beneficial. On the previous hearing date, Dr. Siegel stated that this is an Orthodox Jewish school for girls that were asked to leave their schools and now have no where to go. They cannot go to a public school and get their religious education on the weekends. Also, because this is a private school, they will use the Acellus academy and the NJ DOE has no authority and this school is not required to be accredited. There will be no bussing. The Sica balancing test, the negative criteria, is met. There are to be no more than 20 students. Dr. Siegel's father-in-law, the owner of this residential home, will relinquish all use of this single-family residential home to the school. Also, Ms. Jennings believes that this school falls under RLUIPA. Mr. Murphy confirmed that the entire home will be used now and not only the basement portion, as was previously testified, and Ms. Jennings confirmed that with her client, Mr. Riccardi asked for confirmation from Ms. Jennings that there will be no more than 20 students and the entire house will be used. Ms. Jennings stated that she omitted to mention at the last hearing that Dr. Siegel is a trained psychologist. Mr. Stafford-Smith asked about ingress/egress. Ms. Jennings stated that will be addressed in the future when they return for site plan. Mr. Hurley, upon reviewing his notes from the previous hearing, stated that one of the reasons he voted to deny the application is because enrollment of students at the school was down to six students from 20, which showed to him that there wasn't a need. Another reason for Mr. Hurley's "no" vote is because this is an industrial zone; he didn't believe the positive and negative criteria were met in the Sica balancing test; the testimony was insufficient. The Chair stated she also voted to deny the application because this is a mixed-use application. Ms. Fritch stated since this is no longer mixed use and now there's new information presented does that imply that the Board did something legally wrong. Mr. Murphy stated no, the Board did not nothing legally wrong. Motion to reconsider the denial by Stafford/Smith. Second/Parnes. Yes Vote: Fritch, Riccardi, Stafford-Smith, Parnes, Bradley. No Vote: Hurley. Ms. Jennings decided to proceed with the application tonight, but stated that Jackson Township is involved in litigation and its Master Plan has been updated and will be adopted soon. Ms. Jennings stated that there's a settlement agreement and her side had a first reading of it and signed it. Mr. Peters stated that there is a master plan revision and ordinance revisions. Mr. Hurley asked if the settlement agreement is public. Ms. Jennings stated that it will be as soon as it's signed. Mr. Hurley asked if the Applicant would wait until the agreement is signed before we hear the application. Ms. Jennings stated that she'd rather have the vote tonight. Public portion opened: Michael White, 960 Mapplehurst Avenue, duly sworn, testified that part of the road is 22' wide, there's a turn that's almost 90 degrees, and he believes a speed limit has to be set there if traffic is going to be increased. Witness No. 2: Yakov Siegel, Applicant, stated he is very grateful to his father-in-law for giving the entire house to the school. Ms. Parnes asked about parking on such a narrow street. Mr. Hurley asked is this a conditional use or a permitted use. Ms. Jennings replied that it will be permitted as a principal use. Motion to approve/Parnes. Second/Riccardi. Eligible to Vote and Yes Vote: Fritch, Hurley, Riccardi, Stafford-Smith, Parnes, Bradley.

3) VINCENT MATTINA, Minor Subdivision 1420 with Use Variance 3486, Block 17206,