Mr. Tremer asked about the last minute correspondence from the applicant for GM Holdings. Ms. Cipriani said last week she got a call from the attorney for the applicant, they acknowledged the Board got the letter from Pinelands and they inquired if she knew if the Board was going to allow the matter to go forward. Ms. Cipriani reached out to the Board Chair, the Secretary and Ms. Tumolo and they advised they would put it on as a matter of discussion, so the Board could make that decision tonight. Ms. Cipriani advised Mr. Pfeffer that was how the Board planned on handling the matter. This afternoon or late morning, Ms. Cipriani received notice requesting adjournment in light of the Pinelands application expiration and that there may be changes in the application. Ms. Cipriani said given all she believes it is the right way to proceed. Mr. Tremer is concerned that they were given warning letter that it was expiring and why they waited until last minute, he feels there should be a penalty. Ms. Bradley said they were put on in July with the understanding that it would be pushed forward since it was the Board's reorganization meeting. Ms. Cipriani said she drafted the ordinance, and it hopeful it will be acted on by the end of this year by the Council, requesting that the applicants are given one adjournment and then they have to reappear in front of the Board to explain why they are postponing the application. The Board expressed concern that the draft had been submitted a while ago. Ms. Cipriani said she will follow up and she will also include the attorney for the Planning Board, they may want to include some of this in their language.
Dr. Hofstein asked the Board Attorney to explain what a waiver is, when and why it is used and why it is not a variance. Ms. Cipriani said the basic premise is it is a request for relief from zoning standards, if there are design requirements than you can seek a waiver. The waiver does not require the positive and negative criteria, just the positive.
Robert Selzam, resident at 166 Toms River Rd. M r. Selzam said he has been a resident for 39 years. M r. Selzam expressed concern that this application was postponed so late. He feels this is a tactic, on the applicant's part, to attempt to dissuade objectors from showing up to the meeting. M r. Selzam stated he changed his plans several times to come to the hearing and thinks there should be some kind of repercussion. M s. Cipriani said the Board empathizes with the resident. M s. Cipriani advised him that currently the ordinance does not have a standard, the Board has drafted an ordinance and it has been sent to the governing body to adopt it. One of the provisions is specifically to address that, for the convenience of the public and the Board. M s. Cipriani said the way the ordinance is currently written, an applicant may request one adjournment in writing. M s. Cipriani said she can add that the request for adjournment must be within 3 business days. She also stated latter adjournments will require the applicant to appear and request the adjournment in person. M r. Silecchia asked how far, as a land use board, they can go with a penalizing applicants. M s. Cipriani said, anything the applicant is entitled to do under the land use law, cannot be touched by the Board or an ordinance. The land use law does provide for the Board to set up procedures. The Board cannot be punitive but they can establish procedures that are designed to protect the process for the Board and opportunities for the public. M s. Cipriani said it is a reasonable request that if they have not got an adjournment letter in 3 days or that it's a second request, that they come to the meeting and make the application in person to the Board.