25-01-23 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD MEETING скачать в хорошем качестве

25-01-23 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD MEETING

On 1/23/25, 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. These meetings are not recorded by the township but, as a service to the public, I did and here it is. As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that this application 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, until being adjourned and scheduled to be reconvened on 12/12/24. (A recording of 11/18/24 meeting may be found here:    • 11/18/24 TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD ...  ). Hearing on the application was reconvened on 12/12/24, until being adjourned and scheduled to be reconvened on 1/23/25 and is currently scheduled to be reconvened on 3/13/25. 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. 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 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. Here, the applicant's "witness" was Brian P. Murphy, a Professional Engineer, Professional Planner, and a Principal with the firm of FWH Associates. (time-stamp: approximately 2:00). A significant point of his testimony appeared to be with regard to whether the intended use was "an inherently beneficial use," as a matter of law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-4), and this is because, if a proposed use is an "inherently beneficial use," the applicant's burden of proof is significantly lessened with respect to both the negative and positive criteria ... an inherently beneficial use presumptively satisfies the positive criteria. He repeatedly expressed that a "homeless shelter" is "an inherently beneficial use." On cross-examination (time-stamp 1:56:20), he was asked the basis for his claim that a homeless shelter is an inherently beneficial use. He answered "case law." He was then asked to name two of the cases (time-stamp: 1:59:14) and he cited Homes of Hope and Salt & Light. He was then asked: "Your testimony is, unequivocally, that those two cases that you just referred to emphatically state or they make the correlation, in no uncertain terms, that a homeless shelter is considered an inherently beneficial use?" He answered: "Yes." (time-stamp: 2:02:02) On further cross-examination (time-stamp 2:11:00), he was confronted with a question about whether either of the cases he cited used the phrase "homeless shelter." In sum, it is my opinion, based on reading the cases cited, that Mr. Murphy's testimony was, at best, inaccurate and if not deliberately false and misleading. Anyone that is interested in meeting and discussing this privately or in a group should message me. 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. 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.