peter Steck on behalf of the objector’s entered on the record, he was sworn under oath and his credential were accepted by the board. Mr. Steck reviewed the applicant's most recent submissions and revised his opinion as a result. In his current opinion the applicant has demonstrated that halfway houses are a bona fide accessory use to a golf course. Mr. Steck presented exhibit Al and said that there is a dramatic difference in location between the seven other golf courses reviewed and what is being proposed. Mr. Peter Steck also presented exhibit A2 Mr. Steck previously showed a diagram that showed that there were wetlands suspected in the area and the applicant has now conceded that there are wetlands. Mr. Steck also pointed out that the applicant did not survey the entire wetlands they only did a portion. Mr. Steck presented exhibit A3, if the board carefully looks at the plan, they’Il see that there's a 12-inch tree that is on the left-hand side of the disturbed area and he have superimposed the location of the building in the area that's going to be disturbed. The disturbed area cuts through a 12-inch tree, this tree is probably maybe a foot or two from the eaves of the building, so he is not sure how they're going to save that tree if they're going to have indentation in the building to allow the tree to grow and clearly, they're going to disturb probably half of the root system of that tree. On the exhibit Mr. Steck also showing the other possible trees that might be disturbed by the proposed project. Mr. Steck also said that this property is over 5 acres and it's required to have an environmental impact statement and one of those statements has to do with tree removal and wetlands. Mr. Steck said that applicant in their public notice says that this facility may have alcoholic beverages served in his opinion that is a relevant land use consideration and he thinks the only fair way for this board to approve or analyze this application is assume that a liquor license is going to be approved because this board has no control over it, but the applicant is certainly indicated that it is subject to another agency. But that doesn't mean that the board doesn’t play a role in this if an application for site plan approval is on a County Road and the county has jurisdiction you still have the right to shift driveways to

that doesn't mean that the board doesn’t play a role in this if an application for site plan approval is on a County Road and the county has jurisdiction you still have the right to shift driveways to decide whether they should be left turns in or right turns out. In his opinion it is fundamentally relevant whether alcoholic beverages are served here and he thinks the only fair way to analyze this application is to assume that alcoholic beverages are going to be served. Mr. Steck disagrees with Mr. Pessolano that the board has to approve this application on the location of the facility. Mr. Steck said that the saving of trees is in the township ordinance. It's one of the purposes of the tree ordinance to minimize the destruction of trees. On this application not only does the applicant have an unrealistic application only removing 2 trees, but they didn't even survey the trees down the line that are going to be removed so he believes that the board does not have enough information to approve the application. Mr. Steck on his opinion believes that there is deficient information and there are other locations that involve less tree removal and there are other locations on the golf course that the facility can go.