Page | 12

VOORHEES TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD MINUTES AUGUST 10, 2017

The Chairman called the meeting to order and stated it was being held in compliance with the “Open Public Meeting Act” and had been duly noticed and published as required by law.

ROLL CALL

Present: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Weil, Mr. Willard, Mr. Daddario, Mr. Leoncio, Mr. Patton, Mr. Brocco, Mr. Cupersmith, Mr. Senges

Absent:

Also, present, Mrs. CherylLynn Walters, Board Solicitor, Ben Matlack, Board Engineer, John Keating, Board Planner, Corrine Tarcelli, Zoning Board Secretary

NEW BUSINESS

Ari Weiss and Melissa Murray

93 Kresson-Gibbsboro Road

Block 206, Lot 10

Case #ZC2017-019

Seeking Bulk Variance relief from Section 152.005(D)(3) of the ULDO to permit the construction of a 12’x30’ detached garage with a side-yard setback of 4 feet where 30 feet is required and wherein no event shall grading, construction, or alteration of lot be permitted within 5 feet of the side property line. Seeking any and all other variances, waivers and/or other relief as may be deemed necessary by the Board and/or its professionals.

Ari Weiss was sworn in to testify. Mr. Weiss stated six weeks ago the Board granted Bulk Variance relief to permit the construction of a 12’x 30’ detached garage with a side-yard setback of 8.3 feet where 30 feet is required. However, they encountered an issue prior to excavating when they had the utility lines marked. The gas line was not marked where it was marked three months ago. There was some confusion. Mr. Weiss thought it was in one location and it was marked at a different location. They paid a professional to confirm the correct location. Unfortunately it was the new location where it was marked which interfered with the garage by one to two feet. Therefore, they wanted to move it over enough to make sure when they excavate, they’re at least two to three feet away from the gas line.

Mrs. Walters questioned whether or not Mr. Weiss verified with a professional, either a surveyor or an engineer, that the garage needed to be moved. Mr. Weiss indicated he spoke with an engineer as well as the utility company. They excavated a portion of the line to see exactly where it was located because they were told even the markings could be off by either 18 inches on one side or 18 inches on the other. Therefore, they did determine exactly where it was located and the garage will be at least two feet away from it.

Mr. Senges inquired as to whether or not Mr. Weiss had spoken to his neighbors to obtain their point of view about being that close to the property line. Mr. Weiss stated he had spoken to his direct neighbors prior to our first Variance when they were before the Board six weeks ago. At that time the neighbors stated they didn’t mind what the Weiss’s did at all. They allowed Mr. Weiss to take down a few trees at that time that were on their property. Mrs. Walters indicated she received a call from the one neighbor, Rose Mashee one day prior to this particular meeting expressing some concerns over the relief Mr. Weiss was seeking this evening. Her instruction was under the Land Use law either her or someone on her behalf needs to present to provide testimony to the Board in person. The Board cannot provide testimony or relay information. Mrs. Walters simply wanted to make the homeowner aware that there are some concerns as to the proximity to Mrs. Mashee’s property line.

Mr. Senges inquired knowing she may be unhappy would Mr. Weiss have a change of heart as to what he would like to do with this garage. Mr. Weiss stated unfortunately, no.

Mrs. Walters inquired as to whether or not Mr. Weiss had spoken to his neighbor previously. Mr. Weiss said yes prior to coming before the Board for the 8 foot variance and at that time her and her husband were both okay. He saw them in person when they signed the notice for the first Variance. He reiterated the Mashee’s allowed them to remove three trees that were on their property that were leaning over and would have been hanging over where the garage was going to be and they had no issues with that. Her husband stated he would call their tree removal company and Mr. Weiss stated he wanted to pay for the tree removal himself. He stated he wanted to remove the trees because of where the garage is to be located, the trees would be hanging over and should they fall they would land directly on the garage.

Mrs. Walters inquired as to whether or not additional trees needed to be removed. Mr. Weiss stated no.

Mr. Senges inquired as to whether or not Mr. Weiss can get the Variance to five feet. Mr. Weiss, stated it would be really close to five feet.

Mr. Senges inquired as to whether or not the gas line could be moved. Mr. Weiss contacted the utility company and offered to pay to have the gas line moved. The utility company told him they would not move a gas line once it was installed in order to build a garage. The utility company does not feel that is a necessity. He further indicated he requested four feet in his application to play it safe. He thinks it will be closer to five feet. He wanted to make sure he didn’t have to come back in front of the Board again. Unfortunately, until they start digging, he will not know exactly where the line is and Mr. Weiss wants to stay 18 inches away from where the utility company advised him to do so.

Mr. Weiss further stated photos presented previously show a wooded property for approximately 100 feet between the side of their property and where their neighbors have clear land and a landscaped back yard. There are really thick woods between their house and their neighbor’s home.

The meeting was opened to the public. Seeing no one, the public portion was closed.

Mr. Weil made a motion to approve C Variance relief from Section 152.005(D)(3) of the ULDO to permit the construction of a 12’x30’ detached garage with a side-yard setback of 4 feet where 30 feet is required and wherein no event shall grading, construction, or alteration of lot be permitted within 5 feet of the side property line. Seconded by Mr. Cupersmith.

Mr. Senges asked the Board Solicitor, Mrs. Walters whether or not there should be something included in the motion that this is an adjustment to a previously approved application because they have such limited testimony. Mrs. Walters indicated the Resolution will reflect there was a previously approval granted.

Ayes: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Weil, Mr. Willard, Mr. Daddario, Mr. Leoncio, Mr. Cupersmith, Mr. Senges.

Nays: None

The Family Church

333 Preston Avenue – Suite 2

Block 14, Lot 13

Case #ZC2017-014

Seeking ‘USE’ Variance relief from Section 153.082 of the ULDO along with site plan waiver to permit the use of the Property as a church. Also request any other relief as may be deemed necessary by the board and/or its professionals. This is a continuation from the July 27, 2017 Zoning Board Meeting in which this application was initially considered.

For the record, Michael Floyd of the firm of Archer and Greiner, appeared on behalf of the applicant The Family Church for their request for a Use Variance approval for Unit 2 at the Voorhees Coliseum.

Mrs. Walters, Board Solicitor stated Mr. Floyd and his client and all of their professionals were here a few weeks ago for the initial part of the presentation. The Board closed out the presentation. The Board took testimony and comment from the public and The Family Church requested to continue the application to address parking issues. Mrs. Walters stated she anticipates the testimony coming from Mr. Floyd this evening will be limited to parking and any other testimony with respect to the Use variance criteria itself as it relates to the impact of the parking. Mrs. Walters will advise the members of the public all testimony tonight will focus on the issue that was unresolved when the meeting was adjourned a couple of weeks ago. Public comment will be limited to comment on whatever testimony is presented this evening. We are not going to rehash the issues we heard previously. We are focusing on this particular issue.

Mrs. Waters stated the letter from the Engineer was forwarded to Mr. Floyd in the afternoon on August 10, 2017.

Mr. John Keating from CME, the Board’s Planner was introduced this evening. Mr. Keating was sworn in to testify. Mr. Keating is taking the place of Mr. Misell who was present for the last meeting. He has reviewed the notes and the file and is up to speed on the planning criteria and the planning testimony that had been provided.

Mr. Floyd confirmed that he was in receipt of the August 10, memo from Ms. Matlack regarding the prior testimony as well as issues that were raised by the Board. The first bullet point in that memo is additional testimony in support of the requested Use Variance. Mr. Floyd requested Joe Mancini approach and provide the prior testimony that he put forth in support of the requested Use Variance approval.

Mr. Mancini is a licensed professional planner in the state of NJ and was previously admitted as an expert on July 27, 2017. Mr. Floyd requested that he be acknowledged as an expert again for his testimony this evening.

Mr. Mancini was sworn in to testify. Mr. Floyd requested Mr. Mancini to bolster his testimony with respect to the Church as a religious institution and why it is an inherently beneficial use. Mr. Mancini stated when we speak about Use Variances obviously there are two categories. We believe the church clearly fits within what we consider an inherently beneficial use in that the use promotes general welfare. He believes this is self-evident. A religious institution provides services to the community as a whole and its constituents, the courts have held that to be true as well. Religious uses are commonly considered to meet the standard of promoting public good and promoting public welfare. That being said, the other way we look at a Use Variance is in the absence of an inherently beneficial use. We look to see whether the use is particularly suited to the site at hand. Again, we think the Family Church meets the criteria here at the Coliseum. The building size is consistent with their needs, they have addressed parking and the parking works for the church and that’s always a concern for religious use. He believes the other uses in the Coliseum are complimentary which again speaks to the

parking and the shared parking calculation the Ordinance allows. Mr. Mancini thinks the other uses of the coliseum, Nexxt Level are complimentary to the church and to the family style they promote. Finally he thinks the family church is a better use for this particular unit then other uses that would be permitted in that condo unit particularly the banquet hall.

Mr. Floyd reiterated and inquired Mr. Mancini for the record case law and his expert opinion the Family church is an inherently beneficial use. Mr. Mancini responded, absolutely there is no question in his mind.

Mr. Senges stated the memo requests they expand on the negative and positive criteria. Mr. Mancini stated religious services, houses of worship, and community outreach advance several purposes of Land Use law. He stated he previously spoke about several purposes of the Land Use law promoted by religious use. Mr. Mancini stated he believes they are appropriate here for the Family Church in this location. Purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law are advanced by the Church in this location.

Mrs. Walters apologized for interrupting and asked Mr. Floyd from a legal perspective is he arguing in the alternative. Mr. Floyd responded they are stating that a religious use is an inherently beneficial use but even if it was not an inherently beneficial use, this site is still particularly well-suited for the intended use. Case law is very clear of that. Mrs. Walters stated they are mixing the criteria here. Mr. Mancini responded in his professional opinion it is inherently beneficial use.

Mr. Mancini continued to state those purposes he mentioned were purposely promoting an establishment of appropriate concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions and preservation of the environment. Again he thinks this is a great use for this location. He thinks this is an efficient use and less intense use of this unit and it is a much better zoning alternative to use this space as opposed to build a church somewhere else on land that isn’t disturbed. He likes to see this sort of infill use as a better zoning alternative.

Mr. Senges inquired as to whether or not there are any negative criteria other than the parking? Mr. Mancini responded that he does not see any detriment. The parking will be addressed and therefore he does not see any detriment to the public good. The use as mentioned is a benefit to the community. Again, the only detriment is if the parking is an issue and that issue will be addressed. Secondly, whether or not there is a detriment or substantial impairment of the intent and purposes of the Zoning Plan, Mr. Mancini stated he does not see that here, and thinks providing a facility that meets the needs of the public and necessary for the common good is consistent with the Master Plan. Therefore, he does not see how it could be a detriment to the Zone or the Master Plan. He believes he met the positive negative criteria and would request the Board to grant the Use Variance.

Mr. Senges asked Mr. Matlack whether or not this satisfies the question he raised. Mr. Matlack responded ‘Yes’.

Mrs. Walters stated she would like to pose a question and requested they then defer to Mr. Keating to provide his planning opinion. Regarding inherently beneficial use, the use should promote the public interest and they have heard testimony on that. The use should not result in a substantial detriment to the public good and testimony was provided for that. Substantial detrimental effects resulting from the use can be reduced or mitigated from conditions imposed by the Board. Is that where the testimony is going next? She further inquired based upon what