5-22-25 ZONING BOARD MEETING TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP скачать в хорошем качестве

5-22-25 ZONING BOARD MEETING TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP

On 5/22/25, I attended another meeting of the Toms River Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, in reference 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) designated zone. This is the SIXTH meeting on this application and, as these meetings are not recorded by the township, I have, as voluntary service to the public, video-recorded every such meeting. If you appreciate this, please like and subscribe to this channel and also please share it. One point that I need to make from the outset is that this application is NOT, absolutely NOT, about whether a homeless shelter is or is not needed. Further, I believe that many of the most prominent of so-called "homeless advocates" have done a tremendous disservice to their own credibility and to the issue and people they claim to care so much for. I believe this because they more than abundantly appear to have used and manipulated their voices and social media platforms to recklessly stir up emotions, perpetuate misunderstanding of the matter at hand, and deliberately ignore the reality of what the application is, the law regarding it, the basis of evidence and law that the zoning board members are legally required to decide the application upon and the disastrous threat to the integrity of the residential zones throughout the entire town if this application is approved. By doing so, they also compounded divisiveness throughout our community and enlisted misled and uninformed people from even beyond Toms River. Having been homeless and destitute many times in my life as a teen, young adult, and other times, I truly understand and empathize with the plight of those who are unhoused, including formerly incarcerated men and women, and I frequently lend assistance to them without seeking or readily accepting public attention or accolades ... As with my nonprofit, Project Heuristic, I have just been doing the work that I can personally. I am disappointed with those "advocates" and would have joined and supported them in their advocacy had it been where it actually belongs ... before the County Commissioners, the Township Council, Mayor, and Administration, and State officials. The zoning board, on an application for a use variance that, if granted, has implications far beyond the immediate vicinity of the Church was not where the advocacy should have been. Here, the public comment portion of the application was continued from the last meeting and concluded. The next date for the meeting to continue is 6/12/25, 6:30pm, and is expected to conclude with a decision on the application. With regard to the application, 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 ... not FEELINGS. 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; so I especially appreciate the civic responsibility that I and other members of the public have taken on in cross-examining the 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 ordinances 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. 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 in 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.