04-10-25 ZONING BOARD MEETING TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP скачать в хорошем качестве

04-10-25 ZONING BOARD MEETING TOMS RIVER TOWNSHIP

On 4/10/25, 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 under a separate post on this YouTube channel) . 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. There have been several additional meetings since then. A recording of each of those meetings may be found under separate posts on this YouTube channel ). Here, testimony was continued from the last meeting and from an expert appraiser with regard to property values. According to the expert, property values would be adversely impacted if the application for a variance was granted. There was also questioning of the witness afforded to the board, the boards professional staff and members of the public. Testimony was also presented from a couple of the homeowners and residents who testified to their observations of homeless persons already attracted to the location and are concerned that the granting of the variance will attract even more homeless. There was also questioning again afforded to the board, the boards professional staff and members of the public. Particularly, one member of the public, Laurie Erlenmeyer Singer (known as a massage therapist, a member and president of the central ocean county rotary club, and claims to work at the Toms River homeless coalition and in cooperation with the affordable housing alliance that, through taxpayer funding, will be funding the homeless shelter should the application be granted) questioned one of the homeowners (a woman who lives alone and has increasingly grown concerned) in a manner that appeared antagonistic, disparaging, demeaning and with complete indifference to the concerns of the homeowner. Several other members of the public, identified as homeless or a homeless advocate, also attempted to question one of the witnesses but had to be repeatedly interrupted for failing or refusing to comprehend that it was not an opportunity to make statements or argue with the witness. The public comment portion began at approximately 9:40pm and the meeting was adjoined again at approximately 10:05pm. Public comment will resume on May 22, 2025. It is imperative to keep in mind that this application IS NOT about whether a homeless shelter is or is not needed but, instead, is for zoning ordinance variance to use property for something that is not permitted. It also is not about whether it should be somewhere else. 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 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. 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.