Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. Awesome. Okay. [clears throat] Good evening and welcome to the January 21st, 2026 meeting of the city summit zoning board of adjustment. My name is Scott Ly and I'm the zoning board chair. Please rise and join us for the pledge of

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. In accordance with New Jersey statute 10 col4-10, adequate notice of this special meeting has been provided to a newspaper record has been posted here in city hall. This meeting is a judicial proceeding. Any questions or comments must be limited to the issues that are relevant to what the board may legally consider in reaching a decision. Decorum appropriate to a judicial hearing must be maintained at all times. For the benefit of the interested public, this meeting is being live streamed on the city's YouTube page, also broadcast in summer government channel, which is Comcast channel 34, Ryzen channel 30. Transcript of this meeting is also being taken using video and audio. So, we need all speakers to utilize one of the microphones in this room. Please note that the fire exits are to my right, your left, and at the back of the room where you entered. The city has a listening system to assist the hearing impaired. If anyone needs hearing assistance, please obtain the system of the deis and return it thereafter. Nor normally we'll call the role, but we we have two board members to be sworn in tonight, so we're going to do that instead.

All right. So, Rick and Jay, if you could each please raise your right hand and repeat after me. I I state your name. Jay Peskins. do solemnly swear do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of New Jersey the Constitution State of New Jersey and that I will bear true faith and allegiance and I will bear true and allegiance to the same to the same and to the governments established to the governments established in the United States in the United States and in this state and in this state under the authority of the people under the authority of the people I do solemnly swear I doly swear that I will faithfully that I will faithfully impartially impartially and justly and justly

perform all the duties perform all the duties of a member of the zoning board member of the zoning board according to the best of my ability according to the best of my ability so help me God so help me God congratulations welcome Mr. Bell will come back Mr. Fes [applause] thank you Mr. Ball, could you please call the role of members for us? Certainly. Uh, Vice Chair Zhan is excused. Mr. Yuko is excused. Mr. Malay is excused. Mr. Nelson here. Mr. Kieran is excused. Miss Chief here. Mr. Fes here. Mr. Chantuli here. Mr. Bell here. And Chairman Lens here. You have a quorum. You may proceed.

You forgot me. Oh, Mr. Mullen, you weren't on my list. Are you here? I am here. [laughter] But I've been sworn in too. Glad we cleared that up.

Andy Ball is the zoning board's attorney. Mr. Ball advises the board members on matters of law and is the key interface with the applicant's attorney. Mr. Ball does not vote on these applications. Jessica Sans is a city employee. She's not here tonight. She's under the weather, but she'll be back with us soon. And is our zoning board secretary. Our board secretary works with the applicants on preparing their applications, planning our agendas, keeping our meeting minutes. Board secretary is also does not vote on these applications. Also present tonight are our experts who are hired annually by the board to provide input. Tonight we have Marie Rafé from Collier's Engineering. Also present is Ed Snikis from Burgess Associates and he's our board planner. These experts are seated at the table to the right of the board, the public's left. They also do not vote. Our board consists of seven regular members and up to four alternates. All members can participate in the hearing tonight, but a maximum of seven can vote. Most applications require a simple majority to be approved. Before we enter into executive session to vote on the application, you will be advised of how many votes are required. Each case will begin with the applicants or their attorney giving an overview of the application process to date, the variances that are required. We then hear from additional expert witnesses the applicant may have to help explain the application why these variances are needed. The board experts followed by the board members may ask questions of the applicant, their attorney, and their expert witnesses. Due to recent cases running excessively long, we strongly encourage applicants and their experts please give brief and concise testimony so we may get to as many cases as possible in a given evening. Once the board members and then the board professionals have completed their questionings questions, the public will have an opportunity to ask their own questions. This is not the time to tell us what you think about the case. That opportunity comes at the end of the hearing. Please be careful as how you phrase your questions. They should not be proceeded with a statement about the case. should be a direct question to the witness. Also, before you ask your questions, we ask please clearly state your name, spell your last name, provide us your address. It's important that our

court reporter be able to keep a clear and accurate public record. After all the witnesses have been heard, members of the audience have a second opportunity to speak. At that time, you may express your opinion, positive or negative, about the application. Then the public hearing is closed and we enter into executive session. This is where the board members discuss the case and then vote. You will be able to listen to our executive session, but you will not normally be able to participate in our discussion. Uh, I ask that each applicant and their attorney present come up and give a brief synopsis of their anticipated testimony tonight, but we can um obviously tonight we have one hearing. So, we we only need um Roger for this. And then uh just to let everyone know, we're going to try and get as much done as we can tonight, but I think we're going to try and wrap things up at 11:00. And then that point, we can discuss what our next steps are in terms of trying to to get this entire thing completed. Sound good? All right. With that, Roger, the floor is yours, as they say. I'll just note for the record that Mr. Bell has recused from the application and has stepped down from the deis. Uh, thanks, Mr. Chairman. Roger Mayor, uh, Lindberry, McCormack, McEto, Brook, and Cooper. Uh, now in New Providence, New Jersey. Things have changed since last we were here. Uh, representing the applicant, Beacon Unitarian. Um, we have one more, uh, witness. In our case tonight, we have our planner, Kate

Keller. Uh, she did testify somewhat prefuncturally in July when we had a little bit of a chaotic meeting. So, uh, we're going to bring her back now that she's heard, uh, Betsy Dolan's, uh, parking testimony, uh, summarize her findings and she'll be available for cross and then, uh, that will be our direct case, uh, subject to recalling a witness if we have to for rebuttal. But that will be the end of our presentation. So then the the objectors can will you be giving any kind of summation or anything like that or

uh, well, the way I would expect this would happen is we'd finish all the testimony over testimony. Mr. Simon puts up uh the public would have a chance to comment and then we both have a chance to summarize our cases at the end. The last thing before we all would vote. So that sounds like what we we're thinking as well. So that works. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So I just like to call back to the stand Kate Keller, please. Hi everybody. And I'll just note that Miss Keller was previously sworn and her credentials were accepted at that time. You remain under oath.

Yes. Thank you all. Um so to new board members don't there are any um my name is Kate Keller with the firm of Phillips Price Gal Laney Keller based in Hoboken New Jersey. Um so yes as indicated I was previously sworn I offered testimony exactly exactly six months ago today. It was July 21st. So given the time that has passed and given the fact that we I not completed our case at the time I am here tonight to refresh the board and their professionals before we proceed to um you know your questions and public comment. Um, so tonight I'm going to briefly review the variances that are being requested and provide the planning proofs for each of those. So again, you know, we've heard a lot of testimony on this application. So I won't go won't try not to repeat myself, but Vegan Unitarian Church is proposing it to develop a new house of worship at the former American Red Cross office at 695 Springfield Avenue, block one, block 1702, lot 47. This site has been used for non-residential purposes um since the Red Cross moved in which per my research is approximately 1960. Um however, the property is still located in the R15 residential zone. This zone encompasses much of the western portion of the city of Summit and it permits only single family dwellings and public parks as principal uses. However, houses of worship such as Beacon Unitarian Church and educational institutions are permitted as conditional uses in this district. And just by way of you know kind of looking at the purposes of zoning and what why this is the way that it is is that houses of worship in particular are frequently permitted in residential zones um in summit across the state and across the country. This goes back to the fact that they are intended, you know, historically and present day, they're intended to serve as fixtures in a community to and then also there is an inherent public benefit to this use that is considered to be, you know, in many cases complimentary to residential and commercial uses, many types of uses. So this is the case throughout Summit. Houses of worship of

various denominations are located in single family residential zones. Just by way of example, St. John's Lutheran on also on Springfield Avenue is in the R10 zone. Temple Sinai Synagogue is on Summit Avenue is in the R25 zone. The Summit JCC on Ken Place Boulevard is in the R15 zone and Pilgrim Baptist Church and Marisab is in the R5 zone. So, you know, these are all sites that exist in town. Some have been more recently approved. And while obviously there are distinctions between a house of worship and single family uses, this is where the conditional use standards come in. Um the city's development regulations recognize this because they provide those standards which are intended to mitigate any negative impacts or really kind of any um any uncomplentary uses or you know distinctions between the house of worship or in this case also an educational facility um which is also conditional use in the zone and single family residences. So the reason we're here tonight before the zoning board is because the proposal does not meet several of those conditional use variances, excuse me, conditional use standards. So D3 variance relief is required. Um, and I know this board is aware of it, but just to reiterate, in order for this board to grant that D3 variance relief that we're requesting, we as the applicant have to demonstrate that the site can overcome any problems associated with the fact that some of the standards are not met. This is established in the case of Coventry versus Westwood. Um, and per that decision, the applicant's burden for relief is actually much less than it is for a D1 use variance. We do not need to show that the site is particularly suitable for the proposed use. It's already permitted in the zone, but rather we have to show demonstrate to this board that the site can still function appropriately, safely without adversely impacting neighborhood properties or the public at large. So that's what we're here to do tonight and that's that's what my planning testimony tonight is going to center on. Um I'm going to go through the condition D3 conditional use variance really first. I will also note that per um your planners report there's also request we're also

requesting a D1 use variance technically for the accessory solar panels in the rear. So we'll just address that separately because it's really in my opinion it's really a technical variance and I think that you know solar is obviously also an inherently beneficial use much as houses of worships are. Um so and there's also a few bulk variances largely related to parking and buffers that I'll also address. Um, so just before I start going into the D3 variants, does the board have the ability to put exhibits up or no tonight? No, that's okay. Okay, that's okay. Um, I don't have my adapter for my computer else I would do it myself. Um, we're talking about the exhibit that was previously submitted. So I think that um, you know, it's it should be in the files. Maybe it can be referenced. But um, that day

that was A1. Thank you. Um, this is an exhibit that I created myself and really I I can I can I can live without it, but it's it's a it's a good visual tool. But essentially what this exhibit showed and I presented this on July 21st is that all of the properties that surround this site are, you know, to except for, you know, not not the not this the Springfield Avenue side, but all the three other sides are either owned by the um by the city of Summit, Wilson Park, or the Summit Board of Education, which is Wilson Primary Center. And I think that we're in a case here where this is something that's very unique about this site. and it really serves to mitigate many of the undue impacts related to the relief sought. So we have two case things here. One is the property has historically not been used for residential purposes um been used for other than single family dwellings. What's there now or but what was there previously and and was the building that still remains has actually been a non-conforming use for that time and all of the immediate abing buting properties are municipal or school properties. So I present this not to say that we don't have any responsibility to the neighbors who are further out or to those across Springfield Avenue but just to demonstrate that there is this natural buffer built in. Um so just to start with some of the conditional use variances that we are requesting the fact that the minimum lot size one is 1.74 acres 2 acres is required. We're looking for a minimum sideyard of 35 34.5 ft or 50 ft is required. And the side and rear buffer strips are approximately 10 and 15 feet respectively where up to 50 feet is required and also minimum parking setback is 15 feet where 20 feet is required. In my opinion, all of these are are substantially mitigated to the point where they will have little to no impact on the abuing properties because these abuing properties are are parks and educational uses. So this is, you know, it's ball fields, it's the school, and it won't have a substantial

detrimental impact on these lots. And because of the presence of these lots, I think it substantially, in my opinion, substantially reduces the impact on neighboring properties. Um, you know, there's lots of distance between the lots. There's heavy landscaping on our site and on these uh neighboring park properties. We also thoughtfully designed our site so that, you know, to to to provide buffers while still providing as much parking as we can. So, you know, this is a case where in further, you know, one of those um buffers which is for excuse me, one of those variances which is for the westerly sideyard setback um and that is to that is um you know really on the um going heading what do we say it's on Yeah. So that that would be on the uh the Wilson Park side. Um this deficiency really is not egregious. It's 34.5 ft where 50 feet is required on paper, but that really only affects one corner of the building facade at a single point. So, it's not like there's a whole wall of the building that's clo that's that close. It's really just one single point and the vast majority of the building is well in excess of that 50ft sideyard setback. So, in my opinion, that meets the intent and spirit of the ordinance. Um, particularly when you look at the existing buffering and the public properties there. Um, regarding the lot coverage, which is also a conditional use standard, the applicant is seeking 48.7% where 40 feet is, excuse me, where 40% is the maximum permitted. So, you know, this is not exactly I wouldn't just characterize this as dimminimous. It's it's a little it's it's not significant in my opinion. Um, especially when you consider that the property is undersized and yet still has to accommodate, you know, is we're looking to accommodate as much parking as we can. Um, and all of the use the use that we're proposing. um this is you know this is an inherently beneficial use I think and this is a there are certain protections that are unafforded to this use because of that status um and I think that this in taken in that context um especially when we're providing on-site parking especially because that was increased over the course of these proceedings in response to board and public comments um I don't

really see any envision any problems related to the drainage or storm water um and also I I this is not part of that calculation but I note that that Um the calculation for lot coverage does not include the green roof area of the building which will essentially increase the pvious coverage on the site by over 3%. So you know that's just not not it just not doesn't count in per year ordinance which is fair. It's kind of a still rather new technology but that I think really just goes to show that we are doing our best to accommodate as much as we can. Um for building coverage we're we're proposing 16.2% 2% where 15% is the maximum permitted. And that I I really think is is is is dimminimous. It's really imperceptible when it when it comes down to um the size of the building. And we're not going to have any of the issues associated with in increased building coverage typically either. That's stuff like the building massing, its appearance, its scale for the size of the property. I think that you've heard a lot of testimony from our other professionals such as Mr. Cherry, our architect, talking about how how the site has been designed and how it will be how it will look. So the last conditional use variance we're seeking is the building height which is 37.9 ft where 35 ft is the maximum permitted. So again this is a case where um the overwhelming majority of the building is in compliance with the 35 ft. The 35 the 30 excuse me the 37.9 ft is really limited to a very small portion of the parapet wall that forms part of the nautilus design that was previously described by Mr. Cherry. Um, and I would note that um, I'm going to refer back to some of his testimony and also note that your zoning ordinance excludes spires, steeples, koopas, and other ornamentation from height restrictions. Um, and those are things that are typically associated with the traditional designs for houses of worship of various denominations. But in this case, you know, as Mr. Mr. Cherry testified to, Unitarians do not have explicit icon like a steeple or something like that. And so the

building's been designed in total some to intend to reflect the values of the faith. And part of that is the nautilus spiral shape which is where this height variance comes into play represents a space where people come together. The unitarian emphasis on the lack of hierarchy and really welcoming people in to the site. So in this case you know my opinion this height exceeded even though it's already very small it's also a case where the faith informs the design but it's not a steeple or anything that's recognized specifically in the ordinance. So that is why we are requesting a variance. So you know given the limited nature and magnitude of that relief, I see no inherent problems associated with granting it. Um in terms of the negative criteria, I think I have addressed that there will not be um substantial public good that will um substantial detriment to the public good associated with the granting of these conditional use variances. And I also would say that there in my opinion there's not going to be any substantial impairment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. This is a permitted use in the R15 zone. It's a conditional use where there are standards attached. Um, it's been determined by state law and many court cases to be inherently beneficial. And this is an existing this is an existing organization in the community that's proposing to locate on a slightly undersized lot that's been historically used for non-residential purposes. It's on a major county roadway. It's buffered from the adjacent residential uses by public property. To me, this is exactly the kind of case why variances exist. There are some some small um you know some some certain aspects of the conditional use ordinance that we do not meet but I think overall this is a site that can absolutely accommodate what's being proposed here. Um we also you know in order to look at the impact on the zone plan we looked at the city's master plan documents 2016 revision plan and the 2016 excuse me 2006 prior re-examination. So per the revision plan, you know, we one of the goals there is to maintain a dynamic and vibrant city. And while a lot of the recommendations in that section relate

to downtown, one of the um you know, one of that the overall intention there that stuck out to me was that the goal there is to to make quality I'm going to quote here, quality of life amenities, entertainment and recreation opportunities, an engaging streetscape that dynamic and vibrant cities can provide is indeed their core asset and an advantage that should be supported and enhanced through the city's policies, legislation, and investment priorities. So to me, a house of worship is always a part of a quality of life. It's part of the community. And here you have an existing facility, you know, existing organization in the city that is looking to have a a a brand new, beautifully designed facility here. I think that that absolutely enhances that goal. Um there's also goal number six which is to preserve and enhance natural beauty, open space, community community facility assets and that looks at rec encouraging low impact development, green technologies and green infrastructure while maximizing planted areas and swailes filtering storm water. And I'm you know you heard a lot of testimony from our landscape architect and how thoughtfully that has all been designed on this site and I think that you know with everything I think that the overall design here really encourages that goal. um you know the the that that I think those two are really the main takeaways that I had from that plan. Um going back to the 2006 re-exam I know it's a long time ago now but just looking to Google's there were to maintain and upgrade the availability of community resources for residents through modern efficient strategically located facilities and to promote a desirable visual environment through creative and flexible development techniques with respect to um environmental assets and constraints of the city. So I think that with the sighting of this property here also um promotes those goals. So just going to the couple C variances, we have a few general ordinance provisions that the applicant doesn't meet and where we're seeking variance relief. So the first of those which you've heard much testimony on is um parking where we are providing

46 spaces on site where 79 spaces are required based on the number of seats. The parking deficiency was addressed in depth by Miss Dolan um our traffic engineer at the last meeting. You've also heard testimony on it from our civil engineer, Mr. Code, as well as, you know, more of the operations on the site from um from the pastor of the church. So, I agree with Miss Dolan's findings from the last hearing that on street and on-site parking spaces in combination will be sufficient for operations. And that's based on, you know, the operations testimony from the the church itself during the BIS and mixed with Miss Dolan's own traffic and and parking analysis. Um, I just think that, you know, the church operations were described and the plans that are parking, I think that the relief can be granted in this instance without resulting in substantial detriment to the public good. This is a, you know, the church knows their needs. They know their um they know they know their their population, and I think that it's an appropriate um parking scheme in that case. Um, and it's also something that is not uncommon in Summit. I touched upon this at our when last time I testified, but we did a um both an analysis of properties and also a site site visits to each of these um other houses of worship in the city to look at um both the site layouts for them, amount of try to get an idea of the amount of parking for each of these and also just to see, you know, if they appear to be having any kind of detrimental impacts on their surrounding neighborhoods. Um, so we looked at Christ Church, for example, 561 Springfield Avenue. This is um these these are they have either very highly deficient or no parking at all. Um, that's not in a single family residential zone, but it's adjacent to to many several homes. Um, we have the existing Beacon Unitarian site, which is closer to downtown. Um, United Methodist Church, which is a 1acre site, no minimal parking. And then you have the JCC, which is slightly less than two acres, and they did receive a variance. So I don't know exactly the how much that was but they did receive a variance for the number of parking spaces there.

So as I said these are all near single family residences or otherwise in residential areas and they pose no detriment in my opinion from you know from my analysis to the surrounding areas. So regarding the parking relief also we's request for relief associated with shade tree planting in the parking area. This is a section of your ordinance that applies to every development in town and it's really meant in my opinion to provide visual and aesthetic relief from these kind of large multiro parking fields. So here we have a single parking module spaces are confined to one of the other side of the main access aisle and it's really it's not going to be really visible and and I think that it's it's it would given the applicant's desire to provide as much parking on site as practical meeting the ordinance requirement here would work against that goal. Um there's also numerous shade trees planted around the property. So I think that we do meet it in spirit. Um especially when you view it in the context of the applicant's overall landscaping plan which um you've heard and seen. Um finally, I will just address the D1 variance. Um that's request with the proposed solar canopies that are technically an accessory use, but they are expressly prohibited in residential zones in your ordinance. And so, um, at the advice of your board planner, we are putting on testimony to as as a D1 use variance technically. Um, I, you know, just will note that we have a use here that is not residential in nature, but it's permitted. So, it's kind of a little quirk in the ordinance. Um, and I would also note that, you know, these canopies are only going to be powering this site. They're going to be staying on site. These aren't, um, you know, something where it's going to be leased or anything of that nature. So, in my opinion, it really is truly an accessory use here. Um, so this is a this use is also inherently beneficial. So you really have a house of worship inherently beneficial that is seeking to advance renewable energy sources on their property um in a manner that it will be screened appropriately as we saw from the um the viewsheds that were

presented at the I think that was the last hearing. Um and it's a sustainable design and what's really a non-residential setting with these public property buffers around it. So in my opinion, this clearly promotes both municipal and statewide goals. It makes clear planning and environmental sense given the site conditions and I think that this technical variance can be granted without any detriment to the public good or zone plan. Um so in conclusion um that is you know that covers I believe all the relief that we are requesting and in some um you know I I don't see that this this site this site which is slightly undersized where we're requesting a few variances from the conditional use standards many of which are kind of really similar to each other um and I think some of them have to do with the this this undersized lot but in reality I think that these are very much mitigated by not just the fact that there's public property surrounding the site but by the site design and by the changes that we have put in over the course of this process. So you know I've I've been an you know we've talked with the applicant we've talked with all the with all the professionals here and over the time we've we've we've managed to reduce the size of the site. We've um we've made c certain changes to make the board we hope make the board more comfortable with this. And my opinion is that this is a brand new building that's going to look really beautiful on this property. It's going to be a house of worship on a site that has been designated by your zoning ordinance and master plan where houses of worship are a permitted use and will not have any detrimental impact to quality of life, public good, zone plan or zoning ordinance. And I for those reasons, I believe the application can be approved with the variance as requested.

I have nothing further from Mr. Keller. Okay. Um, board experts, what questions do you have for this witness? Um, a [clears throat] few questions. Thank you for your testimony. Um with regard to as you identify the inherently beneficial use aspects to both the religious institutions and the solar canopies, can you also touch on what also the board needs to address uh through your testimony uh from the standpoint of the SECA test? When you involve a inherently beneficial use, you're now uh required to identify a few things as it relates to that inherently beneficial use and its impacts. Could you go over those for the board?

Sure, I'm happy to do that. So, um your opinion on those?

Yes. Yes. So, thank you. So, I I agree that you know in typically in cases where there is a D1 variance, we for inherently beneficial use, we do apply the SECA test. Um, I didn't go through all of those proofs on this case because we're we're we're permitted use here, but I'm happy to, you know, summarize how I think that that would apply here. So, um, this is a case seeker versus the board of adjustment of the township of wall where, um, the case law was set out on how a zoning board of adjustment should evaluate D1 variances in particular for inherently beneficial uses. And what this did is that it set forth a four-part balancing test. first is to identify the public interest at stake, which is really um to to put it um you know kind of more like I I I look at this as like you're kind of saying how important this use is in terms of the public interest and for a house of worship this is something that's specifically mentioned in the municipal land use law as a um you as an inherently beneficial use and that I think is just you know that's that's just just the technical version of it but I think you know to go beyond just and and there's much case law across the state across the country that reiterates the same but I think that in general you know that it's it's one of the most important aspects of you know of the country freedom of religion and that I think is really just public interest doesn't get much higher um and then in terms of second prong there is to identify any detrimental effect that could ensue from the grant of the variance um certain impacts and I will I just want to clarify this is that the way that this was written in the statute excuse me in the case law is that recognize that certain impacts will result from permitting a use not normally permitted in a zone. That's not really that's not relevant here. That's not the case here. We're requesting conditional use variance for certain physical aspects of the design, but the use itself is permitted. So, you know, I think I covered that with my testimony as to the negative criteria. I think that the the impacts which are related again to physical conditions, not to the use itself, um are mitigated substantially by both the site design

and the site's unique location and the fact that it's not adjacent directly on its uh property lines to any other residential properties. Um the third is imposing reasonable conditions to reduce perspective detrimental effects. Um and that's up to the board. Um typic again we're this is not a D1 variance, so the same standards do not apply. um because the SECA test is really intended to be a replacement for this test of particular site particular suitability which we do not have to prove here. That said, you know, I would just go back to the way all the changes that we've made on the site over time. We've reduced the number of seats. We've um you know, reduced the overall area, minimized um increased certain setbacks, um increased parking, um removed the trail to the adjacent park at the board's request, things of that nature. So I think that from that perspective and if the the boards if the board may have other conditions they would like to impose but I think that the applicant themselves has um been very proactive about responding to the board's requests there and then finally um it's to weigh the positive and negative criteria to determine on balance the grant of the variance and whether it would cause a substantial detriment and I think in this case when you have a house of worship which is one of the highest most protected public interests because um we're also have the religious institutionalized um relupa religious I can't what's religious land use institutionalized persons act excuse me which is

[laughter] um relupa which is a federal law that basically states that there are um there are um that the government cannot impose land use regulations that impose a substantial burden. So I think when you take those two things together, the fact that it is an inherently beneficial use plus the additional protections that is afforded um and weighing that with the proposal that's in front of you, I think that the benefits substantially outweigh the detriments and the varian granted. Yes. Do you believe solar canopies are covered under Rupa? No, I'm not. I'm going to address that separately. Okay. Thank you. [laughter]

This is just for the house because I think it's it's a different case. Uh by case I just mean it's a different situation here um where those are inherently beneficial but not no thank you appreciate good catch um but I appreciate that. So um that really summarizes what the see test would be and again this is typic this is reserved really at the highest level for D1 variances such as the house of worship.

Um go I'm not going to go through the whole thing totally again but with regards to the solar panels because I think it is it's an accessory use. So, first of all, identifying the public interest, this is something that's also recognized by the MLUL as being inherently beneficial. Renewable energy facilities, it's right there in the in the law. Um, and then also, you when you look at the detrimental effects, this is an accessory use. This is an accessory structure on this property. It is going to occupy a very small portion of the site. We're not proposing a solar field across the entire property or anything like that. This is an accessory use here. So, I think the detrimental effects are minimal. It meets the height standards for an accessory structure. It meets everything that else for that. It's just really that this use is specifically prohibited in all residential zones. And my thought on that is that typically, you know, because if you have say for example, and it's it's not just solar panels, it's solar canopies. And so if you have a typical-sized residential property and maybe someone's house just happens to be at an angle where they can get really good sun in that backyard, but they put it up where someone might have a shed. That's something that could be um an issue from from residential property to residential property. That said, this is not being used as residential property and it's not adjacent to any residential properties on that side. So I think the detrimental effect is highly minimal here. um in terms of reasonable conditions um I think you know we've not we've haven't you know I I don't think the board has requested anything we've provided studies that show um you know just the viewsheds and things like that and I think that it was pretty clear that there is not going to be a substantial viewshed in my opinion um and so in my opinion you know weighing the positive and negative criteria there would not be a substantial detriment and what you're really doing is you're helping you're you're you're moving towards renewable energy on a site it's not it's not for commercial use. It's rather, you know, modest in scale and it's really going to support the mission of the house of worship. So, while it's not protected by Rupa, it still is a uh

inherently beneficial use and it is something that is going to support another inherently beneficial use. So, that is I think that that variance can also be granted. Okay. Thank you for covering that. um with regard to um you had said that the board I believe you had stated this and correct me if I'm wrong that they haven't imposed any conditions but yet the applicant has consented to certain conditions. Wouldn't you agree

I if I said that it was maybe was that I couldn't recall it was that and I wasn't I I I will I will defer to my attorney on that. Yeah, my purpose for that is that we are looking at this from the see test standpoint specifically obviously applies mostly to the solar canopies but yet I think from a inherently beneficial aspect of the board accepting the positive criteria for inherently beneficial use we should be also looking at the reasonable conditions for the religious uh institution as well uh from that standpoint. So have we codified that in any way as far as the so far that the applicant has consented to. I'm looking at a few on my

mean to put you on the spot. I'm just saying maybe that's something that the board should have as a document at some point. Yeah. So, I I have them noted from our I believe it was from the March hearing and from the April hearing. We did specifically discuss a condition that the applicants will not operate a homeless shelter facility or host homeless people with the exception of their sanctuary program on the site. Uh and additionally, the applicants will not utilize a parking lot from Wilson Park to accommodate parking during services. We had also discussed a possible condition about the coding on the glass, but that was then subsequently amended and addressed. So those are the two that I have specifically noted from prior hearings. In my notes too, I believe were there limitations as to weddings or any sort of ceremonies of that type? No.

Was that offered at all? I don't have a condition noted for that. I know there was testimony about the infrequency that weddings would occur, but not specifically addressing the condition to that. I point that out just because it's part of those reasonable conditions. [clears throat] Absolutely. Is to consider those as you're providing your testimony regarding planning. Yeah. I I would I would just ask, you know, keep maybe we'll we'll let when we get to the end of this to re relook at those again because I you know, it was so long ago that it was almost a year ago. So that's why I didn't recall offhand. But I agree that that is something that's that's part of this. It's a variance application.

I think it would probably [clears throat] before the board gets to a vote, it would probably be a good idea to Yes. get those on a piece of paper. Exactly.

Um regarding you had identified primarily we're looking at the negative criteria of the conditional use aspect as well as the use. Um so therefore we're looking at what are the abil the site to carry the impacts. You had talked about the surrounding conditions being public uses providing the the buffering as you had put it uh to adjacent properties that is really as it relates to setbacks and and buffering but as far as building coverage is concerned. Can you revisit exactly how you feel the impacts of the building coverage and lock coverage are being offset by the proposal?

Sure. I think that relates to the overall intensity of use that's that's happening here. Sure. Something I'd like you to talk about in a moment.

Um, so the building the building coverage requirement is 15%. Um, where we are looking at six, we're proposing 16.2%. Um, I don't have the exact numbers in front of me, but I believe that that's less than I don't want to do the math without having it, but it's in my opinion that's not substantial and it's not something that will be visible to the naked eye. Um, and I think that the reason for that has all the reason for the building size, which has been also reduced over the course of these proceedings, has been stated in in in prior um prior testimony. This is a house of worship. that's intended to accommodate um you know the the congregation and all of the other typical accessory uses associated with the house of worship which are permitted. Um and I think that that coupled with the fact this site is slightly undized I think it's a reasonable request for relief. Um, and also I think because when you look at, as I briefly mentioned in my testimony, typically what we're looking at for when for the purposes of building coverage requirements, you want to make sure that the building is not out of scale with the um with in terms of massing. You don't want something that's just like blocky looking or something that is just larger than what is typical. Um, and also that it is um, sorry, where are my notes? I just want to want to make sure I say what I said before. Um, excuse me. Um, yeah. And then, yeah, building massing and scale due to the building coverage. And I think that this is a this is a building where that's not an issue. Um, I just based on the design of it, this is not something that's going to appear um as some kind of massive facade or anything from the street or from any of the side sideyards. Um, so I I don't see any of the typical issues associated with it and I think that that relief can be granted. With regards to impervious coverage, um, lot coverage, we're seeking 48.7% where 40% is permitted. Um, this is, um, this is a little more

than what we're seeking for the building coverage. And there's a few reasons rationale behind this. Um, we are we again this lot is slightly undersized. Um, but we are we've added some parking from based on feedback. And again, this does not include the green roof area. So that also would reduce it down to per my math that was that I did the do the math on that was about 45 and a half. So we get about 3% back on that if it were to be counted. Um but I think that we have um you know you heard testimony from our engineer as to how the storm water features on the site. Um I don't think there's there's no environmental features on the site that would be particularly impacted. And I think that um I think that it's it's it's a it's a reasonable request to provide what is needed on this site which is the type of amount of parking that we are proposing um in that increase. So [clears throat] you know I think that there is there the site can accommodate this and really there's the reason that there is this um provision for conditional use standards is to make sure that there's not going to be a whole site that's covered. Um, and I don't think that that's what we're proposing. And I think that from a from an impact perspective, there's not going to be a detriment um, associated with it.

The governing body establishes the regulations and the the qualifications for a conditional use. You have a twoacre site here. You're building on a site that's substandard in size, as you had said. Um, there are a number of variances that seem to be pointing towards the intensification of use on the property. um including the parking that's needed. Um you identified under the conditional use standards and recovery that you know can the site accommodate the impacts associated with this. I would say my question uh from the standpoint of the overall parking that's being provided. You're relying on a certain number of off street parking spaces. What is that percentage? Do you know what that is? It's about I calculated about 33%. Yes, it's Yes.

Okay. And so, aren't these indicators indicating that there's a little bit too much on the property than what the site can carry compared to what the zone plan envisioned?

Um, no, I don't think that that's the case. I think that this is a this is a this is a site where there is the availability of on street parking. um where the that's that's how this church has fun functioned for years on a site downtown with no on-site parking. So, this is really a substantial upgrade for them. Um and I think that the the design of the building is more than just and why why the building is its size and how the whole site has been designed is more than just putting a building down on a piece of property. Um if you look at the site plans, this is you know the building is rather organic in shape and that is really an intention here. If this building were just a rectangle or a box, we probably could meet a lot more of these standards and we could have maybe have more parking, but it would not serve the church's purpose. Um, and so I think that that is really the core here, the relationship between the site design, the church,

excuse me. Yes. How would a rectangle not serve the church's purpose? I I we we've heard testimony on that before from the from the architect. I don't want to misquote him though. I have some of his quotes which is basic essentially that the church has been designed to meet the needs of the unitarian faith. Um so it's your testimony a rectangle will not is that

I will say that a rectangle I I will say a rectangle from my my understanding is that it would not be as meaningful um and it would be because of the the way that this the site has been designed. Um, I also think just from a visual perspective, I think that it's a lot nicer looking. So, yeah. Yeah. So, some of the testimony that was given is how the building radiates around a central courtyard and the nautilus spiral shape that reflects unitarian values of organizing. Landscape and nature is present um all over the site including gaps in the buildings and the architecture in in aims to create many opportunities for people to connect with each other on the site for increase community building. So, you know, it's not to say that they would not function in another type of space, but this is all inherent to the faith in my opinion. So you know obviously there are many unitarian churches around the country with a number of different designs. I'm sure current one is a more traditional design. It was a building built in what's 1904 something like that. So, where do we, you know, we're going to be deliberating. Where do we draw the line between a building that is utilitarian versus a full expression of the faith in everything that the applicant desires and h how are we supposed to think about our conditions based upon that? [clears throat]

So, I will just say that the application that's in front of you is what what the applicant is proposing now. So, you know, it's it's I and that is that is what has been set forward and that's what we've provided testimony on. So, it's not, you know, I don't think it's it's that there's an alternative site or an alternative building design that is proposed here. So, I can't really speak to what that would look like. I I would just add if you I think if you look back at some of the prior testimony, uh it was pretty clear this is not a wish list building. This is not let's throw everything in the pot and see what we can do.

Absolutely. this this building has been been uh redesigned and and reduced in size and reduced in scope and is really I think again if you look at the architect's testimony and testimony of Reverend Tanner even though it was last March um that the goal here was not to build everything we could possibly think of but to design something appropriate for the site that would function and take care of the needs of the church but not there's no church hall here, right? I mean, this is not a massive structure. So, I think that, you know, you have to look back at some of the prior testimony and recall that. Mhm.

Can you refresh my memory on how much the building was reduced from the original application to where we are today? Well, the the the sanctuary was reduced from what 300 300 seats to two 240. Was that a reduction in square footage or Yes, there was. Yes, there was. The whole front of the building was pushed back in. Do you remember roughly how much that was? No.

Sorry to interrupt you. That's okay. It's okay. Um just the other thing that I would say to that is that um you know these are standards that are set um for the city for the um for um houses of worship. Um, but it's it's something that is that there there's cases all throughout the city where some are older, some are newer. Um, but it's it's difficult to find a two-acre site in the city of Summit. And I think that the applicant has worked admirably to make sure that this site does not overwhelm their property, this building.

I have a question on um capacity. If [clears throat] if I remember right, um the the total capacity of the building is something around 800 people. Is that correct? I don't recall the exact number. Um, you may It was in It was in the 800s. I guess that that would be referring to like fire capacity. I I don't I don't know for sure. I happen to be scrolling through my notes and I I do have that right in front of me. The total occupancy of the building based on the fire code was 888 people. Okay.

Okay. So, my question is you you you refer to the building as not being massive. It's a building that has a capacity of 800 and something people, but there's only 150 congregants that belong there. Why do you need a building that holds 800 people when you only have 150? It's pretty simple.

Um, I think if you typically would look at how houses of worship are designed, there's typically a sanctuary space and then there are accessory spaces that are used for other purposes that are all part of the house of worship. Um not everything is in you know it it's not desirable or for for everything to take place all in one room. Um you know there are offices, there are classrooms, there are storage spaces, there are all the typical things that are associated with um any type of of use where it's not just the sanctuary.

I know that. But my point is that you're here because you need all these variances because it doesn't fit. If the building was smaller, you would need half the variances that you're applying for and you you still would fit your 150 congregates in the building. You don't need a building that holds 850 people when you only have 150. The the fire capacity is is I I think that that's that that's the legal fire capacity, but there has been no testimony that anywhere close to that is going to be in this building.

It's there. If it's legal, you can put them in there. It it's I mean you could say yeah well we're only going to have 150 at one time. We'll never have 700. But you might you don't know. That's that's what we're saying in front of this board on the record. Just keep in keep in mind the distinction between the fire code maximum capacity that's permitted based on square footage alone versus the seating that they have. But the point I'm making is that we're here because the building doesn't fit the property. My point is if the building was smaller, they it would still serve their purpose and they wouldn't need all these variances. We I I don't think

the church's testimony is is that that's not the case exactly that the building could not serve its purposes if it were smaller. [clears throat] But before we do any more, let's just make sure one last question and I appreciate the board's interaction as well. Um, what had there been any stipulations as to the simultaneous use of the other spaces within the building beyond the sanctuary? I don't believe there's been any stipulations on that. Well, I think back in the the in the [clears throat] pastor's testimony, I think you'll see as she runs through the typical week what happens when.

So, I think it's pretty clear that when there's services going on, there's not 400 people in some other part of the building, right? four class classes occurring in other parts of the building and that's something through their testimony of their use at the property but yet should the board grant the variance for this use at this level of intensity is there any controls that limit the other spaces being simultaneously used if for instance another user moved into the building I don't that's no other user is going to be moving into the building um this this is I don't know if you can guarantee that that's not the We would have to come back to this board if that were the case.

But are you stipulating that there wouldn't be any simult Well, no, no, that's a different that's I think I think we're bound by the testimony and and the record. Yeah. But that doesn't survive in the resolution of approval is what I'm getting at standpoint into the future. uh you have an applicant or somebody who reoccupies a building may not know what that prior testimony was although the resolution of approval may identify specifically. So I'm just saying that that should be a reasonable condition that the board considers due to the intensification if there was to be simultaneous activity

just from a legal point of view does the conditional use expire if the congregation were to ever cease operations here? Um, no it wouldn't it would not. It would be as long as another uh house of worship moved in. So if it was not a house of worship theoretically, no, nothing nothing else could go on this site except for with under the conditional use approval under a conditional use approval except for another house of worship. So in the event that the the a house of worship were not to occupy the premises here, it would revert back to the R15 district. It still is the R15 district, but it would either it could either permitted it could either be used for single family residential or they would have to come back to this board. Okay.

Out of curiosity, uh are you familiar with the fire capacity of the current site of the beacon? I am not. No. Are you probably more a question for another expert? Yeah, I I typically you know that comes from the fire marshall. So I don't know if any of our experts would testify to that. Um I had one question with regards to the solar canopies. Is there any um use within the city of Summit that where solar canopies are a permitted accessory structure or permitted by right? They are only prohibited specifically in um in residential districts.

So it's only prohibited in residential. So therefore it's considered pro approved and all the other sub I don't I don't know firsthand how it's been treated. Um sometimes, you know, it's if it because typically if something's not prohibited, there is a fairly wide um review of what constitutes an accessory structure. They like by law, they don't have to all be listed in an ordinance. They have to be customary and incidental. Um and but in this case, they are prohibited in residential zones, which is why we're seeking the variance. So, if this if it was not prohibited, I don't think we'd be asking for a devariance.

What other questions from the board do we have for this witness? I got a couple. So, um, in this and I'll leave the inherently beneficial law for a minute. In your in your, um, profession, is it customary to use other people's property as a buffer? Yes. Can you give me a couple of examples? Um, I when it's public property, that's very I didn't ask that question. I asked if it's permitted to use other people's property. It is. I've I have I can't I don't know of any you know in the city or you know I can't think of a specific examples in your in your past when you've done planning for a client.

Yes, I I have. Yes, that is that is typically it's one of those things where a zoning ordinance cannot capture every single situation and that's why variance and variance proofs and testimony exist exist. If you design a building, if I want to design an office building, can I present a case where I can use somebody else's property as a buffer? You can. Anyone can present a case. Yes. But I need a venance. Yes. And that's why we're asking for a variance. So, in this particular case, you're using city property as a buffer. We're using it as part of our argument for that. Okay. Thank you. Um, you mentioned that the height of the building is only over the requirement in one small section of the structure.

Yes. If it's such a small section, [snorts] why don't you just bring it down to the reasonable height that it's allowed? Because we think that it adds to for the reasons that I stated, it's part of the design of the building for the the purposes that were put on the record by the architect. And the same goes where it's that if it if so small, it's to be dimminimous and it it adds to the visual appeal of the building. In my opinion, I think the benefits outweigh the detriments to look at how we would look at another hippo variance. So you're saying then that if you reduce the parapit by this dimminimous amount, it will be substantially detrimental to the design.

No, that's not what I said. I said I think the benefits of it outweigh the detriments because I don't really see a detriment associated with it, but the application that we have before you tonight. So what's the benefit? The benefit is is the the design that's been presented to you where it's how's that affected if it comes down? I think Mr. Cherry covered this. Mr. Cherry covered this detail. You would have to you would have to redo the whole design. It's not just something you chop off. You brought it up as part of your testimony.

Yes. Yeah. Well, I know that's our our role as a planner is to absorb all the testimony that came before us and incorporate it. So, I'm not speaking for Mr. Terry. I'm just referring to statements that he made on this record. So, anything I'm saying here, it's not something he said in a private conversation, something said in a meeting. These are all things that were said on the record that you can go back and reference. So, in your role as a planner, and I'm going to be a little harsh here, so forgive me. Uh you've been involved with the client from the beginning. Uh my firm has been. I personally have not. I became involved um um about a little little less than a year ago when my partner retired.

So is it normal to sit down with a client and you know what the requirements are for the area where you want to build? Wouldn't you as an adviser to your client say, "Hey, you know, your lot's unders sized. You're building, you know, you're asking for sideyard variances that might be unreasonable." Um, we're asking for solar panels that are inherently beneficial to the user and in a roundabout way the public. Um, you and and I just don't see how we can sit here and listen to a plan a professional planner tell us that this is a good idea when you for yourself said the building and the the the um project is low impact but you're if I got this correctly the lot coverage is 48%. That's half the lot on an undersized lot. Is it normal practice for planners to suggest that we we we cover half of a lot?

The it doesn't meet the requirements of the zone. Every case stands on its own. And I would this case you said that was a good idea. I I whoever was before you I don't know I don't know what conversations they had. I have been involved and I have been involved in part of the some of the changes to this application to reduce the number of variances on the site um to make it still that it works for the applicant. Um and yes, it's extremely typical for an applicant to to have a piece of property that requires one or more variances. Sometimes many more. Sometimes it's a full use variant. So you shoot for the stars and get the moon.

No, I wouldn't be here tonight. I wouldn't be representing this client if I didn't think that these were not reasonable variances that can be granted under New Jersey case law. Thank you. Um parking you onethird of the cars that that could possibly attend the service will park on the street.

That is not what h that's not the number of cars that will attend the service. That is what your ordinance requires. So it's a slight distinction there. um where we but they are there are availability there's availability of parking on the street as testified to by Miss Dolan and at like I said at the current site everybody parks on the street so it's something this congregation is used to and I trust my client and I trust that they know that this site will be able to accommodate their parking needs but there's a there's a difference between where the current building is and the parking situation than what it will be where the new building is going to the the current building is up in town. Sure.

There's it's there's side streets, there's crosswalks, everything's convenient to the building. Where this new building is going, these cars have to park out on Springfield Avenue. One side of the street has no sidewalk. The crosswalk is a good two blocks down when and and the the number that you used was three people per car. I don't know how you can know there's three people per car, but that's that you're you're you're guessing three people per car.

I'm not guessing that's what your ordinance requires. No, the the number that was used when they testified was saying that they only need to accommodate this many spaces because they calculated it at three people per car attending the service. There's no way you could know that. To me, it's more like one and a half. That's the testimony of the parking expert.

I didn't understand. What I'm saying is there there's a difference between the parking where the site is now and where the parking is going to be down on Springfield Avenue because you're going to have 30 or 40 cars parked on Springfield Avenue, especially kids. Kids are going to get out of the car and they're going to run across the street. Nobody's going to walk two blocks down to go to the crosswalk to cross the street to come to the church. In the winter time, there's snow on the side. They're not going to jump over the snow and walk through the snow. They're going to walk in the street. I me personally, my daughter was hit by a car 25 years ago crossing the street. And it's to me it it's an accident waiting to happen when that happened. The way that parking is proposed, especially with parking on the uh side of the street where there's no sidewalk, people are just going to run across the street. And I you you have to live with that when something happens.

Well, I'm I'm sorry for what happened to your family. Um and I I think that that's a priority. You know, this the the church and all the testimony that we've heard from the parking expert. You know, safety is is a huge priority. And I think well to me that's not that's not paying attention to safety. Well, you mentioned quite a few times. Well, there's they're legal parking spaces. there are crosswalks and I think that that's um you know that's it's a societal trust issue that people will not be running across the street. Just a couple more things. You said you did a survey of churches in town. Yes. And you mentioned that somebody had a a recent a church recently had construction done to it and and got a variance. Do you know which church that was?

I was referring to the JCC. Not not quite recent but yes. Okay. Um, so when you did your survey of churches, did you talk to neighbors about the parking situation? I did not know. So I, you know, we just mentioned the Christ Church. I can tell you from experience of people are not happy with that with cars parking in the street. Sure. I'm sure your current location, the neighbors are not happy with it. The difference is you're building a brand new building, brand new from the ground up.

We could make the building fit so you have less variances. You could, and I I know this is old testimony. I get it. you know, we you've given your presentation, but I I ask this of everybody that comes before this board. Why can't you just build something that fits the zoning? $64,000 question. If you could answer that one, you'd be a most popular planner in New Jersey, [laughter] right? But it's just it's you I think you have 12 or the sign is too big. We don't have that. We've reduced we're no longer requesting sign variances. [laughter] No, no, we only have we only have the variances that I that I stated.

You You mentioned that you spoke you you you went to other churches and studied the other churches, but you have to talk to the people around the churches. It's going to be the exact same problem at the Christ Church that you're going to have at your new facility from the neighbors. So, so you should be able to appease the neighbors.

Mr. Nelson, I I appreciate your question and I understand where you're coming from. And I think that the answer to why can't you just build something that meets the zoning is really the same as why you know why it's not in my opinion directly relevant what goes on at Christ Churches versus this site is that eving law in PL in front of the zoning board in front of plans in front of boards and in in all the case law every site stands on its own. Every site has unique characteristics. Every use has unique characteristics. And yet zoning when it's in your ordinance, zoning is I'm not going to say one-sizefits-all because that's not true. But it is one size fits a huge swath of municipality. And that is you know why there are why are we are allowed to request variances because not every you know there this is a this is a church that has been in the city of summit for a very very long time over a hundred years. They wanted to stay in the city of summit and that was a priority for them and so this is the site this is about as close as they can come and I think that for what they are proposing I think that while the variances might be numerous on the list they might see sound it I think that they really are and you when you take everything into consideration I don't think we're asking for um you know what you're saying which is 12 or 13 different variances a lot of them kind of are repeat on each other it's sideyard setback it's sideyard buff offer its sideyard parking, things of that nature. Um, but really what we are here for is that, you know, every property, every application stands on its own and every site is unique. And what, you know, what all this testimony, what my role here tonight is, as I see it, is to, you know, have that have the unique aspects of this property align with the case law that would allow you to grant this variance.

I'd like to just build on one question Mr. Nelson was touching on. I recall from Beacon Unitarians first application. There was a lot of discussion about the parking situation on Waldron and the density of Waldron creating some conflict, people parishioners parking on driveways, parking driveways, etc., etc., the police needed to be called here and there. Given that the current application seems like the bulk of the parking would take place in front of public land where there's very few driveways and very few opportunities for illegal parking to occur. Maybe there's a fire hydrant there. That's that's all I picked up when I looked looked at it the other day. Do you feel like the current plan represents a significant improvement from their existing situation and probably less opportunity for conflict with neighbors over the park? I was not involved in any prior applications and I have I will say I have to admit that I have not done significant um you know I I don't have significant knowledge of how it functions on their current site but typically um on a street like this that does not have a lot of high turnover parking. Um, I think that yes, that is going to be the case. And I would also just, you know, refer back to the testimony of Miss Dolan who who thinks that it's going to be a um not as a comparison to the current site, but just that it does present a an appropriate situation for on street parking.

Just Mr. Mullen, just to [clears throat] add something to that, um, bear in mind that the existing site because of the size of the sanctuary, there there's not just one service, there's two. Mhm. So, one of the problems is that there's overlapping parking. People are coming looking for spaces before people have left. This will eliminate that as well. So, in terms of being an improvement from the current site which has zero parking, absolutely.

I just think one thing we have to also keep in mind u when the parking uh study was presented, there is going to be a standpipe or sprinkler connection somewhere in the property. I believe it's on the lower lefthand corner. So, that's going to be a no parking zone. So you just have to keep that in mind. You know, maybe you don't see it today, but you will if if this variance is granted, you will see it in the final construction.

Sure. And you know, and I think that, you know, just to the board to keep in mind, we are requesting a variance for the parking. We're we're presenting the availability of on street parking as um a way to mitigate that variance, but we acknowledge that the ordinance requests on requires on-site parking. So um you know that we're we're not trying to say that we don't need that variance, but I just want all for consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Lord. What other questions do we have for this witness? Well, I I just had one other question. This is a hypothetical, but what what would happen if the city changed their parking regulations where they made one side of the street no parking? It's a county road. It's a county road.

Well, they there were a lot of lot county roads. the county would have to do. But I'm just saying that I I I can't answer that without knowing, you know, if there was a rationale behind it, how the I I don't know. I don't have an answer to that.

Any other questions? Nope. Seeing none. All right. Uh public questions, questions only at this time, please, for this witness. Mr. Simon raising his hand. Yes. Do you want me to get started? You want to take a break? I think there's a gentleman coming. Yeah, sorry. Oh, no. I think you [laughter] falsely accused of a question. All right. No, please proceed. Yeah, I think that's fine. If you could go and then we'll take a break after that.

Okay. A lot of [clears throat] questions, but understood. Okay.

Yeah. You know what? Take this. Okay. Miss Keller, good evening. Good evening, Mr.

Good to see you as always. Thank you for your testimony this evening. Um, Rob Simon, by the way, from Herald Law on behalf of uh various neighbors who I've previously identified. I'm happy to identify them again, but I don't I think it's already set forth in the record. So, um, so you talked about the fact that you you took over, um, from someone else in terms of this project from Philips Price. Is that correct? Essentially, yes. Okay. And when you say essentially, who did you take over from?

Um Paul Phillips was initially retained on this application um as he he retired last year. He as he transitioned um out of the firm over a few months. We spoke about this application, you know, many times and I I have been involved since um I believe last April. Okay. So you were involved since April of 2025, correct? Personally, yes. And by that point, the application had been submitted. Correct. The first hearing had been held which Paul Phillips attended. Okay.

So you picked up prior to the prior to the second hearing, but after the application had been deemed complete and one hearing had been conducted. Correct. Yes. And um you've you've visited the site. Yes. Okay. How many times? I've been on the premises once and I have uh driven past about uh four four times. And when you uh were on the the site once, when was that? Um sometime in the spring. So when you say spring, spring of 2025. Yes. So approximately 9 10 months ago. Yes.

And what day were you on the site? It was a weekday. I don't remember. Okay. Do you do you recall what time of day on the weekday? Um I believe it was I was coming back from another meeting. I believe it was around 11 a.m. So it was 11 a.m. on a weekday. Mhm. So, you have not been on the site um on a weekend, correct? No. And have you been in the neighborhood on a weekend?

I have driven past on a weekend. Um not specifically for purposes of visiting this site. And when you drove past on a weekend, what day did you drive past? I don't recall. Okay. And did you stop when you were driving past? And have you observed uh the operations at the church's existing location here in Summit? So you have not made any personal observations of any events, activities, drivers, uh accessing the property for drop off or pickup or otherwise. Correct.

There is no driveway on the property. Um but no, I have not. I rely on the testimony and I rely on the um statements of my client. Okay. Exclusively in terms of operations. Correct. Yes.

And in terms of numbers of attendees, you're uh at an event, wedding, funeral, service, you're relying exclusively on the testimony that was presented by others to this board. Correct. And other than um you advising your client as to potentially some modifications to the application once submitted in a first hearing held such as maybe signage. You you yourself did not contribute it contribute in any way, shape or form to the design of this site. Correct.

Not to the overall site design. No. And you didn't contribute in any way, shape, or form to the design of the proposed building on this site. Correct. No, that's the architect's job. And but you were not consulted um about the design of the site prior to design of the building, excuse me, prior to the application being submitted. Correct. I don't know if any conversations or what I don't know what what type of contribution Paul Phillips may have had. I I don't know. Okay. And and did you ask him? No, I didn't. That's not something we, you know, we we as planners, we very often join an application after it's been submitted. This is one where that was not the case, but no, I did not discuss that with him.

And and you're not sure whether Paul Phillips suggested from your firm suggested uh this as you refer to Nautilus design for this building. Correct. I I my understanding is that that all came from the architect. No. And um regarding this, I'm going to call it um Kada Nautilus design just for purposes of our conversation. That's how Mr. Cherry referred to it. That's fine with me. That's I'm going to go with it because that's how you described it. Um are you aware of that type of design um on any building in the city of Summit? No. Okay. Are you aware of that type of design on any building in Union County?

No. Oh, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Okay. Are you aware of that type of design for any Unitarian or other church in the state of New Jersey? Not personally, but I I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge. Okay. And did you do any type of investigation to to make that determination one way or another? No, we're not here for um you know relief related to that aspect of the design. Okay. Are you aware whether the city has architectural guidelines in any of their planning documents? Yes, there are some guidelines.

Um, have you reviewed those guidelines in connection with this application? Not not specifically. No. And did you speak to Mr. Phillips about the nature number or extent of the variance relief required by this application. Yes, I spoke to him about that and I've spoken to my client and the team of professionals about it as well.

Are you aware whether Well, let me rephrase this. I take it at the time that the applicant submitted this application after conferring with Mr. Phillips from your firm that they were well aware of the number, nature and extent of the variance relief that they were requesting. You would have to ask them.

Okay. Um, are you aware of any uh efforts by uh the development team or the applicant to find a different property that may better conform to your um client's design and result in fewer variances? I I I don't know what their search was like prior to coming to this site. I have no I have no information on that

and I heard I was present certainly for the really phenomenal questions that were asked by members of the board. Um, if you if the applicant reduced the building footprint, that would result in more space being available for parking. Correct. Um, or have you not done that evaluation?

I I can't speak to that. um you know we are we're very slightly over on the building footprint and I I don't know how that would relate to um additional area for parking. Okay. Um you're familiar, Miss Keller, with the city's uh zoning ordinance and master plan, correct? Yes. Okay. And um you are you familiar with the um open space and recreation element of the master plan? Um, I am familiar with the version from 2006. I believe that's the last time that was looked at. Is that what you're referring to?

Well, I'm just asking you whether you know as part of your job as a professional planner is to assess the positive and negative criteria for all the variance relief that's required. Um, which includes determining whether the variance can be granted without substantial impairment to the master plan and zoning ordinance. Isn't that correct? Yes. Okay. And as part of that evaluation in your role as a professional planner for the applicant, you need to assess whether um there is substantial impairment to the entire not just the land use element of the master plan but the entire element all the elements of the master plan. Correct.

Um the term the terminology is zone plan right? is the zone plan. And when you say the terminology, you're talking about the zone plan um phrase that's in municipal land use law. And speaking of the municipal land use law, the terminology is zone plan, right? Typically, we do look at various elements. Um that said, you know, there and master plan contains a number of different sections, but and typically we do focus on land use plan. Okay. Um did you take a look at that? What' you say? I'm sorry, Kate. 2006 um open space and recreation element of the master plan. Um I looked at a parks and open space element.

Parks and open space element. Okay. And did you look at the historic preservation element of the master plan? Um no I did not. So you're not sure um as to whether there's any um historic districts or historic properties in the vicinity of this property. Correct. We received a letter from the historic commission which I have reviewed. Um but no, it's not not something that that was that impacted the site. Okay. Did you review a title search for this property? Not personally. No. Um and did you review the uh environmental impact report for this property?

Um if I I've I've reviewed the whole application at one point or another. Um so I'm if I've reviewed all the submitted documents. Not recently though. And um but you as the professional planner on the project, you yourself have not done an analysis to determine whether um the the proposed design could be altered and still meet all the program needs of the applicant and reduce the number or extent of variance relief required. Correct. You didn't do that.

No, that that was not what I was was required to do. And in this R15 residential zone, all the parking areas are to be in the required rear rear yard or in the buildable area of the lot. Correct. Um. Yes. Right. And and t you're still proposing these tandem spaces in the parking lot. Yes. As a as a way to get three additional spaces. Right. and and tandem spaces are not permitted for um any use in the R15 zone. Correct. Um I'm not sure if that's specifically codified or if it is [clears throat]

Did you do an analysis of the the site? Um let me back up because this is a conditional um use uh under section 67 and municipal land use law also requires um site plan review and approval. Correct. Yes, that's what we're here for. And with regard to the site plan application portion that's before this board, did you have an opportunity to review the site plan or design standards that are set forth in the ordinance? Um, typer did that initial analysis. I looked um more closely at some of what he called out and what he testified to, but no, typically I do not go in depth for a site plan application.

Okay. So because you don't go in depth for a site plan application um so you didn't do your own independent investigation to determine whether there is any design or what we call exception relief beyond that which the uh engineer pointed out. Correct? No, you're speaking of just in the outside of the technical zoning requirements, you're speaking of the site plan design standards. No, I did not. Okay. Um I am speaking about that. And so you didn't do any investigation under the site plan design standards to determine whether tandem spaces are permitted or prohibited? No, I defer to my fellow professionals on that.

And you stated uh Miss Keller, I think it may have been at the last hearing or the last time, I'm sorry, the last time you testified. Not the last hearing. Yeah. Right. Right. [laughter] Right. The last time you testified back in July. Yes. six months ago, 2025. Um, that the property has been used for commercial purposes since the 1940s. And where what information are you referring to?

If I say that, I I may have misspoken. Um, I don't know if I had specific I I double checked this prior to this hearing. Um, and I apologize. I did listen to my testimony again. I don't recall if I said that. If I did, I would like to correct the record that per what I came across, this has been the Red Cross took the Red Cross took ownership of this site in circa 1960. I can't speak whether it was used for commercial purposes before that. Okay. So, you didn't review um whether the Red Cross cross purch did they purchase the property at that time? Yes, they did. Okay. And who' they purchase the property from? A private owner. I don't know. I I did actually look at the deed, but I don't remember the name.

It was an it was individual person, correct? or a couple. Right. I believe. Right. So, so you don't know whether prior to 1960 whether the property had in fact been used for residential purposes. Correct. Um I actually have a note here. This is this is probably where I got that from. This is from the the historic um the historic commission. It states that the Young family occupied the house until 1945. In 1959, it was purchased by the Red Cross and has been used as their offices since that time. So technically I cannot speak to what happened between 1945 and 1959.

Okay, fair enough. Um, in 1960 when the Red Cross occupied this building, so they own the building, correct? Yes. Okay. At the time, did he do any investigation as to what the zoning was for this property? No, I don't believe that's relevant to what we're proposing here. Okay. Do you um did he do any investigation as to what the uh the zoning was for the surrounding uses? No. Um this property is currently in the R15 zone, correct? Yes. The surrounding park and the board of education um property is also located in the R15 zone. Correct.

Yes. Do you know at what time um in terms of a approximate date this property the these properties were zoned as R15? I do not know. Maybe that's something you're the the board's planner could answer, but I do not know. I don't I don't see that's relevant to this application. Okay. So, you didn't do any investigation as to the history of the of the R15 zone. Correct. No, this is a this is a permitted conditional use in the R15 zone. That's all that's all that was relevant. Okay. Well, I'll ask what I think is a relevant question. So, in 1960 when the Red Cross purchased this property, um do you know if they obtained any type of variance relief? No. No, you don't know. I do not know.

Okay. And you don't know what the zoning was at the time, whether it was a a residential zone or no zone. Correct. No. My my testimony was that this has been used as a non-residential use since 1960. And that that's I don't know much anything further. Okay. and the Red Cross from um between 1960 and say 2025 um that property was or let me back up. I'm sorry. I apologize. When did the Red Cross stop using the property for its offices? I I assume around when the applicant purchased the property. I don't know the exact date. And when was that?

I I will def I I don't know the date. It was within the last um two years. Okay. And between 1960 and 2020, are you aware of whether there was any reszoning of the property? I am not. I think I think I answered that. Or var or variance relief granted in connection with the use of the property. No, I am I am not aware. And have you performed any professional work for any other houses of worship uh in the city of Summit? No, not in the city of Summit.

And you talked about a whole bunch of other churches. So, let's start with I think the last time you talked about um Christ Church uh 561 Springfield Avenue, right? Mhm. That was founded in 1876, correct? Sounds about right to me. Right. And and did you visit that property? I have I have not been on the property itself. I have been outside of it. Okay. And that's um consists of u many multifamily uh buildings, correct? In this surrounding area largely.

I believe it's in the multif [clears throat] family zone, right? And there's a monastery next door as well. Correct. Um, and you also talked about the United Methodist Church. Yep. Right. That's at 17 Kent Place Boulevard. Right. Um, that's over 150 years old, correct? Yes. Okay. You visit that property. Same thing. I've not been in I've not been on the property. I've been outside of it. Okay. Okay. But so if you were outside the property, you noticed as you were driving around that it's around the corner from I guess Windberries restaurant and other commercial buildings along Springfield Avenue into Forest Avenue. Correct.

Yes. It's a it's we're not offering these specifically. Those churches were not being offered to say that they were in single family residential district. We are showing as examples of undersized lots that accommodate churches. Um and that's one that has a one approximately one acre site. Okay. So either one of those uh for both of those churches actually you have never observed those churches when they're in operation. No. And um you talked about last time and this time the JCC of summit. You're not familiar with um what type of variance relief if any was granted uh by any board in connection with any application that that congregation may have presented to you. the planning board of zoning.

I believe it was I believe it was in front of this board and they received a D3 variance and um and a parking variance. I don't know if they have anything else besides that. Okay. But you don't know what the nature of those variances were. Correct. Um not not the exact numbers. And and do you do you know for how long the JCC um of summit which is I believe now congregation or shalom. Do you know for how long that that congregation has been at that property? No. Okay. If I told you it's been there since 1929, does that sound um consistent [clears throat] or you don't know? I have no reason to doubt you.

Okay. And there's there's there's a parking lot that's that's a part of that JCC. Correct. Yes. Okay. And do you know how many parking spaces they have there? No. And you don't know what the uh the seating is in that congregation, correct? No. And for the JCC, for the United Methodist Church, and for the Christ Church, you have not, just a cleanup question that was asked earlier, you haven't spoken to any of the neighbors in those for uh surrounding those properties, correct? No, this this was just just a simple land use analysis.

Sure. And Kate, you talked about other properties. St. John's Lutheran Pilgrim Baptist Church, JCC, and a fourth one that I missed, which what was the fourth one that you rattled off there? Sure. That was Temple Sinai on Summit Avenue. Um and these were examples of um these were specifically examples of um houses of worship that are in single family residential zones as is permitted by the zone plan of summit. Okay. And and you don't know when those um congregations or churches um first um were cited at those properties? Correct. No. And you don't know whether variance relief was granted for any of those uses

with the exception of the JCC as I stated? No, I don't. You don't know. I don't know the zoning history of those. Okay. And you don't And so And you don't know like when the zoning changed to make them residential zones or otherwise? Correct. No. And you don't know the sizes of any of those congregations, correct? No. or are there the amount of parking that that may be provided if there is any provided? I have an idea for each of those, but I don't have the exact numbers. Okay. Um and you don't you're not aware of for any of those congregations um the number or percentage of congregants that that actually walk to and from the the church or the synagogue from their homes. Correct.

Um I don't know if if certain denominations may, but I don't know for sure of any of these. No. Okay. Um the I noticed that with your and and Mr. Snikis um stated that your exhibit was A1 which was an aerial I believe showing the proposed site and the and the surrounding um park. Correct. And surrounding residential uses as well. Yes. Okay. When you say surrounding residential uses, my recollection is that it didn't show any surrounding residential uses on the other side of Springfield Avenue. It shows some. It does not show all of them,

but but am I am I my is my recollection correct that it sort of got that it was cut off and you didn't show this the the amount of residences that are like literally directly across the street? Yes. that I mean I think that that was not specifically the intention. The intention of this exhibit was to show the the um the ownership of those properties by the city and the board of education. I think we're all aware that there are residential uses across the street and we've provided

and I actually went back and I looked at the site plan that was submitted and it seems ironically that similarly that also doesn't show the residences located located across from Springfield Avenue. Is my recollection correct on that? I I don't know for sure. I I typically there's a key plan that shows a certain distance and then the actual site plan um may or may not show them. Okay. But you're even as the professional planner on the project, you're not familiar with the exact, you know, size, dimensions, topography of the residential homes in the surrounding area, let's say within 500 ft of this property. Correct? I don't really know understand what you mean. I'm I'm a I don't I can't tell you the exact number. Do

do you know? So, are all the properties located in the R15 zone? Do you know? Yes. Property the property within 500 ft. All the properties are located within the R5. I don't think that all of them are and I don't know about within 500 ft. I think that most of them are. Okay. The the ones that are not, do you know what zone they're located in? I don't know off hand. Is it a residential zone? Um, I believe Oakley Avenue is in another zone, but I don't know exactly which one. Another residential zone. Correct.

As far as I know. Yes. Um, and you don't know how many of the 450 plus members of the church's congregation live within walking distance of the site. Correct. I do not know. I believe that the um that the reverend provided testimony as to the um number of congregants who live in the city, but I don't I don't know off hand. Right. And there was a question asked about the location of the of the crosswalk. Do you know how far the nearest crosswalk is from the entrance to the site? Um I um referring to Miss Dolan's testimony, I believe she said approximately 750 ft.

Okay. So that's what two two and a half football fields, right? Uh linear, right? Yeah. Sure. Um, as part of your investigation for this application, are you aware of any requests for variance approvals in the R15 neighborhood in the past 30 years or so? Any any variance approvals? Any any any variances that were granted for properties in the R15 zone in the last 30 years? Um, I may have even worked on one of them. I I I don't know, but I I don't know offh hand. Okay.

Um, it's a very large zone in the city of Summit. I'm sure there's been residential, but no. Okay. Are youware aware of any non-residential variances that were granted in the R15 zone over the last 30 years? The Summit JCC is located in the R15 zone. Okay. Other than the and that was granted what the variance was granted in early 2000s. Um or you don't know I don't it was it was more than more than 10 I would say less than 20 years ago. Um no I I that's not something I would typically do as part of my analysis. No. So other than the JC and you and you didn't review the resolution for the JCC, right?

No, as I said before, every application stands alone. Okay. Um, and every lot abuing the subject property is owned by either the city of Summit or the board of education. Correct. That directly abuts it. Yes. Okay. And all of those properties are accessible by the general public. Correct. Mhm. Um, and there's nothing to prevent a Well, let me let me back up. In the R15 zone, single family homes are permitted. Correct? Yes.

Okay. Um, and there's nothing about this lot that prevents the development of a single family home in the R15 zone. Correct. On the subject property? Yes. No. Okay. Um, and in fact, the minimum lot size in the R15 zone is what? 15,000 square feet. Yes. Right. And this property is substantially larger than 15,000 square ft. Correct. Yes. So presumably one could develop more than a single family home on this property. Correct. I haven't done that analysis. You don't know?

No. Okay. And you would agree that um for the Unitarian faith that there is any number of different site and building designs on Unitarian churches in the state of New Jersey. Correct.

Yes, there are. with regard to um the solar panels um or the solar canopies above the parking. You stated that it's not permitted in the R15 zone and that's why you're seeking um D or use variance relief. Solar canopies are prohibited in residential zones in the city of Summit. So because they're prohibited, you're seeking a D a D use variance.

That was how it was identified by the board's planner and we we going along with that. Yes. Um, if there was no mention of that provision in the ordinance, would the solar canopies um above the parking spaces be permitted as of right?

That is that would be up to determination by the professionals and this board. Um, like I said in my testimony, there is a lot of leeway allowed per the law in in identifying appropriate, you know, what's permitted as accessory use, customary, incidental. Um, and I don't know how that's been treated here. So, I I don't want to I don't want us to to to say because it's really a hypothetical. That's not the case. Well, is the you said now twice in response to my question earlier, you said the analysis would turn into on to whether um the use would be customary and incidental. Let's put aside incidental for a minute. um as a professional planner on this project, do you believe that um solar car ports um are customarily associated with houses of worship in the city of Summit?

I can't not in the city of Summit. Um it is something that I have seen before and I've seen them in number of institutional uses such as this. Have you have you ever seen a solar carport as an accessory use to a house of worship in Union County? Not that I know of. Have you ever seen solar carport as an accessory use to a house of worship in the state of New Jersey? Yes. Where? I cannot tell you offhand, but I can I am under under oath. I will say that I have you or seen an application.

I I I totally believe you. The question is um regarding that that location, was it in the like in the center of a city? Was it in a residential zone? Do you have it was in a similar subur suburban type area? Um and it was it was on a larger parking lot than this. Larger parking lot than this. Okay. Um Okay. But you don't remember where? I can't. I I'm sorry. That's fair.

Um, now as the planner, did you take a you know, I think you testified earlier that you're not you're not going to see the solar panel canopies from offsite. Was that your testimony? My testimony was that the in it would be min minimal like visual intrusive um There's you might you will still see them but I as we saw at the last hearing but I think that the impacts are minimal. Okay. Um when you say as we saw at the last hearing are you talking about um the view from Springfield Avenue?

No, I'm talking about the the the exhibits that were presented by Mr. Cherry, right? Which I believe covered several different viewpoints. I don't remember offh hand. Right. Do you do you recall if any of those viewpoints included a viewpoint from the park? Um I I don't I they were from various angles all around the property. Okay. And do you and you reviewed the um the application materials as part of this project? Correct. Yes. And um do you recall whether lighting is proposed to be provided under the canopies to account for loss of pole mounted lighting in the parking area that would otherwise be obstructed by those canopies?

No, I don't recall. I would refer to the engineers testimony. Okay. And do you recall the height of those canopies um specifically for purposes of allowing emergency vehicles to get in there? I don't know about emergency vehicles any the testimony was that they would comply with the accessory uh structure ordinance of the city of Summit. Okay. But you're not aware whether there is any analysis as to whether emergency vehicles can access especially if you have a battery powered car that catches on fire otherwise. Correct.

That is not my purview. Um that that would have been covered by the by engineering testimony and your own fire. And in terms of um I recall that there were um tall trees in the vicinity of those uh carports. Um did you as a planner do any type of evaluation as to the effectiveness of those panels being this how they're going to be shaded by those trees? I did not. No. And those trees, um, did you do any analysis as to whether those trees are on the church property or on the park property?

I don't know which trees you're speaking of. Um, there was extensive testimony given by our landscape architect, Miss Doc Willer, who I believe um, you know, refer her testimony referenced the solar canopies and there was extensive landscape architecture testimony. Right. But you don't recall as the planner where those trees are are located. Correct. There's trees on the site and off the site and we're proposing to plant new trees on the site. And um you're not familiar well we know that the church is going to be abuing properties that are owned by the city and the board of ed. We talked about that. Correct.

And are you're not familiar though with the schedule of the use of those public properties. Correct. Not beyond the fact that it's a primary school and a public park and I would the typical schedules associated with that. I don't have any further knowledge. Okay. You don't know whether like you know private recreation groups use those properties and when? Correct. No. Okay. And you're not aware of whether those properties are used for other than you know recreation events and when? Correct.

No, I don't see it's relevant. and you then you have no idea whether there's going to be any type of overlapping between the church operations and the use of the park andor the use of the board of ed property. Correct. I will refer back to the traffic engineers test testimony which he referred to a number of Sundays that there was um studies done on on street parking in the vicinity. Okay.

Other than that though in terms of usage you're not aware of anything correct. Let's see what we got here. Bear with me a second here. Um, and some of the restrictions from which you're seeking variance relief for, they do not prohibit utilization of the property for for a conforming structure. correct? Whether it's height, setback, or otherwise, right? I don't understand the question.

Okay. So, in other words, if I was going to be putting a permitted use on this site, I can comply with the height requirement, right? You could you you wouldn't have to. You could request a variance from it. I I don't understand the distinction there.

I don't need to. I could if I'm going to be removing the prop the building that formerly had the Red Cross office. Correct. I can construct a building on this property that would comply with zoning, that would comply with height requirements, that comply with setback requirements, that can comply with buffering requirements, that can comply with lot coverage requirements, that can comply with building coverage requirements. Correct. Are you referring to a single family dwelling? Yes. Start with that. Yes, most likely. Yes.

Okay. And you haven't done an analysis other than that as to whether um having two or three or any number of permitted uses single family dwellings via subdivision or otherwise um could be fully in compliance with the city of Summit's ordinance. Correct. No, that's not what this application is for. And even for this application, there's there's nothing about the property itself that restricts you from fully complying with building coverage and lot coverage requirements. Correct.

We have the application that's before this board where we are requesting minor deviation for building coverage, requesting a little bit more of a deviation for lot coverage, and I've put my proofs on the record as to why I think they can be reasonably granted. Okay. I that I that speaks for itself. I'm asking you there's no reason why this applicant because of the the property itself cannot comply with the building coverage and lock coverage requirements of the ordinance. Correct. I I don't know. I don't know. They

And and what about the height requirements of the ordinance? Is there anything about the property that prevents the applicant from fully complying with the height requirements of the ordinance? There's nothing about the property that affects the height requirements. It's the use and the design that is impacting the height. Um let's talk about parking. So for the ordinance, you you said a couple times that the parking requirement is based on the ordinance and that the you were referencing I believe the one space per three seats. Isn't that correct?

Yes. But isn't it true that the ordinance states that the requirement, the parking requirement for this application is one space per three seats or one space per 10 square ft of gross floor area, whichever is greater. Isn't that correct? This yes, this has been discussed on the record before. Um that is how it is technically read. Um that is that would result in approximately 1,800 required parking spaces.

Okay. So is the app based on the ordinance technical or not is the applicant asking for permission to have 46 onsite spaces where 1,800 parking spaces are required by ordinance. Excuse me. This has come up before. Well, excuse me one second. We've been down this. Yes, we've discussed this issue. We discussed it with the board's planner. We discussed it with council.

This is not shedding any light further on this issue. Um, we are talking about an ordinance provision that's been around for a long time [snorts] that has been interpreted a number of times by this board.

Make sure you're speaking to a microphone zoning officer and otherwise and this is the way it's always been interpreted. Now, I was the attorney for the JCC when that approval was granted in 2008 2009. Their variances, their calculation was based on the seating of that sanctuary. They got about a 50% parking variance. they have somewhere in the high 40s to 50 spaces. Their requirement was about 100. Um, and that's the way it's always been interpreted. The viewpoint of the city has always been that that ordinance is meant to deal with mixeduse buildings, not buildings that are all the religious use. Okay? So, if this building had other institutions in it that were using office space that might be doing other things at the same time or having all kinds of overlap and time of use, it might make more sense. But to interpret it the way Mr. Simon's suggesting just leads you to an absurdity. And the idea that our ordinance would require a 240 seat church to have 1,800 parking spaces. I mean, it it's not worth talking about. It's just absurd on its face,

Mr. Chairman. So, I don't think we need to get down this road again. We've been down it. We've discussed it. And I think we need to move on. We're using a lot of time on a lot of irrelevancies, quite frankly. So, Mr. Chairman, I did not write the ordinance. Mr. Mayor, smart as he is, did not write the ordinance. You excuse me.

Mr. Mayor represents, and I take him at his word, that he's been dealing with this ordinance for a long time. This ordinance has been on the books for a long time and yet despite what Mr. remainder states are applications that have interpreted this ordinance or have granted relief or otherwise. The ordinance remains on the books. You guys know it takes one month practically 30 days to revise an ordinance, right? introduction, planning board review and recommendation on under the master plan public hearing. Okay. Approximately 30 days give or take. This ordinance remains on the books. I would like to whether you think it's absurd or not. That's what the ordinance states. I didn't write the words. Miss Keller is very competent. is a professional planner on this project. She provided testimony in support of variance relief, including for parking. All I'm doing, I'm not going out of bounds here. I'm following the ordinance. It says whichever is greater. So, I'm respectfully want to ask her some questions because she even stated at the very beginning, I'm coming back up here and I'm restating a lot of my testimony, which I think is fair and appropriate after

hearing Miss Dolan's testimony, which is fine. But if she's allowed to do that, I respectfully would like an opportunity to question her on what she's relying on for her planning proofs.

I agree. I I think you're uh the overarching overarching nature of your testimony is going to open yourself up to questions from Mr. Simon um that most certainly have covered testimony that's previously been given. But as is your right if you want to continue to answer that it's already been testified to earlier that's probably what you're going to get Mr. Simon. So yes please continue but understand if if that's how you choose to respond so be it. It's it's probably going to eat up more time but given everything that you covered and it was a lot. Uh I think Mr. Simon is well within uh the bounds to ask these questions. I I wouldn't expect too much. Mr. Simon, though,

my my comment on that was going to be that it was discussed at the last hearing is that it really is a is a is it the city's determination, legal determination, and that that um that I have not done any further analysis and I did not do the variance proofs for that because on its face, 1,800 parking spaces for a facility of this size is absurd. Um, and so I don't think it would be a good use of anybody's time to go through proofs for something like that versus what we what I did put on the record. So, we have asked and answered. Great. Thank you. Let's continue.

Okay. So, you've you've decided not to present any proofs um for the parking variance per what's stated in the ordinance. Correct. Per that interpretation. If the board were to request it, I can happily do it. I do not think it was necessary and there was no specific request for it until now. Let me and I'm not not being argumentative, right? [laughter] Fooled me. You use the word. I've heard my wife say that a few times, too. [laughter] Me, too. That's on the record now.

Oh, no. It's It's on the record. Um, you said interpretation. Is there an interpretation that's different from a conclusion [clears throat] that the ordinance requirement for parking is one space per three seats or one space per 10 square feet of gross flare floor area, whichever is greater. Is there an interpretation as to language? Not on language. I defer to how the board has has approached this in the past. I don't know how they have. I will take what Mr. Mayor said, but otherwise we took it at the board's discretion. Can I ask a question real quick?

Okay. Sure. Go ahead. But doesn't each case stand on its own?

Not if it's a zone not if it's based on that type of zoning interpretation. You know, if you've if you've looked at the zoning ordinance a certain way in the past. Um, I mean, as it's as it says on paper, that's what it says. Um, that is not how we took it. That's not how apparently it's been enforced in the past. Um, and when I say variance applications stand on their own, the zoning is is the zoning. So, hypothetically, if I were to take, let's say, a thousand square foot house that's sitting there single family residential use and successfully get a use variance and convert it to house of worship use, I would all of a sudden instead of a onecar garage need 100 parking spaces.

Um, if based on that, yes. Okay. And and you would you may not successfully get the use variance because that's all part of the applica the additional use variance because that's all part of the application. Um, I mean I I I just I I didn't do an analysis on that because I've never heard of a zoning standard like that before. Be a very crowded service. It would be um it would be impossible and that is would be an ar loop of you know most likely would represent something that was an undue burden. Mr. Simon, uh our witness has been standing for quite a while. Do you think you're coming to the end or should we take a break now?

Let's let's take a break. I don't misrepresent. So, why don't we take a uh 10-minute break, come back or 12 minutes, 9:45

That's a good point. All right, Mr. Simon, if you'll resume your question. Sure. Um, Miss Keller, you recall that when I was talking to Miss Dolan, um, I had mentioned the IT parking generation sixth edition um, requirements. Right. You did ask her about that. Yes.

Right. Um and and she said she relies on that, you know, as part of her evaluation for parking. Correct. Um no, she actually said that she did not rely on this the sixth, I believe that was her testimony. She said that she didn't rely on that and she didn't review that as part of her evaluation. She reviewed it. She reviewed it and she the parking generation parking. Yeah. I'm going to be honest. I listened to this literally two hours ago. So she her testimony was that she it's typically she she has relied on it but not the sixth gener generation for this but she was familiar for this she was familiar but she didn't rely on that. Correct. Yes. And that was her testimony.

And um you've been involved in other applications where um traffic consultants rely on the IT um standards including those contained in the parking generation sixth edition. Correct. I I assume so. I I know that that's the industry standard. I don't always look at specifically what um addition they're using, right? But when you provide uh parking, I'm sorry, planning testimony in support of an application, the the traffic consultant that comes before you often reviews uh and and relies on those standards. Correct.

They do sometimes. Sometimes for applications, they rely on other locations of the if it's a if it's a a chain or something like that, if they rely on, you know, studies that the applicant themselves has done. There's many different it's it's one of it's one of of an options in the toolkit but it is an industry standard.

Okay. And so for purposes of your planning proofs for this application, um you are solely relying on the fact that the there's 46 on-site spaces and and you believe that 79 spaces are required. That's that's the only standards that you're working off of for purposes of your planning proofs regarding deficient parking. Is that correct?

I don't understand the question. That's the that's the var that's the that's the zoning standard that we're using. Um but our analysis took into account operations testimony. It took into account Miss Dolan's testimony and report. It took into account um the exist the number of off- streetet spaces, the number of seats in the sanctuary, etc. You were not relying on anything other than the testimony that came before you regarding parking. Is that fair to say? I'm um No. I mean, I put on my own planning proofs part I incorporated that testimony into it.

Right. So, as part of your planning proofs, did you do an evaluation of the IT studies and standards for parking? No, that's not typically something I do. And are you aware of a um parking [clears throat] deficiency for which variance relief was required um for any proposed development, let's say within 1,000 ft of this site?

No, that's not an analysis that I did. And other than um Miss Dolan's analysis in terms of distances between local streets and the site driveway, you didn't do any type of independent study, investigation or measurements regarding that. Correct. Are you speaking about sight distance and sight? Like in other words, that there was over 1,500 ft between Harrison Court and the site driveway and another 500 ft between the site driveway and Fair View. No, I refer to the testimony of our civil engineer and Miss Dolan.

Okay. And you would agree that the ordinance doesn't allow an applicant to satisfy a parking requirement with off-site parking. Correct. Yes, I agree with that. Okay. And there's no offsite municipal parking lot or private parking lot within the vicinity of this site. Correct. No, not not except I mean there there not not none that's open to the public. There's this one that's associated with the school in the park, but not not we've agreed to not use nothing else. Just the on street parking.

Okay. And um with regard to the I just want to be clear about something. Um Mr. night because they asked you about the the seek a balancing test and and you went through the four part standard. Um was that for the solar panels or was that for the house of worship?

I provided a overview of how the see test could would you know I I provided my testimony in the context of the seea test per Mr. Snikus' request. The see the seea test does not apply here for the variance we are seeking for the house of worship. We are not seeking a D1 use variance. We are seeking a D3 variance. I then put additional testimony on the record going through those four prongs again for the solar panels. For the solar panels. Okay. And so with regard to the solar panels and um and the solar panels are an inherently beneficial use as defined under the municipal land use law. Yes. Right.

So in ter then that's what allows you to use this fourpart seek a balancing test for the negative criteria correct for the solar panels. Um yes because an inher for an inherently beneficial use the positive criteria is considered to be met by its status as an inherently beneficial use. The purpose of the seea test is to allow the board to relate that in context with the proposal to evaluate the positive and negative criteria.

Right. So um with regard to the the first prong of this four-part seek a balancing test that you went through in in response to u Mr. Snikus's appropriate question regarding the solar panels and the need for the D1 use variance you said that the board is to first you know identify the public interest at stake. Correct?

Yes. and and you would agree that um some uses are more compelling than others in terms of what the public interest is for solar panels, right? Um I think that as far as the municipal land use law is concerned, renewable energy is specifically stated as an inherently beneficial use because it is considered as it says in the the MLUL itself is that that is because it has an inherent public benefit associated with it. Right. But when we're doing this balancing, I just asked you some some inherently beneficial uses are more compelling than other beneficial inherently beneficial uses. Correct. Yes. That's typically

right like if you were if you were proposing um like a neurological center which is an inherently beneficial use that that would be more publicly compelling than a parking lot for school buses that has also been deemed to be inherently beneficial use. I I I mean just to speak on the base of the analysis yes some are more compelling than others. So, where does the solar car ports fall between the neurology center and the parking lot for school buses?

I don't think that's really an appropriate question. Um the the the the purpose of this seea test is to look at both the public interest at stake, how compelling it is, and also look at the detrimental effects. You're talking about a small facility on a site that promotes many of the states and the city's goals in terms of of renewable resources that have been said in your master planning documents at the state level as well that they all contribute to inherently beneficial to the public welfare. So yes. So, so, so the you talked about the third of the fourth uh criteria for the see balancing test that the board may reduce detrimental impacts by imposing uh conditions on the use um and then the board ultimately is going to weigh that. Mhm.

Um, so you talked about two conditions, no homeless shelters and no Wilson Park parking lot use, right? As conditions. Um, those don't have anything to do with the solar panels. No, they don't. Okay. Um and with regard to the solar panels themselves, you don't have any information as to um how much you know energy is going to be captured. Correct. I think that that testimony has been provided. Right. But I'm saying you, Miss Keller, don't have any independent knowledge of that. You don't know how the inverters work or anything like that. Correct.

No, not not particularly. Okay. Um, and in terms of satisfying the purposes of the municipal land use law, developing this property for permitted use would also satisfy those purposes. Correct. That's not that's not what we're discussing here. I know, but isn't is that true that if you develop this property for permitted use, that would satisfy the purposes of municipal land use law? Correct. Yeah. Well, this is a permitted use. Um besides the solar panels um we are but yes the the zoning ordinance it would it would comply with the zoning ordinance. So that would that is yes.

Okay. Um, you you stated you reviewed the the master plan and I asked you and you said you uh reviewed the land use element and you said it was the the parks and open space element. You reviewed that, correct? From 2006. Yes. Right. Um, and did you take a look at the open space and recreation plan map in the master plan? Um, I as part of your job as a professional planner for this application.

I reviewed the 2006 master plan re-examination report. If that map was in there, I looked at it. Um, I I don't know specifically what map you're speaking of. Did you review the city of summit master plan? I think I've answered that. Yes, sir.

Okay. And did you identify or did you see whether there was any parcels identified on the open space and recreation plan map that the city of Summit should consider sec and the term is securing through a combination of public private funds or grants. should they become available? No, I did not see that.

Okay. So, if I told you that of those 12 parcels that one of them just so happens to be the Red Cross property. Would that surprise you? Um, it it doesn't surprise me because I know how these plans are written. They're kind of like wish lists. Um, but I was not aware of it. No. And do you know in this case whether the plan was written as a wish list?

I don't know. I don't know. I don't know the date that you're referring to. I don't know exactly which which map you're referring to. I'm not I'm not sure. I I reviewed the master plan in in some as I have stated. I you know cannot quote every single map that I saw. Okay. Um but but the property that's the actual subject of this application is is specifically identified as one of those 12 properties. And you're not aware of that? No, I'm not. Okay. Um are you aware of section 44 of the municipal land use law entitled reservation of public areas? Um do you know about that?

I I am familiar with it. I have not actually applied it in my profession. Okay. Um do you know what it states? No. Okay. Um, you would agree that even for inherently beneficial uses that the negative criteria in section 70 in the municipal land use law applies, right? Yes. Both prongs. Yes.

Right. And the term um substantial detriment to the public good as part of the negative criteria is not just limited to uh not causing substantial detriment to properties directly abuing a particular development application. Correct. No, not at all. And [snorts] the public good as that term is used includes or can include public properties and the many folks that utilize and enjoy those public properties. Correct? It can.

And you used the term in in response to I think it was Mr. uh Mayor actually asked you the question at the end of your your testimony back in July. I think he asked he used the word blight and you know he asked you is there any blight um you know in the neighborhood and you said no there's you know for the other houses of worship and you said no there's no blight but blight is not a criteria necessary to demonstrate substantial detriment to the public correct

no I don't think we were presenting it as that okay Um, just give me a minute. [clears throat] with regard to um [clears throat] this lot as distinguished from other properties in the zone. Is there anything about this property that is different from other properties in the R15 zone?

It's it's oversized compared to other properties in the Ry properties, not all. Um it's that's I think that's the biggest difference. Okay. And with regard to um you also relied on the negative I'm sorry you relied on the C2 criteria for the bulk bulk variance relief. Correct. Mhm.

And as part of the bulk um the C2 criteria under the Calfman case, you're you have the burden of proof to um convince the board that this proposed project and the zoning and the variances for which you're seeking relief from represent a better zoning alternative for the property as compared to fully complying with the requirements of the the ordinance. Is that fair to say? Yes.

Give me a minute. In terms of the master plan, you talked about certain goals. Um you mentioned goal number six to preserve open space. Correct. That was a portion of that goal. A lot of it was also about um community facilities and green infrastructure. Right. And and the there are other goals of the master plan. And one of the first goals um is to preserve and protect residential neighborhoods. Correct. Um yes, it is. And this is a uh permitted use in this residential neighborhood. Well, it's you you keep saying that it's a conditionally the use is contemplated as permitted. The use itself. The

let me ask you let me ask you a question. Under section 67 in municipal land use law there's provisions for conditional uses. Correct. Yes. And they are distinguished from expressly permitted uses that are promulgated pursuant to section 62 of the municipal land use law. Correct. Yes. I would refer to those as princ per permitted principal uses. So if you don't meet one of the criteria for just one for a conditional use that brings you to a board such as this one, the board of adjustment where you need to obtain a conditional use variance. Yes.

Requiring five affirmative votes from a board of adjustment. Correct. Yes. Okay. And if you have a permitted use and you need a variance, bulk variance, do you need an enhanced five affirmative votes from a board of adjustment? No, you don't. But and and isn't it true that if you don't meet the criteria for the conditional use, you need a conditional use variance under section 70D3, the municipal land use law.

Yes, that's that's why we're here tonight. The use itself is of house of worship is contemplated in the residential zone. I address this in my testimony. the re they addressed the rationale behind it and the rationale for the standards that are in place. Um but the the case law as I said Coventry versus Westwood it identifies the fact that the that the governing body has identified that this use is appropriate in the zone under certain conditions and that's why the burden of proof is lower than it is for a unpermitted use. The master plan that I reviewed uh did not envision Springfield Avenue parking in the R15 zone for a house of worship. Correct.

I don't think that that was addressed. And the ordinance, the zoning ordinance um doesn't permit one to utilize other property, even public property to satisfy its buffering requirements. Correct. No, that's why we are requesting variances for these things. Okay. Okay. I don't think I have any further questions for Miss Keller at this time. Thank you, Kate. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I have one question. Um, in your opinion and what your cases you've worked on, have you seen a condition to obtain sidewalks installed, even if it's on county or state roads? Are you talking to me? This question for me, um, it it it it all depends. Every county has different rights of way requirements. I'm sure that I have before. Have you seen a board of adjustments make a requirement to obtain a sidewalk even though it's out it's considered a state or I can't I can't recall off hand. I can't recall. I you may want to ask your professionals as if they might they might have insight on that whether that's been done in town. Ed, sorry.

I have [clears throat] not under the condition of a county road or a state road. I haven't seen that requirement, but I've seen it for local roads request add sidewalks. Well, not necessarily a sidewalk, but a sidewalk crossing. Oh, sidewalk crossing. Oh, you meant a crosswalk? Yes, crosswalk. Oh, that that that is that I have not seen. That I believe it would be within the county's jurisdiction. We wouldn't have the authority to compel them to [clears throat] obtain that. We can in theory ask that they seek it, but we couldn't condition the application on its approval. Thank you. Just had one question. Yes. When the Red Cross property went up for sale, could the city have bid on it on in an open market transaction? I I can actually answer that. I don't think

I was Thank you. I I represent the church when they bought the property. Uh the property was on the open market. Those of you who were around a few years ago and drove by it had a big for sale sign in front of it with the name and phone number of a commercial real estate operator. So this was not a private Red Cross did not come to the church or the church go to the Red Cross and said, "Hey, what do you think about doing a deal?" This property was on the market uh openly. So you know for how long approximately? Um I don't remember but it was not a couple of days. I mean that sign was up there for a while. So, and one more question. Even after the transaction had gone through, could the city have theoretically exercised em eminent domain to take the property?

The the city uh if the city has the the uh legal basis to exercise the power, they can do it whenever, wherever they want, satisfying the purposes of the I I forget the reference Mr. Simon made but that particular element of yeah they have to compensate the land owner obviously but but city has that power. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the public for this witness? Questions only please. Yes. Sorry. Sorry.

No, no, no. I'm sorry. I misunderstood. Okay. Sorry, ma'am. How are you? Good. Thank you. First of all, thank you for all that information. If you could use the microphone, yeah, that would be great. Thank you so much. If you could state your name and spell your last name for us. Sure. Um Betsy Zimmerman. I'm actually a neighbor of the churches and um have not been following all these hearings. So, this was very informative for me. I just have a few questions. If the Unitarian Church's proposal is not approved, are there any restrictions that you're aware of? Are there any restrictions that you're aware of on who the church could sell the property to if it chose to? No.

I believe the city of Summit is currently 345 units short of its fair housing obligation. Do you know if that's true? I know that there has been uh settlement discussions. I'm not familiar with the absolute numbers that are involved. Okay. The city of Summit in December filed a revised proposal for partial compliance with that obligation. That revised proposal covered 295 units. So unless the zoning board tells me differently, I believe that the city will still be short 50 units of its obligation.

I would defer to your um I don't know if your board planner here handles your affordable housing, but they would know. I would. So, in your opinion, given current legal challenges to the city's affordable housing plan, the requirements of the Fair Housing Act, and the fact that the city's current proposal still for still falls short by 50 units, is it possible that this property could become an apartment building? It's any any f future user of this site would have the ability to come to this board and ask for any use. They may not get it approved, but they could. Anyone would have an ability.

Okay. And given that the city will still be changing will will be changing zoning as already agreed with the court, could the property be reszoned to a higher density apartment complex? Um I I don't have any knowledge about what's in the housing plan and what's being proposed, but that if certain sites that are designated, they do have the authority to reszone them. Okay. Thank you. Those are really my questions. Um I don't know if the board has any corrections to make to any of that. Thank you. Thanks. Any other questions from the public? Yes, please.

Hi, how are you this evening? My name is Tom Mey and I live at 30 Oakley Avenue in Summit. And my question for you is you cited on a couple of occasions several of the churches that are in the city of Summit that are oversized for the lot that they're on. It was more that the lots were undersized. The lots were undersized. Hold on. Hold on. Yes. Tom is one of my clients. All right. So, any questions? We'll have to go through your Wait. No. Because you're one of my clients. You cannot independently ask a question. I'll go back there. Sorry. I always play by the rules. Thank you.

[clears throat] I do have a follow one follow question. Yes, Mr. S.

So, Miss Keller, a question was asked of you um regarding affordable housing. Um you're are aware that the city of Summit has proposed a housing element and fair share plan that they believe is uh fully compliant with the Fair Housing Act. Correct. No, I stated that I wasn't fully You're not You're not You're not aware of it. You're not aware of the contents of the housing element and fair share plan element of the master plan. Correct. No, I don't I don't believe this this site is not part of that. The site is not part of it either currently, contemplatively or otherwise. Correct. As far as I know, no, I was that's not that was not what I was asked particularly, but yes.

Thank you, Mr. I just want everybody to know. Okay. Any other questions from the public that's not a client of Mr. Simon? Just to clarify. Seeing none. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kelly.

Thank you all. Appreciate all of your questions. Uh, Mr. Chairman, that concludes our presentation. Um, subject again, if we need to recall somebody to rebut u a witness that uh Mr. Simon calls, but other than that, that's our that's our entire presentation. So, I thank you for sticking with it since last March. It's been a long haul for everybody I know, but I appreciate it. And uh Great. Floor is his. All right. Thank you so much. Mr. Simon, you have a witness?

Um, I I do. I'm assuming that you'd like me to present that witness at this time. Yes, please. Mr. St.

All right, I'll swear you in. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give in this matter? Is the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? I do. And can you just state your name, spell your last name, please? Uh, yes. Yes, it's Peter Stack. St. Thank you. And can you provide your background and experience for the board?

Uh, yes. Um, my office is at 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, New Jersey. Uh, I'm a licensed planner in New Jersey. I was licensed in 1976. Uh, that license is still in effect this evening. Um, in terms of experience and education, I have a bachelor's degree in civil engineering and a master's in city and regional planning. Um, I've worked for two consulting firms in New Jersey. Uh, Alvin Gersian Associates in Trenton and Malcolm Castler Associates in uh, North Jersey. I was the planning director for the township of Montlair for about nine and a half years. And uh I've appeared in 230 municipalities in New Jersey and been accepted as an expert planning witness in those jurisdictions as well as in superior court and tax court and I've appeared uh before in summit and been accepted as an expert witness here.

Any questions from the board about his credentials? Any questions for Mr. Mayor? Uh just a quick question or to Mr. Tech. So um in your experience, have you in the last 3 four years appeared in opposition to applications before zoning and planning boards or in opposition to municipal redevelopment plans? Yes. How how many would you say? Uh well, which category do you want me to uh I'll take take them one at a time. Let's take uh uh zoning board applications. Um go back three four years. Just give me a approximate. I don't I I don't expect to have exactly

I would say that about half of my practice is in opposition and half of it is for development applications. U okay that that's that answers my question. So you half of the time you appear in opposition to well I look at the case and if I I didn't I didn't ask you that question Mr. Mayor if he wants listen if he is you're asking him a question. Yes I am. I expect him to answering the witness in terms of his qualifications to be an expert witness. I didn't ask him to make a speech about how he analyzes things. I asked him to answer. He's answering the question.

So, you work both sides of the street. Is that correct? um when people approach me for applications and I decide when I look at them whether I can uh accommodate the applicant who's proposing something or whether I can accommodate uh an objector if I feel there is a basis valid basis for objection. Okay, that's uh I have no further questions and no objection to Okay, thank you Mr. Mayor. Assume you would like to accept his credentials at this time. We would. Welcome. Please proceed. Thank you. So uh Mr. Uh before you get started, you've had an opportunity to [snorts] um review the application materials that were presented as part of this application, correct?

Yes. Okay. And you um have been present andor uh watched the video of the uh the testimony with regard to this application. Yes. And with regard to um the this evening, you were present during uh Miss Keller's professional planning testimony both this evening and you also either were present and or listened to the or watched the video of Miss Keller's prior uh planning testimony in July of 2025. Yes. And also the read the transcript.

Okay. And so with regard to um this application uh based on and and have you been to the site?

U yes I've uh actually been inside the building uh because I gave blood at one time. So uh when it was I got to look at the inside and uh I actually have been in the uh existing uh Beacon Church. Uh that's not the subject of this application, but the current location of the applicant. Um and if you would um I'm going to get you started just to present your uh planning testimony and observations and conclusions regarding the relief required by the applicant. um namely uh preliminary final site plan approval, conditional use variances, bulk variances and the like. Uh yes uh first of all in preparation uh I reviewed your zoning ordinance uh the design standards that are also as part of uh one of the appendices. um reviewed your the last master plan was 2000. Um there are other documents which are re-examination reports. Those are different from the master plan. A different section of munipal land use law when you're addressing the negative criteria. It's not you don't evaluate that with respect to with a re-examination report. You evaluate that with respect when when the ordinance says municipal land use law says land use plan zone plan that's the master plan. So in this case it's the 2000 uh master plan adopted by the planning board. Uh you know part of my analysis was to um examine the subject property um and uh the building was clearly built originally as a dwelling.

Um, uh, if you go inside, it's broken up into rooms. Uh, it looks like a dwelling. Uh, if you drove by without the name, uh, Red Cross, you would think it's simply a large, uh, single family dwelling. Um so that it reads from a visual point of view as a single family dwelling although as indicated for the last several decades it's been offices of uh the American Red Cross. Um part of my uh analysis was you know to evaluate the application and uh to talk about some of the details as I understand it um there are no religious tenants rules which dictate what a uh house of worship in this type of religion has to look like. Um there are many uh universalist churches uh that uh some have steeples, some don't. Um there's there's [clears throat] no religious is my understanding there's no law or or design requirement. There's some religions that say you know the the altar has to face the east. You know there are a number of requirements of religions but is my understanding there is no uh religious requirement of what a house of worship has to look like. Um this uh design is a very unusual design. Uh it's almost like a piece of sculpture. Um it it is an agreed upon design uh by the applicant and the applicant is

entitled uh to design it uh the way they feel it advances their philosophy. But this is an unusual design and it's a spread out design. As you look at the shapes, they're very unusual and and if you were simply looking at what's the most efficient way, you know, to uh accommodate a use, uh this is not the most efficient way of doing it. That the applicant is expressing things in the design of the building. But as a result of that that choice, that design choice, this is very much of a spread out building. Um the result of that choice um is that there are a number of items of relief that are needed. As you know there's an issue of buffering. Uh there's an issue of setbacks. There's an issue of insufficient parking. Uh there's an issue of building coverage. There's an issue of impervious coverage. These are choices that the applicant made uh through it. its architect. Um, and again, they're not mandated by the religion uh that I that I can tell. Uh, but they certainly have the right to propose [clears throat] any design uh they like. Um, there are two main parts of this application as you know. Uh there's the house of worship uh which is [clears throat] a uh conditional use. Uh the applicant's planner mentioned that oh these are typical in single family zones. Uh each municipality gets to choose what it wants to do. Um when I was the planner in Montlair uh they no longer permitted houses of

worship in single family zones and the reason was that they realized that houses of worship have evolved over time. Uh they now almost by right or by right have daycare. Um they have you know AA meetings. uh they have uh you know uh homeless feeding plans. There are a lot of things that houses of worship do today that you that weren't necessarily associated with them like 20 30 years ago. And just in the example of Montlair, um they decided that they were going to open the door and they specifically say that houses of worship can engaged in things that are not necessarily traditionally uh accessory uses. Um it was the whole theater company was in a church for a while in Monontlair. And so what Monontlair did recognizing that uh churches have an expanded mission um they said uh we're going to allow that. We're going to write it into the ordinance but we're not going to allow them in single family zones. [snorts] So each municipality gets to make its choice. Um, the other thing I want to emphasize is that um, [clears throat] while the applicant's planner is classifying this as a permitted use, it's not a permitted use. It's a it when you don't meet one of the conditions that apply to the specific use, it's a devariance, which means there's there's an enhanced burden in terms of voting. it can only go to the board of adjustment and you have to get five affirmative votes. That's different from normal bulk standards where you simply need a simple majority. And

that's a recognition in my opinion by the the legislature that there's a heightened interest in meeting these standards. Now it is true that the coventry uh case applies for uh [clears throat] uh conditional uses where you don't meet all the conditions. The other part of the application um is the uh the panels solar panels that are over the parking lot. And uh it's true that first of all they're uh they're not permitted. Uh it's in my opinion a D1 variance because it's a use that's it's a use and a structure, but it's a use that's not specifically that's specifically not allowed in residential zones. And I I my suspicion is it's an aesthetic issue. you know, you don't like to have um freestanding solar panels. Now, the I believe the state law allows them by right in industrial zones and that's okay. Uh aesthetics are at a different level there. uh but this is in a a zone and it and as repeated there's a a seea test and the first step of the seea test is uh what's the magnitude of the public benefit I I'll grant you the municipal land use law say solar photovotel voltaic uh panels are an inherently beneficial use but in evaluating it under the see standards Uh, and I I don't know if you stole my examples, but there's a continuum. There's the regional head trauma center,

which was the original uh case of Dr. Seika. And then at the low end, there's a storage of school buses. That's also an inherently beneficial use. But obviously, there are different impacts, different um, uh, magnitude of benefits. Uh, as I looked at the site plan, uh, the solar panels that are on top of the parking spaces [clears throat] are for a number of hours of a day and months are going to be in shade because right next, but you can look at the applicant's exhibits, they show you that. But on if you facing the property on the on the right side, they're tall trees that are either at the property line or over to the adjacent uh public property. They are very tall trees and they cast a shadow onto the subject property and in fact for a number of hours um over the panels that are over the uh parking spaces and I raised that up because [clears throat] yes um solar panels are an inherently beneficial use but let's look at the magnitude. If someone put it in the middle of a forest, you'd say, "Well, there's zero benefit because they're not going to produce any electricity." But, uh, what I would suggest in reviewing this application, you look at the location of those panels and the fact that they, uh, are in shade a good part of the day. And, and later on, I'll show you exhibit that that illustrates that. [snorts] The concern of the ordinance, in my opinion, is one of aesthetics. And and your ordinance says you're supposed to put trees in parking lots to break them up. That's an aesthetic issue. Um, in my opinion, uh, putting these panels

uh as a as an accessory structure, but an but a use not permitted in a parking lot, that goes in the wrong direction. That's not advancing aesthetics. That's going into the negative direction. So, and I I'll address this toward the end of my uh testimony. When you march through the SECA test, I [clears throat] disagree with the applicant. If these are in a poor location that's going to be partly in shade, not that productive in terms of electricity and because there is a negative aesthetic impact, it doesn't necessarily and in my opinion in in this case does not um [clears throat] satisfy the the SECA standards. Uh part of my analysis was to look at the surrounding area and uh maybe it's time to distribute an exhibit.

Let's distribute the exhibit, Mr. Stack. Okay, let's give it to Mr. Mayor, please. Yep. And let's give it maybe go to Mr. Ball first and keep one for yourself. There you go. All right. Thank you. Not my first rodeo. Call this 01 for the record. I guess I'll invite you to pass it both ways. Sure. [clears throat]

Can I do I see any hands? Oh, I have I have a hand. I have a couple that are somewhat interested.

Andy, this is 01 January 21st, 2026. Yes.

Okay. Um 01 was prepared by me. stated today and [snorts] it consists of three three pages and I'll refer to it as I go through my testimony. But on the first page uh you see your zoning ordinance. So this is in a solidly zoning map, excuse me, zoning map. This is in a solidly residential area as everyone knows it's in the R15 zone.

Uh below that is a a satellite photo of the subject property. Uh, it shows some of the houses that are across the street. And I included this because you see the shadow pattern of the trees. Uh, twothirds of the site, at least this time of day, is going to be in shade. And most What time of day was that? Excuse me. What time of day was that?

Uh, I don't know because the satellite only gave me the year. It didn't give me the the time of day. I can show you other uh more timely ones, but the the point that I'm raising is that [snorts] uh they're deciduous trees that are on the right or east side of the property. And uh when they're in uh in leaf, uh they cast a significant shadow. And if you look at the plans, uh many of those trees are on the public property, so they're going to stay there.

Uh Mr. Second, before you leave page one of [snorts] 01, looking at the first slide of the zoning map. [clears throat] So, this property is located in the R15 zone, correct?

Yes. And you do show many lots across the street from Springfield Avenue, also located in the R15 zone and [clears throat] to the immediate east of the site continue to have properties located in the R15 zone and then you end up with bunch of properties in the R10 zone. also a residential zone. Correct. Correct.

Okay. And the difference between the R10 zone and the R15 zone primarily is that the minimum lot size for the R15 zone is 15,000 square feet and the R10 zone it's 10,000 square feet.

Yes. They're both single family zones but at different densities. and the the park and the the board of ed property also located in the R15 zone. Uh yes, the the the properties to the left and right are the subject are the municipally owned properties that are known as Wilson Park and the I'll call it the northwest corner of the subject property at one point touches the board of ed property that's uh used uh by both the board of ed and a daycare.

Okay. And at on the first page of 01 on the bottom, you showed that uh aerial photograph and it says for the roadway 512, that's County Road 512, also known as Springfield Avenue. Correct. Correct. Okay. All right. Go ahead.

And as you can see, the the abuing uh municipal lands uh to the west are active, paddle ball courts, there's, you know, recreational equipment there. Uh the second page is a I'll call it a current uh aerial photograph of the subject property on the top. Uh that's actually dated today. Um I took it this morning. Uh and it shows again I didn't superimpose the property lines but you see to the east uh they're very tall trees. Some of them are evergreens, but most of those are uh on the adjacent public property. Uh if you reverse direction and look across uh Springfield Avenue, uh that's the lower photo.

Okay. So, wait, let let's just let's just slow down a little bit. So, on page two, the upper photo is a photo of the subject property as it currently exists. Correct? Yes. With Springfield Avenue on the bottom of that photo. That's correct. Great. Taken today. Correct. This morning. Okay. So then that's midday actually. Midday. Okay. And [snorts] now you're turning to the the bottom photo on page two of 01. And desri and is that Springfield Avenue but um on the bottom but the uh subject property is off the photo. Correct.

Yes. it it was below the photo. So, I simply turned the drone 180 degrees and shot in the other direction. So, those are the the single family houses that are across the street from the subject property. As you can see on the first page, some of the lots are fairly substantial in size. Okay. and and also that those residential properties across the street on Springfield Avenue from the subject property do indeed have uh driveways, some with more than one driveway that um bisect uh Springfield Avenue. Correct. Um I don't know down down here by bicep.

In other words, that that they they come out on Springfield Avenue. Correct. And is apparent there there's no sidewalk on that side. That was my next question. So on that side on the bottom photo on page two, you're showing the side of Springfield Avenue that does not uh have sidewalks.

That's correct. So uh the third and final page [snorts] um I have a a small rendition of the subject property and the proposed development uh showing in blue the setback lines and in green the required buffers. Um I have an inset to the right uh that has uh Okay. So what let's again on page three. Okay. So, you're you're showing you're superimposed the the proposed development, correct? Yes.

Okay. And you have the blue represents what the the required building setback lines. Okay. Um and the green represents what the required buffers. Okay. So in the area that is outside of the blue there um should not be any uh building structures. Correct. Right. that should be uh buffering landscaping. Uh there are

and and with regard to the that's so that's the that's outside the blue. So now we're in the green and the area that is shaded in green represents areas of the site that should not have any buildings or structures because it represents buffer areas. Is that correct?

Okay. And and while I'm talking about buffer areas, uh it's, you know, it's it's one of the requirements of the ordinance, but uh buffer areas have benefits both for the subject property and the abuing properties. Um to the west or to the left of that diagram, you have paddle ball courts. um the user of this property or the the the house of worship uh in in my opinion uh deserves some kind of buffering from the noise from the uh paddle ball courts. So what I'm saying is that the the buffer works for the benefit of both sides of the property line. Uh the ordinance requires that on this property it because it's not a single family uh use, but it it is in my opinion mutually beneficial uh to both uh this property as well as the the public property. On the bottom I have an infrared uh photo 2020 from NJD GEO website [snorts] and uh toward the center you'll see above the word Springfield Avenue is where uh the subject property is um and the I showed you what 500 ft is there. So, the first two cross streets, um, Oakley and Fair View, uh, there are they are two intersections, but there are no crosswalks there. Uh, you have to go further off the photo um where the next street um does have um crosswalks and a flashing light for

pedestrians. That's about 960 feet away from uh the driveway on the subject property. So, for example, if someone parks on the opposite side of uh Springfield Avenue and they want to obey the law, they have to walk 960 ft to the east without any sidewalks, cross at the legal crossing spot and come back 960 ft uh to get to the subject property legally. Um there are not many people or humans that will do that. This this because of simply the arrangement and again this uh it's a county road 35 miles per hour. Uh people go in my experience a little over the speed limit on a number of occasions. So what I'm emphasizing with this is the the character of Springfield Avenue and [clears throat] significant in issues are that the other side uh does not have um any sidewalk um and that uh it is um this area is not well suited uh to pedestrian traffic once you leave your car. So, so Peter, what we didn't talk about is on page three, [snorts] you have um a couple of notations. First of all, you say in red, free freestanding solar array not permitted in our zones.

Correct. Yes. And that references the uh the solar canopies. Yes. Correct. That's correct. Okay. And then you have a chart and then you have with two columns conditional use standard and violation. Yep.

Okay. And just describe for the record what what that is or why you put that. I I believe this is this reflects the uh the latest plans and again the these are a conditional use standard means that if you violate it it's not like a C variance just simple majority votes. These are issues that the governing body considered so important uh that it requires an enhanced voting ratio uh when uh an applicant doesn't comply with this. So all of those that pink color uh are are issues where there is non-compliance and it's it's a number of the standards. It's not just one or two. There are a number of standards that are not in compliance. Now, the applicant is suggesting this. Oh, that's just minor. I'll go into that a little more later, but there are many instances that are not complied with here. Um,

and and here we're talking about a site that is going to be uh redeveloped with a brand new building and and other uh structural improvements. So, a significant feature here is that the applicant is demolishing all the improvements on the site. Um, if the applicant were adding to the building that was there, um, if the applicant that might trigger some relief uh because of existing conditions, but the applicant is stripping the site of all the improvements. Um and that means that um there aren't existing conditions that justify u relief that's being sought. Um and I kind of to jump the gun a little bit because there are no um you know religious tenants that say the building has to be built this way. Uh can't be two stories or whatever it is. to a certain degree the relief the applicant is not going to be able to expand the property. Uh I don't know if they even asked the board of ed if they would sell some property or the the town. I don't know if that was done but the a that's an existing condition that's not likely to change. But the applicant has the ability through various designs uh to accommodate its uh religious needs but not necessarily with this highly unusual architecture that spreads the building out. That's a choice of the applicant. And and one might say, and I do conclude that that's uh could be looked at as a self-created hardship because I have these desires for a very exotic design that's not necessarily associated generically with this

religion. That these choices that the applicant make um are have a number of consequences in not complying with the code uh and not having enough parking on the on the property. Uh part of my analysis was to uh look at the surrounding area and let me just get my other notes. [clears throat] Uh the master plan clearly supports this area as a uh an R15 uh residential zone, single family zone. And again, the the test on the negative criteria uh when an applicant has to demonstrate that there's no substantial impairment of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Everyone knows what the zoning ordinance is. The zone plan is the master plan. It's not the re-examination report. That's a different section of the municipal land use law. In fact, the re-examination report doesn't even require a public hearing. So the the the the document to look at um is the 2000 master plan and uh that [clears throat] had an uh an open space element uh that specifically talked about uh the Red Cross property uh page Roman numeral 57 under point number six in the 2008 master plan. Um, and I don't know if that's been reviewed uh by the applicants planner, but it reads as follows. Red Cross property. The Red Cross property on Springfield Avenue is surrounded by Wilson Park and would quote unquote square off Wilson

Park and would be a logical expansion of Wilson Park. Now, because that's a recommendation in the master plan, um the municipality under the municipal land use law uh can invoke a year period to consider whether to purchase it or not. Um, now I don't know

and that's a different because the question was asked [snorts] that's a different procedure and standard than the simple town wants to take property and they're going to ex exercise eminent domain because they claim that it's for some form of public purpose. This is a completely different procedure. Correct. As as already suggested on the record, if uh the city of Summit wants to use this property for a public purpose, part of Wilson Park, they can condemn it at any time because that's a public purpose and the only thing you argue about is what's the value of the property. There's a different provision of the municipal land use law that says when there's a development application, uh you can put it on hold for a year. And

when you say you meaning the municipality or this board, the board that is being presented [snorts] with the development application. That's correct. They they can they can hold and and let me let's let's back up. I'm sorry, I'm jumping the gun. That's okay. So [snorts] that is [clears throat] only in circumstances where there is an approval of that application as opposed because if the application is denied then there's there's there's no issue.

There's no issue. So [snorts] that provision of the municipal land use law that you're referring to only takes effect in circumstances where a board rules favorably and approves a development application where they can choose to reserve. Yes, that's that's a subtle subtlety of that provision. And and if I could just jump in, are you referring to section 44 that Mr. Simon was asking about earlier? Yes.

Now, that section does only refer to the planning board and not necessarily the zoning board. Is that right?

But uh it does, but I think that it the board of adjustment has shares powers of the planning board. And in my opinion, um, it would also apply to the board of adjustment. And it would make sense if it didn't it would make non no sense if it didn't apply because it would violate um that principle that if something is recommended um in the master plan um the municipality can for a period of a year can evaluate whether it wants to acquire the property. Can I ask a followup? Um, how would that interact with application over LUPA? Would that place a substantial burden on

I I think that's um first of all, there's that I don't think ROA would come into play and the reason is that there's no house of worship on this property today. Um the there is always a balance of equities. There's a case from I don't I think South Brunswick where a municipality purchased a farm that was uh supposed to be developed for low and moderate income housing. And the court said, "Wait a minute. We have two public purposes here. We have promotion of affordable housing and we have open space in parks." And the court, my recollection is the court said that's proper. If the municipality wants to acquire it as open space despite the fact that that the developer wanted it um for inclusionary housing, that's okay. The municipality gets to make that call in in my opinion. Um again um the issue of um the application of Raulupa um has to do with how you structure your your zoning ordinance but I don't think it impinges upon a municipality that wants something for parkland. Do you the example you're citing is application of state law against a conflicting state law? Correct.

Well, the reloop is a federal that that's what I'm getting at. Yeah. You've got federal and state state regulations in conflict. Well, it's it it it's the first time I think there was u legislation at the federal level that talked about zoning because usually that's just a state

battle and this is the first time I think where federal legislation I think under one of the Bush administrations was adopted and and it does talk about land use controls and I I don't think there's any other um I mean there principles like free speech you know that affect zoning, but that was one of the first times where it specifically talked about local zoning ordinances. And in my it's really a legal matter, but in my judgment, if a if a municipality uh it's it's not like we're condemning the existing house of worship, you know, that the u that the applicant uh worships in. Now, that's not that's not here. This is a a proposal of the applicant and in my opinion there's always a a balancing of equities. uh the municipality has the right um to acquire land for public purposes.

And and with regard to the fact that this property has been identified in the city's master plan documents as potentially being valuable to, you know, fill in the park. My turn. Okay. How does that implicate, if at all, the applicant's burden of proof with regard to what they're here for, getting variances that need to satisfy the negative criteria, which includes no substantial impairment to the master plan.

Uh, it says two things to me. It says first of all the uh the abuing lands that are in owned by the city are uh are prized by the city. He says, "This is val valid valuable open space and the municipality wants to make it uh uh more viable uh because this property is surrounded on three sides by parkland and and just from a common sense point of view, this is kind of the hole in the donut and think what the municipality could do if they have uh more contiguous open space. So first of all, it in my opinion uh uh very much endorses the uh value of the the publicly own land adjacent to this. Um and it suggests to me that uh in the review of an application um in reviewing whether variances should be granted um it heightens the interest in protecting that surrounding property. Uh the applicant is saying [clears throat] it's park land so don't pay attention to it. I'm I'm being a little more dramatic. you know it it it's you know the property value is not going to decrease on those surrounding properties as the applicant is saying it automatically meets the intent of the buffer requirement or you can it it justifies the relaxation of the buffer and I don't abide by that because again a buffer goes both ways um the uh that 50 foot requirement or slightly less than 50 feet from the setbacks um is valuable to both prop properties. Um, if this happens to be developed as a church, they would like to be protected

from some of the noise from the uh adjacent public recreation facilities and vice versa. So I the fact that it is recommended to to be an expansion um again it it in one sense it it puts the choice in front of the municipality you know do you want to acquire this or not you have an opportunity now for about a year um to consider that but I think it also enhances the municipality's value on the public space and and the need to make its shape regular Okay. Okay. So, um [clears throat] there is in my opinion a certain degree of um self-created hardship, I'll call it, by the applicant almost ignoring the zoning standards. You know that there was a design of a building and they you know inched into too much building coverage, too much impervious coverage, ignore u largely ignore the uh required buffers, uh ignore some of the setbacks for the parking. Um, I think it can easily be envisioned that's that there could be a house of worship built here. Um, that, you know, maybe has more two stories than one story. um but would have the required amount of parking on the site and uh still have the buffers uh that are required both for the benefit of the house of worship as well as the benefit of the park land uh uh the the publicly

owned land that abuts this. What is um difficult here is that the applicant is relying on off-site parking and again uh you can talk to the you know about the the other um houses of worship. Um I believe the first zoning in town was in 1921. So, a lot of these houses of worship were built before there was zoning and before there were parking standards. Um, this is a different situation be number one because of timing and because um it is a property where everything on it is going to be demolished. It's it's a a blank slate. If this had a house of worship on it that was going to be expanded and there might be issues of setbacks, that's a different story. That doesn't apply here. Uh because this is a a blank slate. Um and so what is unique about this property, you know, the existing facility uh is in a historic building. Uh yeah, there columns inside and it's, you know, it doesn't hold as many people, but it's in a setting that is a pedestrian setting. You know, there's parking all the time on the street there and that's expected because it's on the edge of the business district. That's that's part of the land use mix here. This is another world here. Um you have

this is another world, meaning the the proposed location.

The proposed location is another world. You have a fastmoving street. Um, you have no sidewalks on one on one side of that street. Uh, you have a, you know, you know, a healthy speed limit of 35 miles per hour. Um, and you have public safety concerns. Uh, people are not going to walk 960 feet on a part of the street that doesn't have any sidewalks, cross at the flashing light with the crosswalk, and then come back 960 feet. it's not going to happen. Uh people are going to park where it's most convenient. Uh and that raises a safety issue and it suggests that it's more important than in other situations to have adequate parking on the site and you can forget the amount per square footage. But there is a standard that is kind of generic which is a parking spot for every three seats uh and the applicant is is deficient. And what I'm suggesting is two things. The applicant could offer a design which would have compliant parking on the site and that's not only the numbers but the location of the parking and the right setbacks and buffering. Um and um that would be now there might be some you know major events that you still have overflow parking and that's that's true of shopping centers and high holy days or whatever but for the normal operation on a Sunday morning um the ordinance wants to have enough parking on site uh to accommodate this house of worship and and the applicant uh you know is looking

to the future for uh an additional number of occupants here. Um there's no religious institution I know that wants to shrink. You know, everyone wants to to accommodate as many uh congregants as possible. Uh so but the applicant may uh given the negatives that arise from this may be overreaching uh in terms of the the number of parking spaces and the number of seats. But what I would suggest to you is that there are a host of other designs that don't violate any religious principles that can probably comply with the standards. And that's an important feature in this setting. Now, your your municipality has a number of design guidelines as part of the ordinance that apply to non-residential uses and they tend to, you know, reflect traditional size uh styles, traditional setbacks. Uh, as is apparent from the architecture, this is a unique building. It's it's in my opinion a you know a a a well-crafted sculpture but it ignores uh what the standards are in the ordinance and and again I know of no religious principles that say you have to do it this way. Um there are some religions where again the altar has to face a certain direction. Um there have to be certain components there and that's that's part of uh you know in in some religious institutions you separate the women from the men. That has something to do with the square footage when you do that. That's not the case here. So

[clears throat] um let me uh let's see how we doing. Should we continue or we're good? Yeah. Let's let's try and get as much time as we can. going. Okay. So,

Peter, can I just ask you before you go on and mark your spot? Um, in terms of the parking and and you know, I I asked uh Miss Keller a couple questions relating to the parking standard of one per three seats or one per 10, you know, 10 square feet of gross floor, whichever is greater that's in the ordinance. um when you when you agree that you can't just, you know, simply ignore a section of an ordinance because it doesn't make sense and just say, you know, we're going to act as if that doesn't exist. [clears throat] But and also if you are going to, you know, sort of go against the ordinance in terms of how you're going to evaluate an application for a particular uh element of the application. Um, is it your experience that like it parking standards would then become all all the more relevant to determine what what the inappropriate parking number is?

It well um first of all you can't in my judgment you can't declare your ordinance illegal. Only a court could do that. So you have to read what it says u understand what it says and there is again kind of a default mechanism. the the ordinance essentially says okay what's the number of seats divide by three that's the number of on-site parking spaces that you need there's kind of a default mechanism and I don't know all the rationale for doing it but you have to read it now uh 1 spaces or what we call a lot of spaces but it shows you the intent of the ordinance which is to confine the parking demand in most situations Sunday morning on the property. That's the intent of the ordinance. And and while u I would say we're not, you know, you can't ignore the fact that that is the intent of the ordinance. It's it's twofold. if if the amount of square footage and again as as you know um many religious institutions do a lot of things um under their mission um that are things that were not necessarily done um 50 years ago. Uh and as I mentioned the example of Montlair Montlair allowed uh schools teaching art. They allowed the whole theater company. They allowed a lot of things in churches to help out churches in their missions. But it also said, "We recognize that that creates land use impacts that are not the same as as um a a traditional church, you know, and you might have had a neighborhood that was a Catholic neighborhood and they had a Catholic church and you could walk to church and that was the end of it." That's not what society is now. people

come from a lot of different directions. Um they it's it's hard to see uh unless you're an Orthodox synagogue where you're walking, you know, people come from a lot of different directions and they generally drive. And and Peter, with regard to this one more question about the parking, um there's also requirement that parking areas and residential zones be in the required rear yard or in the buildable area of the lot. Correct? Yes. Okay. So, um, in this case, the buildable, if you're looking at page three of 01, the buildable area of the lot is the is the blue um Yes. area that's identified. Correct. Yes.

Right. And the rear [snorts] yard would be um uh past the the the building. Correct. Going to past the building, but not within the buffer. But not but not within the buffer. Right. Yes. So, um, so in this case, not only per your testimony, does the ordinance, um, support having your parking, uh, be fully on your site, but also within your site, within certain certain areas. Correct.

Correct. And again, uh because this is not a twoacre lot or larger, um that's and and this lot can't practically be expanded. Um that's a limitation on what you can put on the property and and that triggers a variance and that has to be addressed by the by the applicant. So looking at the house of worship um there are a lot of nonconformities and they are not justified in my opinion by simply the fact that this abuts either board of ed or public lands because the buffer is a mutual benefit. Um the house of worship doesn't want to be right next necessarily to um paddle ball courts uh and vice versa. Um people in the park don't not necessarily want to hear kids out playing. Uh but the standard in the ordinance is is is a buffer around the sides and the rear of the property. The fact that it is public property uh on the perimeter uh does not mean in my opinion that you could ignore the impacts. There's still going to be impacts. Maybe not in terms of property values, but in terms of usability. And again, because the master plan of 2000 um says, "Boy, we'd like more parkland." That puts an enhanced value on on the abuing uh public uses here in my opinion. Mhm.

So, uh, and again, this is, um, an church is an inherently beneficial use, but that doesn't exempt them from meeting, um, the negative criteria. That's still a a a way that has to be evaluated. In this case, it's a conditional use standard. a lot of the standards are are not met and I think the magnitude of th the number and with the magnitude of those uh variances suggests that the applicant hasn't met um the negative criteria um in terms of justifying under the coventry case on the issue of the solar panels that's the four-step seeka process what's the magnitude of the public benefit Um what negative impacts uh arise from approving it? What uh reasonable conditions can the board impose to minimize those impacts? And on balance can the negative criteria be satisfied? I would suggest to you that the solar panels over the parking spots are diminished in their public benefit because they're going to be in shade a lot of the time. uh that means they're not going to serve their purpose uh if they were in complete sunlight and that's not going to change because most of those trees are on the abuing public property. Uh the second issue is what what are the the negative impacts and on its face you know they violate the parking itself violates the setbacks but there's an issue of aesthetics here that's it's in a buffer area. Um this uh is right within the buffer area. Your ordinance wanted nicel looking parking lots and that wasn't just that

was putting in trees in. I would say that these solar panels are worse than trees in terms of aesthetic impact. This is something you don't normally see in a I don't know any house of worship. There may be some, but I can't recall a house of worship parking lot that has solar panels them. I see them in corporate centers. I see them in industrial zones. Uh I see them on government buildings. Uh it's unusual to have them here. And again, your your ordinance is clear that they're not permitted in in in residential zones. Um, I don't know what conditions can be imposed that would mitigate this. One could say, well, we'll put up tall evergreens in the buffer area. Instead of having whatever, you know, so many feet, we'll put in tall evergreens. Well, that's going to defeat the purpose of the the solar panels. So I I I don't see a way to mitigate the impact of those and and again because these are special standards specifically geared for houses of worship in residential zones in my opinion uh going through the standards uh in my opinion the applicant has not met their burden of proof.

So that so that's for the the D1 variance for the solar panels. That's correct. Okay. And so with regard to the the D3 variants, uh, Miss Keller, I believe appropriately referred to the Coventry Square verse Westwood um Supreme Court [snorts] case from 1994. Do you agree that that's part of the Yes, it's the Coventry at Westwood case. And again, um,

and in that that case talked about, uh, the board needing to focus on whether the site remains appropriate for the conditional [snorts] use despite failure to conform with that conditional use ordinances conditions. Um, and in this case, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, maybe a few more as well. Correct.

Right. So the the the the case says concentrate on the deficiencies from the conditional use standards. And again the the significance here is these aren't generic conditional use standards. They apply specifically to houses of worship. And when you look at the number of standards that are violated and you look at the consequences of that, meaning we have activity too close to the abuing municipal activity and we don't have enough parking on the site and we have a situation that is that offers some danger in terms of walking across uh Springfield Avenue. Uh in my opinion, the applicant has not um adequately uh addressed the deficiencies and the neg negatives that arise from that and that's the standard out of the uh the Coventry case and in my opinion it hasn't been met.

Okay. and and also the Coventry case talks about um whether conditions can be imposed in any potential approval of a conditional use variance to ensure that those deviations do not cause substantial detriment to the public. The court talks about that. Right. Right. And I my question to you is in this case um do you believe that conditions can be imposed to ensure that those many deviations from the conditional use requirements do not cause substantial detriment to the public good? um I don't see any because of the the number of um conditions that are violated and essentially that you you know the applicant has suggested that they're not interested as I understand it in any other design layout of the building in the parking that this is this is what they've arrived at this meets the the intent of the congregation and I would suggest that that's somewhat arbitrary because there are no fire code reasons that justify this shape. Um there are no religious tenants that say it have to has to be this way. Um I don't see reasonable conditions that could be imposed that would allow the applicant to justify it under the Coventry case. [clears throat]

Okay. And um as we talked about earlier, an applicant, even for um an inherently beneficial use, needs to still meet the negative criteria, no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance. Correct.

That's correct. You still have to meet the negative criteria. And for all the reasons that you've identified through your testimony and your presentation of your exhibit, um do you believe, let's start first with the um the D3 conditional use, whether the applicant has met its burden of proof regarding the negative criteria. Um, in my opinion, the applicant has not because they've tried to simply whitewash the deficiencies by the fact that it abuts public property. And in my opinion, that that doesn't relieve the applicant of addressing the negatives. And there'll still be negatives even though it's public part public uh it's publicly owned land. It's clear from the master plan that this is a valued resource that ought to be protected and in fact potentially expanded.

And does that same analysis apply to the applicant's request for relief from the uh bulk standards certain bulk standards uh that are set forth in the ordinance in terms of the negative criteria both the setbacks and the building and impervious coverage. there there could be a design in my opinion that that doesn't intrude as as much into the buffer areas. Um and again because it's a fairly unique design I think common sense suggests that alternate designs could meet the programming uh needs of uh of the church. So, so here [snorts] to sort of sum up um you believe that um that the neighborhood would be getting a building that would be too large for the site, right?

Yes. Um too [snorts] tall for the neighborhood. Yes. Lacking the necessary setbacks and buffering. Correct. Relying on off-site parking. Correct. including prohibited solar panel parking canopies. Correct. Yes. And and also um with architecture that is not necessarily blending in with the residential architecture and related park setting. Um this is a unique design. I would suspect there's not another one like this in New Jersey and then maybe the country. Now, that's that's uh you don't know that.

I don't know that, but I don't know. I've never seen anyone like this. And again, there there's a theme here, the u of the design, but it's not the only design, and it's not a religiousmandated design. Um so for all those reasons based on the application as currently submitted to this board do you have an opinion as to whether the applicants relief for not just the D1 variance D3 variances the many bulk sorry C variances but also preliminary and final major site plan approval should be granted. Um, in my opinion, it should not be granted because the applicant has not met its burden of proof. And in my opinion, if it is granted, it would be uh substantially detrimental to the public good, all of the off-site parking, and it would substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.

I have nothing further for Mr. Steek at this time, subject to any rebuttal. Okay. Uh due to the late hour, I I I really don't want to rush our experts or the board questions or Mr. Mayor's questions. Um so we're going to have to keep carrying. So the next available date we have is March 2nd. Let me just confirm as I'm looking through my paperwork here. [snorts] Yes, March 2nd is the next available date. There's no other applications on that evening. It's good for the application. Great.

Um, can I just ask this what what would be the next date after that date? Um, I believe the following date in March, which I don't have right in front of me, but I can find out relatively quickly. Wait, right here I have the calendar.

The 16th maybe. Yes, you you answered the question correctly. So, let's stick with the with March 2nd. Um [snorts] at this time just to let you the board know that if the matter needs to be the application needs to be further carried I c I then cannot be here on the 16th just so you know. Understood. Okay. So Mr. Mayor waving the time frame to act through this second and I imagine we are carrying this without further notice. Okay. Do I have a motion to carry? Second. And let's see here. Mr. Nelson,

yes. Miss Chief, yes. Mr. Feskins, yes. Um, Mr. Mullen, yes. And Chairman Ly, yes. All right. See you in March. Thank you all. Thank you. So close. Do you think so? I'm not hurt. I thought we were. All right. So, we do have minutes for memorialization. Those are the minutes of the September 15th, 2025 meeting. The eligible voting members are Mr. Nelson, Miss Chief, and Chairman Loy. Do I have

Guys, I'm sorry. Can we keep it down, please, for the crowd? and second. Second. Thank you. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Great. I get a motion to adjurnn. So move. Second. All those in favor? I I I All right. Thank you guys.