3/13/25 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD MEETING скачать в хорошем качестве

3/13/25 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD MEETING

On 2/13/25, the Toms River Township Zoning Board of Adjustment and in regard to an application by the Christ Church of Toms River for a Use (D1) Variance, and Final Major Site Plan, to construct a homeless shelter addition with 17 beds on its property which is located in a "R-150" (residential) zone. These meetings are not live-streamed or video-recorded by the township, perhaps should be to be transparent and accountable to the people, but I have been and will continue to do so as another volunteer public service. As an IMPORTANT preliminary matter, it should be noted that this application IS NOT necessarily for a "homeless shelter" but, instead, is for a "variance" (an exception to the rule) to use the property in a way that is not permitted in the residential zone where it is located. This meeting is the most recent of the multiple meetings that have been held in regard to the application. It was initially heard on 9/12/24, until being adjourned upon reaching the 10pm hour, and was to be continued and reconvened on 10/24/24. A recording of that meeting may be found here:    • 9/12/24 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD O...  . For reasons unknown to me and many of the members of the public, the meeting scheduled for 10/24/24 was not convened but was on 11/18/24 and convened to hear the application from scratch. Hearing on the application was reconvened on 11/18/24. A recording of 11/18/24 meeting may be found here:    • 11/18/24 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD ...  si=UDt6zSVhG0zEWLvs. Hearing on the application was reconvened on 12/12/24. A recording of the 12/12/24 meeting may be found here:    • 12/12/24 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD ...   Hearing on the application was reconvened on 1/23/25. A recording of 1/23/25 meeting may be found here:    • 25-01-23 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD ...  . Here, the meeting continued with a continuation of the testimony of the Objector's expert planner, Peter Steck of Community Planning, and also testifying on behalf of the objectors as expert Appraiser/Consultant was Don Moliver. The meeting was again well-attended; mostly with people who appeared with traditional "Christian" religious attire and/or association and in support of not so much the church-applicant but more in support of the apparently financial beneficiary (Affordable Housing Alliance) that annually receives millions of taxpayer dollars and may have received up to 12 million dollars from the Ocean County Board of Commissioners. They also appeared supportive regardless of the adverse impact on not just the immediate area but also the entire town. (Imagine if you can … this application is granted, permitting a homeless shelter in a residential zone, and premised on the influences of a particular religion (here Christians) … whats to stop another similar application from being applied for and granted in any other residential zone, YOUR residential neighborhood, in Toms River!? And also by the way, the next application is not by Christians (maybe muslims, atheists, satanists or any other). Clearly, I have had and continue to have many questions and concerns but I also am very aware that the Board has a legal responsibility to decide the application in accordance with the law and based on the record of evidence that establishes the facts. I also do not assume that all members of the Board has a full understanding of the breadth or depth of the relevant facts, circumstances, and the law and the crucial questions that should be asked and I am aware that they must decide the matter exclusively on the basis of the evidence presented to it; so I especially appreciate the civic responsibility that members of the public have in cross-examining the applicant’s witness(es) so that the meeting’s record, in the event of the application being granted or denied and appealed to the Court, is adequate. And to be clear, I am opposed to our zoning being tinkered with for something that, while it might make some feel good and warm and financially benefit others, is certain to open a Pandora's box for other similar applications and thereby undermine the point and purpose of zoning laws and very likely expose our town to another federal discrimination lawsuit should future applications be denied. As well, a mere 17 beds is not an inherently beneficial use to the community as it will not provide an adequate, effective, or meaningful solution to the very real problem of homelessness in our community. Additionally and perhaps most instructive of whether this presents an inherently beneficial use, the homeless population that is of most concern to the general public, and including the area where this homeless shelter is proposed, appear to suffer with serious mental health, substance use issues, and propensity for criminal behaviors and the applicant's previous witness testified during the meeting that such people will not be permitted to stay in the homeless shelter.