Filing Letter to Board in Response to M Bennett Email with Exhibits 12 02 2024

December 2, 2024 Page 4 on the Property and the pool house, which is the subject of the pending application, is a permitted customary accessory structure related thereto. Accordingly, jurisdiction over the Application is rightly placed with the Planning Board. B. Adequacy of Legal Notice The MLUL requires that legal notice for a development application “state the nature of the matters to be considered”. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-11. Our courts have consistently interpreted this provision to mean that the notice must accurately describe what the property will be used for in a “common sense manner such that an ordinary layperson . . . may make an informed determination as to whether they should participate in the hearing or, at the least, look more closely at the plans and other documents on file” with the board. Perlmart of Lacey, Inc. v. Lacey Tp. Planning Bd., 295 N.J. Super. 234, 237-238 (App. Div. 1996). The Legal Notice for the Application met and exceeded this requirement. The Legal Notice notified the public, in pertinent part, that the Applicant “has applied to the Planning Board for site plan approval in order to renovate the existing pool house building, and to construct an open-air pavilion with a bar seating area to be attached to the pool house as well as a covered pergola with tables and chairs…The Applicant also proposes associated improvements, including but not limited to expanded paver and walkway areas, grill area, fencing and landscaping. For the avoidance of doubt, the Applicant intends to continue to sell alcohol beverages from the premises.” (Emphasis added). For the Objector to remotely allege that the Applicant failed to satisfy the statutory notice obligations under the MLUL is blatantly disingenuous. Similarly, Objector’s reliance on Pond Run Watershed Ass’n v. Tp. of Hamilton Zoning Bd. or Adjustment, 397 N.J. Super. 335 (App. Div. 2008) to claim the Legal Notice was deficient is equally without merit and misplaced. In Pond Run, vacant property was proposed to be developed with a mixed-use development, which included a prohibited 5,000 square foot, 168-seat restaurant use. Yet, the legal notice for the application was entirely devoid of any reference to a restaurant use and instead described the mixed-use development as a “retail/office” use. The court in Pond Run therefore appropriately concluded “[t]he notice’s generic allusion to

any reference to a restaurant use and instead described the mixed-use development as a “retail/office” use. The court in Pond Run therefore appropriately concluded “[t]he notice’s generic allusion to ‘retail/office units’ would not reasonably alert a recipient of the notice that a dining establishment was anticipated”, which may raise heightened concerns to neighbors “as to issues of traffic, parking, noise and possible consumption of alcoholic beverages on site” and ruled the notice deficient. Id. at 354-355. Unlike the Pond Run case where vacant land was proposed to be converted to a mixed-use development with a 5,000 square foot prohibited restaurant use that was not mentioned in the notice, the Property has been used as a golf course and golf club since 1917 that has historically sold alcohol. The character and nature of the use of the Property is not proposed to change as a result of the Application. Moreover, even if it were, the Legal Notice fairly apprised the public of the nature of the Application by stating that a pavilion with a bar seating area was proposed and that the Applicant intends to continue to sell alcoholic beverages from the premises. 4904-2272-4354.v1