Email from Ms Micaela Bennett to the Board Attorney

Additionally, this application should be before the Zoning Board. A golf course and a golf club or private club are separate and distinct uses under the zoning ordinance. Given these principal uses that share the ECCC Property, this Application should have been for either a d(1) variance with the two uses or d(2) variance to increase the intensification of ause. Either variance required the matter to have been heard by the Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and not the Planning Board. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70. By now, this applicant should be well aware that it must notify the public, with sufficient specificity, if it intends to include the sale of alcohol at the proposed location. See Pond Run Watershed Ass'n v. Twp. of Hamilton Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 397 N.J. Super. 335, 339 (App. Div. 2008) citing Perlmart of Lacey, Inc. v. Lacey Twp. Planning Bd., 295 N.J. Super. 234, 241 (App. Div. 1996) wherein the Court found the notice deficient where it failed to indicate the applicant was seeking to sell alcohol as part of the approval. In accordance with Perlmart, the notice should have specifically alerted neighbors and the public at large that the variances ECCC seeks including approval for a large pavilion with a potential liquor license expansion, going beyond the notice's vague, misleading reference that the project “intends to continue to sell alcohol beverages." Please have the Applicant correct these errors before scheduling the matter for a hearing. Please refer this application to the Zoning Board. Then, the notice defect should be cured. This application should not proceed until it's before the correct body and proper notice has been effectuated. Lastly, this is to notify the Board Secretary that at this point, if this application proceeds before this body, it is my intention to participate as an objector and, | may call experts of my own. Furthermore, | believe the Board's attorney has an obligation to correct her guidance and advice regarding applications that include the intention to sell alcohol within the structure they are selling permission to build. It will be my position that at this applicant's most recent prior application, the Board's attorney tainted the proceedings when she announced that the Board couldn't consider the impact of alcohol sales on the land use matter before them. That practice should not be perpetuated and requires

ttorney tainted the proceedings when she announced that the Board couldn't consider the impact of alcohol sales on the land use matter before them. That practice should not be perpetuated and requires correction. It is obvious, when MLUL requires that notice of alcohol sales MUST be included, it is for Board consideration and the public should not be prohibited from inquiring, developing facts and discussing the impacts. Thank you, Micaela Bennett