The June 21, 2021 meeting of the Jackson Township Board was called to order at 7:07 p.m. by Planning Board Secretary, Denise Buono with a salute to the flag by all present. Attorney Sean Gertner read the Open Public Meetings Act Statement noting that adequate notice has been provided and advertised in the manner prescribed by law.
ROLL CALL: Tim Dolan Dr. Michele Campbell
Terence Wall, Township Representative- arrived at 7:44 p.m.
M artin Flemming, Councilman
effrey Riker-arrived at 7:13 p.m. Len Haring, Board Vice Chairman- arrived at 7:28 p.m.
Andrew Jozwicki Robert Hudak, Board Chairman
Anthony Luisi- Alt #1
Absent: Manuela Brito-Alt #2, Joseph Riccardi, Mayor's Designee
Also Present: Planning Board Attorney Sean Gertner, M.r. Peters, Board Planner, Doug Klee, Board Engineer, Denise Buono, Planning Board Secretary, Anthony Jacob, Township I.T. representative, and Danielle Sinowitz, Planning Board Recording Secretary.
Motion to enter into executive session at 7:07 p.m. by FLEM MING/ Campbell. Yes: Dolan, Campbell, Riker, Jozwicki, Luisi, Flemming, Haring, Hudak.
Motion to exit executive session at 7:35 p.m. by RIKER/ Campbell. Yes: Dolan, Campbell, Riker, Jozwicki, Luisi, Flemming, Haring, Hudak.
Motion to approve regular meeting minutes from June 7, 2021 by FLEM MING/ Dolan. Yes: Dolan, Campbell, Luisi, Wall, Flemming, Haring, Hudak.
Payment of Recording Secretary, Danielle Sinowitz, for 7/19/21 motioned by HARING/ Flemming. Yes: Dolan, Campbell, Riker, Jozwicki, Luisi, Wall, Flemming, Haring, Hudak.
Board Matters for Discussion 1. Request of Macedonia to reconsider language and/or conditions imposed by Resolution: Mr. Hudak mentioned there was question in the wording on the Macedonia approval. Mr. Gertner stated the approval was that the applicant would utilize the nitrate septic systems and it was the understanding that was the issue due to the intensity and density of the approval and the applicant has asked if the Board will be consider that. Mr. Riker stated the pinelands prefers and utilizes this system for a reason and that is a safety measurement and it was discussed and it shouldn't be deviated from a performance standard or a specific use, building and configuration was presented to the Board and a key performance is being taken out. Mr. Klee advised it is a performance standard and isn't required outside the pinelands and it's a better treatment of the waste water and it was requested and agreed too and there has been nothing to explain the change.
Davie Leone- attorney for the applicant- rely on the papers submitted, this is a facility that will be used once a week, and it's been calculated the design is 1,500 gallons so the emerging waste water will sit for a week before going into the discharge field and the amount of sewage that will accumulate is equal to a one bedroom residence, and there was only discussion where the nitrate system was raised, and there was no confirmation by the applicant that it would be done and the applicant complied with all zoning requirements and requested 0 variances and the cost is over 30% more not including the additional maintenance and for those reasons it would be requested the resolution be revised. Mr. Flemming noted this does not fall in the pinelands. Mr. Peters advised that was correct. Mr. Hudak asked how the nitrate system got into the resolution if this is not in the pinelands area. Mr. Gertner stated in the attempt to be consistent between both Boards the Zoning board has been requiring the systems be installed. Mr. Flemming asked if that was only in the pinelands. Mr. Gertner advised they have been required both in the pinelands and not. Dr. Campbell mentioned it was agreed too. Mr. Leone stated respectfully with reviewing the transcripts it was not agreed too it was indicated it would be looked into however it's not a specific requirement, and the Board is posing additional requirements other than what is in the code. Mr. Riker remembered several negotiations and the applicants team seemed to be un cooperative regarding fencing, and when the application was done it was felt to be resolved and this system was in that agreement and it would be shocking to see that this would be doubtful, and it seems to be a cost issue and when this was done there were no issues, the project was blessed to move forward in good faith and that's where it appears to be and is and the cost issue is not on this Board's hands. Dr. Campbell asked from an environmental perspective what the advice is. Mr. Riker stated projects are often faced and it's a performance issue and it's on 17 acres and it's looked at to see what would be in aquaporin and getting the best system should be obtained and right now this house of worship is being used as stated one day a week and in the future it could be used more than once, and the Board is looking at it in the long run, and the Board should move with it. Mr. Gertner stated there is case law that the resolution speaks for the Board and the Board had a chance to review the resolution and the collective statement had this as a requirement much like Mr. Riker indicated that the perception is that the system made the application right and the its not specifically required however there are some arguments other than the requirement and there should be notation however it's the Boards determination. Mr. Leone stated with respect to the fencing issue that was raised for the first time at that hearing, and there were notes being passed between Board members and the applicant was not made aware until that April hearing and there was a complaint from a north neighbor, and there is language in the resolution with respect to the berms and buffers and there is a specific agreement with the applicant to create harmony with the neighbors, and the issue of the resolution speaking for the Board that is understood, and the transcript speaks for itself. Mr. Riker stated the resolution was received and reviewed and its presented and voted on, and asked what is the time frame to when the attorney receives the resolution and the applicant is made aware. Mr. Gertner advised it's a lengthy window. Mr. Riker mentioned other than this 1 item, there are no outstanding concerns. Mr. Leone stated that was correct with the sole exception aside from the signage. Mr. Klee suggested an oversized system to make up for the enhanced treatment from a nitrate system. Mr. Hudak noted the concern is 5 years, 10 years down the road there will be more usage on site and the Board wants to assure its all covered. Mr. Leone stated the congregation has been in service for over 100 years, and in terms of growing the congregation and in terms of the oversized system it will have to be discussed, however the maintenance costs would be assumed to be lower, and the dimensions would have to be explored. Mr. Gertner stated the Board has another hearing next week, and it would be suggested to carry the determination to next week. Dr. Campbell noted the concern is the future. Mr. Flemming asked if the Board could incorporate letting the system grow with the use, a