April 3, 2024 Planning Board Regular Meeting

Mr. Peter Steck, Planner, entered on the record on behalf of the objector, was sworn under oath and provided the following testimony. He testified that near the proposed location of the halfway house there are wetlands that the applicant’s site plan ignored and the applicant has not provided a witness to address the issue. One of the issues he raised was that not only are trees going to be removed from the proposed halfway house, but said that if you simply look at the location of the trees and the extent of disturbance that is on the plans, there are more trees going to be removed necessarily than shown on the plan. He said that it's an inaccurate rendition. Not addressed by the applicant is the fact that the utility lines are going to go down adjacent to the fairway and then angle to Old Indian Rd. and cut through a wooded area The applicant is required to get permits for tree removal. It has to show which trees are removed. This is going to involve trenching of a line, which means cutting off the roots of the trees. There's no indication of what tree damage is going to occur, but surely is going to occur not only in the 75 feet but for an extensive area. Mr. Steck showed pictures of the property. The first photograph is looking from the rear yard of a property toward the area where the facility is going to be located, the second one is taken in the reverse direction showing the wetlands that exists, the third one is in a northerly direction toward the wetlands and the 4th is looking in a northwesterly direction. If it turns out that the limits of the wetlands are greater than is shown on the site plan that means that the buffer even though it's 50 feet might be greater and it certainly means that if they're extraordinary value, the building cannot be located in that location by state law, so it is a fundamental issue in this application to know the limit of the wetlands and the categorization of the wetlands. During Mr. Steck testimony the attorney Lisa John-Basta added that the applicant is not required to produce an environmental expert during the local board proceedings to answer questions on the impacts of development might have in existing ponds 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

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