April 3, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting

ds and dismiss an objector’s argument to that end. In this instance the applicant has agreed that, as a condition of approval, if the board were to approve this application it would submit a letter of interpretation to the New Jersey Department of Environmental protection that letter would verify whether the proposed structure is being placed within wetlands or not, if it's being placed in wetlands or not, they would have to come back to the board and modify the approval, if it is not then they can go forward with the project. Ms. John-Basta also mentioned that the application is for a halfway house that will have two restrooms’ facilities and 100 square foot walk up snack bar that will sell prepackaged goods that might include alcohol. They do not have approval from the ABC Commission to serve alcohol at this structure, since they don't have approval from the board to actually construct it. In the event that they were granted the approval they will apply to the appropriate regulatory authorities that have jurisdiction over the sale of alcohol. Mr. Steck testified that the notice was changed to say that alcohol may be sold that's essentially an admission by the applicant that it is a needed component of the notice because a facility that serves alcohol in his opinion from a land use point of view has different characteristics than one that doesn't. Mr. Steck believes the distance between the proposed halfway house to the nearest residential property line is relevant, since the applicant’s planner said otherwise. In Mr. Steck opinion the proximity to a residential property line is a significant feature and the halfway house that is less than 70 feet from a residential property line is not a

customary accessory use. CROSS EXAMINATION FROM APPLICAN’TS ATTORNEY e Ms. Lisa John-Basta asked if the presented exhibit earlier in the evening that was dated March 6th 2024, Mr. Steck didn't file it with the board in advance of tonight's meeting to provide the board and the applicant an opportunity to review it. Mr. Steck said that an objector is not required to submit information in advance. e Ms. Lisa John-Basta asked where were photographs taken for the exhibit. Mr. Steck said that the pictures were taken from the golf course neighbor’s property. ¢ Ms. Lisa John-Basta asked if Mr. Steck is a specialist in wetlands, a civil engineer or a NJ license attorney. Mr. Steck said no. ¢ Ms. John-Basta asked if Mr. Steck was present during the applicant’s professionals’ testimony and agreement that it would submit for an LOI to approve this application. Mr. Steck he was present during that testimony. e Ms. John-Basta asked if Mr. Steck has done any independent reviews or research related to the 122 golf courses in the state of New jersey and how many of them might have halfway houses. Mr. Steck said that said that he did not because the applicant needs to do it. ¢ Ms. Jonh-Basta asked how many how many golf courses out of 122 was the applicant required to demonstrate had halfway house. Mr. Steck said that it does not have to be the majority, but the proximity to residential property lines is important to consider. ¢ Ms. Lisa John-Basta asked if Mr. Steck reviewed the planner memo indicating that in his professional opinion to halfway house is a customary accessory structure. Mr. Steck said he did, but that Mr. Grygiel did his memo without seeing the evidence presented during the meetings. e Ms. Lisa-John Basta asked for Mr. Steck’s professional opinion that the board may request greater setback requirements then the code itself requires. Mr. Steck said that under the site plan provisions the board has the ability to do it. ¢ Ms. John-Basta asked under the municipal land use law what body has the exclusive power to zone. Mr. Steck said the governing body. ¢ Ms. John-Basta asked what is the minimum rear yard setback requirements in the R2 zone. Mr. Steck said it 45 feet. BOARD QUESTIONS ¢ Chairman Bagoff asked if the halfway house is an accessory use. Mr. Steck said that it may be but because of the specifics of this application, in his opinion, it is

id it 45 feet. BOARD QUESTIONS ¢ Chairman Bagoff asked if the halfway house is an accessory use. Mr. Steck said that it may be but because of the specifics of this application, in his opinion, it is not a permitted accessory use because of the uniqueness of serving alcohol and its proximity to residential properties. ¢ Council President Rutherford asked if wetlands have been classified as either intermediate or extraordinary. Mr. John Hess said that there was a site visit by an environmental scientist who was hired by the applicant and he did a delineation of what he felt was the wetlands boundary and then based on his observation of the wetlands he made a determination that it was, in his opinion, that it was intermediate value wetlands and would require 50-foot buffer. The only way to get an affirmative answer is to file an application with the DEP for wetlands letter of interpretation and in that letter the DEP will confirm the delineation or tell the applicant that they need to make certain adjustments and the DEP will also set forth the classification of the wetlands. If the DEP 9

finds that the wetlands are exceptional resource value and require 150-foot buffer then the applicant cannot proceed with the project and has to come back before the board. Council President Rutherford asked what animals could be in danger during this project. The board attorney said that there have not been any allegations in regards endangered species for this application. Mayor McCartney asked if there will be landscaping at the property line. Ms. Lisa John- Basta said that as a condition of approval they will work with the town professionals to place additional landscaping along the property boundary line. Chairman Bagoff asked about the letter that Mr. John Hess wrote about the drainage near properties at Old Indian Road. Mr. Hess said that based on his findings with the township engineer the runoff from the roof area will be minimal, also the plans show that the roof drains from the halfway house house would be connected to an infiltration basin and that infiltration basin will allow the runoff to recharge into the ground. The storm water report from the applicant demonstrates that there will be no discharge from the infiltration during the storms. So, therefore it would have absolutely no impact from the runoff. The distance from the halfway house to the nearest existing residence is 175 feet which is substantial. Finally, the grading plan also shows that if there were an overflow, then the runoff from the halfway house would remain on the golf course property and would not be discharged off site towards any of the existing residential. PUBLIC QUESTIONS David Robinson at 39 Old Indian Road asked in regards to an outlet of water that rolls into the wetlands near his property, should that have been part of the original plan. Mr. Steck answered in the affirmative. Kevin Malanga at Ridge Road asked can you characterize the location of six of the halfway houses presented as being distant from property lines. Mr. Steck said the distance was 240 feet of those and one exception there was one for 165 feet to a residential property line. Donna Graham at 31 Old Indian Road asked if there is a site plan for this particular project that shows all the trees that will be removed to the building of the halfway house. Mr. Steck said that there is not. Donna Graham asked if there is a site plan that shows all the trees that will have to be removed and the tree

t will be removed to the building of the halfway house. Mr. Steck said that there is not. Donna Graham asked if there is a site plan that shows all the trees that will have to be removed and the tree root systems that will be damaged for the building of the sewer line for the halfway house. Mr. Steck said there is not. Donna Graham asked if these root systems are damaged by the sewer line is there any remediation. Mr. Steck said that the standards are that the applicant is to identify the trees that are removed and the board has the ability to flex the location of the lines in his opinion as part of its site plan powers and if trees have to be removed there are formulas for replacements. Donna Graham asked in his considerable experience, when he sees similar site plans for projects like this, do those site plans generally indicate specifically and clearly every single tree that has to be removed because of the project. Mr. Steck said that in West Orange tree removal ordinance requires the identification of trees that are going to be removed and with respect to golf courses particularly trees within 75 feet of the perimeter. Donna Graham asked in Mr. Steck’s opinion is this plan as submitted without the specificity of the trees that are going to be removed is it adequate as it stands. In Mr. Steck opinion, he said no. 10

PUBLIC COMMENT ¢ Donna Graham at 31 Old Indian Road commented that there are several reasons to why she strongly objects to the location of the halfway house. e Alan Graham at 31 Old Indian Road agrees with Donna Graham comments in regards the location of the proposed halfway house. ¢ Lou Picciano at 29 Old Indian Road commented that he is concern about the wetlands and the location of the halfway house. ¢ David Robinson at 39 Old Indian Road commented that he agrees with his neighbor Donna Graham testimony. e Susan Campbell at 39 Old Indian Road commented that she objects to the application because her property was not part of the original plans. ¢ Jennifer Sharret at 11 Howell Drive commented that the DEP should do their investigation first before the board makes a final decision. ¢ Micaela Bennet commented that would be no objection if the golf course considered the neighborhood and the environment, had the golf course heard the concerns of the neighborhood and environment and simply relocate it to a more sensible place. *The application has been carried to the April 17, 2024 Planning Board Special meeting. * Meeting adjourned at 12:40AM. ADOPTED: 6/sI ZY Ai Bn. Jamil iquifrizo Vite Planning Board Secretary