Rebuilt HTML — PaddleOCR-VL (Baidu)

The December 3, 2025 Jackson Township Board of Adjustment meeting was called to order at 7:04pm with a salute to the flag by all present. Attorney Jean Cipriani read the Open Public Meeting Act Statement and announced that adequate notice has been provided for this meeting.

ROLL CALL: Lynn Bradley, Chair; Dr. Hofstein, Vice Chair Recording Secretary: Kathleen Bibza Zoning Board Attorney: Jean Cipriani M oshe Heiman, Secretary Carlos M artins Chrystabel Rosal, Acting Secretary Raymond Tremer Jr. Laya Cusano Alt #1 James Silecchia Alt #2

Board Professionals in Attendance and sworn in by Board Attorney

Mark Rohmeyer, Board Engineer Ernie Peters, Board Planner Gina Tumolo, Assistant Zoning Officer

Kathleen Bibza Zoning Board Recording Secretary for 11/19/2025 Motion / Heiman Second/ Rosal Vote and Yes Vote: Heiman, Rosal, Tremer, Cusano, Silecchia, Hofstein, Bradley Kathleen Bibza Zoning Board Recording Secretary for 03/05/2025 Motion / Heiman Second/ Rosal Vote and Yes Vote: Heiman, Martins, Rosal, Hofstein, Bradley

March 5, 2025 & December 3, 2025

Motion/ Heiman Second / Rosal Vote and Yes Vote: Heiman, Martins, Rosal, Tremer, Cusano, Silecchia, Hofstein, Bradley

APPLICANT: JAM ES HUGHES/ 280 FARADAY AVE. (AM ENDED SITE PLAN 261-1 W/ USE VARIANCE 3479) BLOCK: 22112 LOT: 2 LOCATION: 280 FARADAY AVE. ATTORNEY: TIM OTHY MIDDLETON ZONE: I ENGINEER: LINO DEALM EIDA III APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN AM ENDED SITE PLAN WITH USE VARIANCE FOR OFF STREET PARKING FOR TRAILER, VEHICLES AND HEAVY EQUIPMENT. (CARRIED FROM 2/7/24, 3/20/2, 5/15/24, 5/21/25, 7/16/25 AND SEPTEMBER 17, 2025, M EETING) Testimony given 3/20/24, No additional notice)

M s. Cipriani advised they will change the order of the agenda tonight, due to Board Member Cusano having a conflict with Birnbaum.

APPLICANT: RAFAEL FARHI (INTERPRETATION 3540) BLOCK: 20201/21003 LOT: 40/2 LOCATION: 3 BEAR TRAIL & 44 PITNEY LANE ATTORNEY: DONNA JENNINGS ZONE: R-1 ENGINEER: NEWLINES/TIM OTHY LURIE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION OF ORDINANCE SECTION 244-6 (A) & 244-47 (B) (8) WHETHER THE PROPOSED GUEST HOUSE TO REM AIN ON BLOCK 21003 LOT 2 (44 PITNEY LANE) IS PERM ITTED ACCESSORY BUILDING, ALTERNATIVELY, IF THE GUEST HOM E IS DEEM ED AN ADDITIONAL PRINCIPAL BUILDING, THE APPLICANT SEEKS A d.(1) USE VARIANCE FOR HAVING TWO PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS ON ONE LOT IN THE R-1 ZONE. LOTS TO BE CONSOLIDATED IF APPROVED. (CARRIED FROM THE SEPTEM BER 17, 2025, M EETING) No additional notice

Donna Jennings, Esq, from the law firm of Wilentz, Goldman and Spitzer, on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is seeking minor subdivision approval and interpretation for 3 Bear Trail and 44 Pitney Lane. The applicant is seeking to demolish the single family home at 3 Bear Trail and construct a new two story single family dwelling. The existing single story home at 44 Pitney Lane will be converted into a guest/pool house. The two lots will be consolidated into one lot, approximately 2 acres. In addition to the new single family house, a swimming pool, covered cabana and perimeter fencing are proposed. The applicant is seeking interpretation of ordinance 244-6a and 244-47B8, to ask whether the guest house shall be deemed an accessory or principal building. It is the applicants' position that existing guest/pool house is an accessory building. Accessory building is defined in ordinance 244-6a as "a building that is customarily associated with and subordinate and incidental to a principal building and is located on the same lot". If the guest house is deemed a principal they will seek D1 use variance because no more than 1 principal building is permitted on a lot used for single family dwelling. They will provide the testimony of several witness1. They are in receipt of 1 review letter from Sept 9, 2025. Ms. Jennings advised that they will do the interpretation and the use variance at the same time. Yehuda Back, PE duly sworn by Bd Attorney. Mr. Back is a licensed professional engineer in NJ, NJIT Bachelor of Science and Civil Engineering. The Board accepts his credentials. Mr. Back testified the variance plan was prepared under his direction. There are 4 exhibits A1, A2, A3 and A4. Mr. Back started with A3 the existing plan, Bear Trail is on top and bottom is Pitney Lane, both are township right of way. The first lot is 3 Bear Trail Block 20201 Lot 40, it is 1 acre. This lot is currently approved with 2 story dwelling, a pool, a shed and outdoor covered area. All the existing improvements on this lot are proposed to be moved except the wooded walkway on the east side. The second lot is 44 Pitney Lane, it is 1.01 acres and has a single family dwelling and wooden deck, and all existing improvements on this lot are to remain. They are located in R1 zone and all surrounding properties are residential in nature. They are proposing to consolidate the two properties. Exhibit A1, shows the proposed new single family dwelling. The main entrance for the combined property is off Bear Trail, with a secondary access off of Pitney Lane. The site is serviced by public utility and water. Because the Pitney Lane house is to remain a variance is required for having an accessory structure in the front yard. If approved they will provide plot plan to the Zoning Board. Mr. Back acknowledged the receipt of the review letter and agreed with everything in the letter. Ms. Jennings advised this is the end of the direct testimony of this witness. Mr. Rohmeyer confirmed that they are proposing to remove shared rear lot line and there is a pool near the shared lot line and now that there is one large lot he wanted to note how the building coverage and impervious coverages are affected. For building coverage 15% is permitted, lot 40 5.3% exists and 21.6 is proposed, this would

not typically comply without the consolidation. On lot 2 6.8 exists and 7.7% is proposed. By combining the lots they meet the coverage, but there is a concern with such a large lot coverage at the top of the lot. Mr. Back testified that it will affect neighbors but they will have to provide any grading and any drainage, drywells for the houses. Mr. Rohmeyer wants to make sure the grading and drainage is handled properly, so it does not affect neighbors. Mr. Rohmeyer said for impervious coverage 50% is allowed and combined or separate they would comply. Mr. Back said they are able to provide ample grading and drainage for storm water management. They will comply with RSIS for off street parking spaces. Mr. Peters confirmed it is a lot consolidation, not a minor subdivision as was originally stated in Ms. Jennings statement. Ms. Jennings confirmed it is just a lot consolidation not minor subdivision. Dr. Hofstein asked about the names on the deeds, there are two different names. Ms. Cipriani confirmed if the applicant has site control on both lots, since they are in two different names. Ms. Jennings said after this Board makes a determination they will consolidate the deeds. Mr. Peters asked if there are any bulk variances, the engineer confirmed there are not. Mr. Heiman said how are they determining front or rear, they both have frontage on a street. Mr. Back testified they both will have front yard setbacks and both will be in compliance. Mr. Heiman said won't Pitney become a rear yard, Ms. Jennings said no because there is frontage on Pitney. No further questions. John Taikina, licensed planner for State of New Jersey, has been testifying for 33 years, duly sworn by Bd Attorney. The Board accepts his credentials. Mr. Taikina advised that the Board is being asked to interpret the ordinance and stated it is his opinion that the guest house be an accessory. They would require a bulk variance for the guest house because it will be in a front yard. This would be a C2 variance, as the burden on the applicant would be that they have two front yards. This relief would be specifically for 3 Bear Trail and would not be related to any other property. Mr. Taikina said it will continue to present as a single family dwelling on the street. From a planning perspective an accessory structure might be smaller or unsightly. It will provide a more desirable environment keeping the existing home on Pitney. As far as advancing purposes of zoning they are providing for sufficient space in appropriate locations. Mr. Taikina said they are kind of creating their own problem and this is why he believes it would be C2 variance. There is no negative criteria, there is no substantial impairment to public good or zone plan and master plan. There will be a new house on Bear Trail with a pool and then the guest house on Pitney which is remaining and will keep with the look of the neighborhood. It is his opinion no negative impacts or detriment to public good. The house on Pitney will continue to look the way it looks. Master Plan provides for integrity and continuity throughout the community and they are by continuing it as a single family home. He feels they should grant the C2 variance, an accessory use at Pitney Lane. Ms. Jennings asked Mr. Taikina to go over the definition to come to this conclusion. Mr. Taikina relied on what is principal building, as stated in ordinance 244-6 a structure accessory which is customarily associated with and it is subordinate and incidental to the principal single family use. 244-147 is the ordinance definition for accessory building and the only thing they do not conform with is that it is in a front yard. If the Board does not agree with this they would need D1 use variance for two principal buildings on one lot. (244-162) For the Board to grant D1 variance they need to find: that the property is particularly suited for the use, reconcile why the governing body did not zone it that way and they would have to talk about what purposes of zoning they would advance. They also would need to meet negative criteria. It is particularly suited for this as it has been two homes on two lots and that is not changing, they are just combining to 1 lot. The newly constructed home would be compliant with coverage. The site will be attractive and they will keep guest house as it exists on Pitney Lane. The lot was not zoned like this because it was not anticipated that individuals would want to assemble this type of property. Mr. Taikina said it is a distinction without

a difference and by combining the lots and agreed the Board has a right to impose conditions on this approval. They continue to promote a desirable visual environment. The site has sufficient space and compliant building coverage and lot coverage. The negative criteria is the same, no negative impacts or detriment to the public good. Mr. M. artins questioned what they will use it for and if they have that many guests that they need another whole house for guests. Ms. Jennings said yes that it is what the client needs. Ms. Cipriani said they are looking for, and would like for the Board to call the Pitney lane an accessory structure and there would be some relief sought for it but if the Board does not grant that than they are looking for D1 variance to have two principal structures, which is not permitted in a residential zone. Mr. Peters asked if the Board needs to act on the interpretation first. Ms. Cipriani said yes. Mr. Peters, from a planning perspective, does not believe they have proved their case for that interpretation, he does believe they proved case for D1 variance. Mr. Peters asked if a zoning permit was applied for. Ms. Jennings said they did file zoning application in her July 3, 2025 letter, item 5. Mr. Peters said this is not appeal of zoning officer's interpretation. The interpretation would run counter to the zoning officer's interpretation. What is the current use of the house on Pitney. Mr. Peters said he was unable to find a guest house in Jackson Township Ordinance. Ms. Jennings testified it is being used currently for guests no one lives there full time. It will not be occupied full time. Mr. Peters said if the Board approves this something that runs with the property and if at some point they want to use it full time not a guest house what would happen. Mr. Taikina said if Board made the determination it is a guest house than it would not be able to be occupied full time, if they deny that and approve the D1 variance then they are saying it is two single family homes to be occupied full time. Mr. Peters wants the record clear for what happens if they sell the property and what happens with the homes, should there be a real estate transfer. Differentiation between the existing house on Pitney going from a principal to accessory use is the removal of the lot line. Mr. Taikina said yes and it is use, it will not be used full time. Ms. Jennings said to look at it as if it were a vacant lot and they were just going to build a guest house similar to the home that is there. Mr. Peters said he does not agree but it is a fair argument. Ms. Cipriani confirmed the house on Pitney is 15-20 years old and it is vacant but prior it was single family residence. Ms. Cipriani asked the distance of the guest house from the pool. Ms. Cipriani said in terms of use as guest house, if the Board accepts it as a guest house, how the Board would ensure it would not be occupied full time. Ms. Jennings brought up the applicant to testify. Rafael Farhi, applicant, duly sworn by Board Attorney. He testified he has 9 sibling and his wife has 7 siblings and none live in the area. It is not uncommon for there to be a lot of guests. Mr. Farhi said it would be impractical for him to have anyone other than guest's staying in that house and it would be odd to have anyone else occupy that house as it will be located in close proximity to the pool. He testified his elderly parents are staying there now and his Mother is recovering from a surgery. Ms. Cipriani asked how big the Pitney home is. He said it is a 4 bedroom and 4 bathroom house 2900 sq ft. Ms. Cipriani said in terms of the use the guest house will be occupied a lot of the time, the way it sounds. The applicant said holidays, summertime and vacation. Ms. Cipriani said if board gives approval can he think of any limitations that would allow him to use the property in the way he is proposing, and keep it from being occupied full time. Ms. Cipriani said the zoning ordinance does not typically allow two single family homes on one lot and the policy is to always try to push toward conformity. Ms. Tumolo said it is a little different than knocking down the house and building a pool house, she said the issue would be allowing people to stay there, they are not considered habitable. Ms. Jennings argued there is a general accessory rule as long as its incidental to the primary structure, it is impossible for a town to come up with every type of accessory and were not specifically listed. Dr. Hofstein asked if it is an accessory house how can the town control

if it is sold what it will turn into. Ms. Jennings said that it is an enforcement issue. Mr. Peters said the Board is entitled to ask for clarity and parameters for what a guest home is. Ms. Jennings said not to be used more than 150 days. The applicant agreed with that. Dr. Hofstein asked will the guest house be used when the pool is closed, cooking done on site, live in staff and parking. Dr. Hofstein is struggling on how they can place limitations on this. Mr. Silecchia referred to applicant's statement that he has a relative there that had recent surgery and what if they need a live in, will they use this house and allow them to stay there for as long as needed. The applicant said his wife would have a problem with that and there is a place in the main house for that type of scenario. Mr. Heiman is struggling with calling it a guest house as it has a full kitchen. He is struggling with calling it an accessory. In addition it has its own parking and direct access from Pitney. Ms. Cipriani said they are making this request mainly because of the lot coverage and pool is on the property line. Ms. Jennings agreed. Ms. Rosal asked if they were to change the house to something less inhabitable would that make a difference. Ms. Bradley asked when they demolish the existing house on Bear Trail where will they live. The applicant said probably in the guest house. Ms. Bradley said that it is her interpretation that it is not a guest home if the applicant will be living there full time while his house is built. Mr. Heiman said the guest house will have shared septic and would give continuity with the home. Mr. Back was brought back up and testified there is an existing septic that would remain and that both locations have existing septic. It will have shared septic at final. The applicant said if it would help if the two houses had shared utilities. Mr. M artins said it would not change. Ms. Cipriani asked if they would be willing to put a limitation of how many days in a row. Ms. Heiman said how it would be enforceable. Mr. M artins asked if Pitney home has a basement and usually a guest house does not have a basement. Mr. Tremer asked how many bedrooms are in the Bear Trail house now. The applicant said currently there are 4 bedrooms and the proposed house will have 8. He questioned they will have 12 bedrooms on 1 septic. Ms. Jennings said there are two acres and there is enough space to build the septic. Mr. Back, the engineer said they will be compliant with Ocean County Health Department. He also testified they will not be coming back for any waivers for septic. The applicant agreed for the guest house, there will be no one living in the basement and it will never be rented. The applicant agrees to that as a condition of the Board approval. Mr. Heiman asked if they call the Fire Dept how they will identify the guest house property. Ms. Tumolo wanted clarification on bedrooms in both houses. The applicant said there are no bedrooms in the basement and in the new house he is not sure. Ms. Tumolo said the Bear Trail house shows a bedroom in the basement near the locker room. Ms. Jennings brought the architect up to testify. Neftoli Gut, Gutvann Architecture, licensed architect State of NJ, duly sworn by Bd Attorney. Board accepts credentials. The architect testified there is a bedroom in the basement of the Bear Trail proposed house and total between the two homes will be 12 bedrooms. Mr. Silecchia asked about the basketball court on the Bear Trail plans. Mr. Gut advised it is indoor and they will be going down 18ft. Mr. Gut said this will help define the Pitney house as an accessory.

Deb Jones, Hyson Rd resident, duly sworn by Bd Attorney. She has a concern about the term guest house. She does not understand why they don't just apply for a variance to move the pool. She feels there is no way the owner is going to keep track of the 150 days being occupied. She feels it is more of a bed and breakfast. The zoning officers are overwhelmed by the conditions and the laws. She wants to know the benefit to combining the lots. Ms. Cipriani advised it is more about the impervious coverage.

She wanted to voice her concerns with the use on this property and they seem to be always be pushing boundaries. She feels this will affect taxes, going from two lots to one.

M s. Bradley said this is a land use Board and they cannot consider tax concerns

Public Session Closed

M s. Jennings said she believes the Board understands what they are seeking tonight and just depends on how they vote. Whether the second house is an accessory and or did they satisfy the positive negative criteria for the D variance. Dr. Hofstein asked how far over the property line is the new proposed pool. Mr. Back said the new pool is almost entirely over the existing property line. Mr. M atins wants to know if they are paying separate taxes. Ms. Cipriani said when they consolidate it will be one lot.

M s. Cipriani reminded the Board the initial request is on the interpretation, whether the existing home on Pitney house qualifies as an accessory structure. The definition was read into the record from the township code. There is consolidation into one lot. The land use standard is that when a Board is asked to determine when a proposed use as an accessory use, it is important to examine analytically the nature of accessory uses to determine whether they are in fact accessory in nature, if associated with use on the same factor of land or determine whether they would be permitted independently on a tract of land where no other use exists to which the use in question could be considered an accessory. (Cited in Cox law for accessory use) M s. Cipriani said the Pitney house is currently permitted on a tract of land with no other uses and has been a single family home for 30 years. There was testimony for consolidation on the lots. There is case law, Urban vs Planning Board, it was determination that the beach houses never functioned independently that they had always been accessory structures. It is M s. Cipriani's recommendation that it is not an accessory structure. The applicants' planner testified, in connection with township code, that an accessory is incidental and subordinate to the principal use.

M r. Heiman, does not see it as incidental without possibly removing the kitchen and the fact that it has a separate driveway. M r. Silecchia said if the driveway on Pitney was eliminated or closed off he is struggling with calling it an accessory use. M r. M artins agreed and is struggling with imposing restrictions, and if they can be enforced. M s. Jennings advised the applicant would be willing to close off the driveway but is not willing to remove the kitchen. M s. Rosal said removing the driveway helps consider it as an accessory, along with the combined utilities. Dr. Hofstein does not see how it can be considered an accessory building. M s. Bradley said she is struggling with seeing it as accessory, it is a standalone home. M r. Tremer said with fully functioning kitchen it is a standalone house. M r. Heiman is not concerned with the applicant being there while his house is under construction and it would be temporary use.

M s. Bradley advised Yes vote will be that it is not an accessory use

Motion / Bradley Second / Hofstein Yes Vote: Heiman, Martins, Tremer, Hofstein, Bradley No Vote: Rosal feels it could be accessory with the combination of utilities and removal of driveway, Cusano agrees with Rosal

It is Boards interpretation that it is not an accessory structure

M s. Cipriani said now they must determine if the applicant met the standard for the D1 variance. The standard they must show positive negative criteria, special reasons and include application advances zoning purpose and promote general welfare. The conditions discussed that there would be consolidation of the two lots and drainage, so as to not impact neighbors. It would be used as a guest house and limited to no more than 150 days per year, except for owner occupying it during construction of Bear Trail. There will be shared septic, no bedroom in the basement of Pitney house and guest house would not be rented. The driveway would be closed off from Pitney. M r. Martins asked if public would be allowed to come up and comment and he does not know if the public understood. M s. Cipriani said that is up to the Chair. M s. Bradley said she has no problem opening it up to the public. M s. Jennings wanted to clarify that the part of the application with conditions do not apply any longer, they are asking for the variance to consider it a separate principal use. M s. Jennings said those were related to if it was an accessory structure. M s. Cipriani confirmed that the stipulations are lot consolidation, grading and drainage, no limit on use, there still will be no bedroom in basement, Pitney will not be rented and shared septic. M r. Rohmeyer added a comment that he does not see any benefit to requiring shared septic. M s. Jennings agreed this does not have to be a requirement. No additional comments from M r. Peters or M s. Tumolo. M r. Martins asked what variance the Board voting on. M s. Cipriani advised it is a D1 variance, would allow for two principal structures on one lot. M r. Heiman asked for clarification for what the Pitney house will be. M s. Jennings said it is a single family home for use by guests of residents of Bear Trail. M s. Jennings said it is going to be a single family home and they are agreeing that it will not be rented. M s. Cipriani stated the applicants intended use has not changed but if the property were to be sold it could not be subdivided because it would be creating a non-conformity. The property can be sold as a property with two single homes. M s. Tumolo wanted on record if the Pitney house is not owner occupied does it require CO from the town. M s. Jennings said he is the owner and his family will use it, and she does not think this is a land use issue, it is a CO issue. M r. Martins said distinction without a difference. M r. Heiman said he would prefer the stipulations that were discussed before but it did not meet the criteria for accessory. He is agreeable to the D variance.

Lot consolidation, drainage and grading, no basement bedroom in the Pitney Home and Pitney house cannot be rented

Ms. Bradley understands they can now move the pool over the property line and build their dream home. She also appreciates it will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. She would support D1 variance.

Motion to approve D1 variance / Bradley Second/ Rosal Vote and Yes Vote: Heiman, Martins, Rosal, Tremer, Cusano, Dr. Hofstein, Bradley

M s. Cusano recused herself

APPLICANT: ISRAEL BIRNBAUM (USE VARIANCE 3490) BLOCK: 14001 LOT: 9 LOCATION: 263 JACKSON PINES ROAD ATTORNEY: DONNA JENNINGS ZONE: R-3 ENGINEER: HALER/ELI HALPERT APPLICANT IS SEEKING A USE VARIANCE TO USE AN EXISTING TENTAS A SHUL WITH RELATED IM PROVEM ENTS FOR PERM ITTED CONDITIONAL USE, WHERE NOT ALL CONDITIONS CAN BE M ET. (CARRIED FROM 3/6/24,

5/1/24, 8/7/24, 12/4/24, 1/15/25, 3/5/25, 5/7/25, 6/18.25, 8/20/25 AND SEPTEM BER 17, 2025, M EETING) Testimony given 3/5/25, 6/18/25, No additional notice

Donna Jennings, Esq, from the law firm of Wilentz, Goldman and Spitzer, on behalf of the applicant. The last time they were here was in August. They submitted revised plans. They were supposed to be here in September but it was carried due to quorum. Ms. Jennings wanted to make sure for the record that all Board members have certified. Ms. Cipriani advised all Board members have reviewed all the videos and documents and certified. Ms. Jennings said their engineer will go over the minor revisions and they have a new reports dated August 13, 2025 from both Morgan and RVE. Eric Halpert, Licensed PE in State of NJ, duly sworn by Bd Attorney. Board accepts his credentials. Mr. Halpert discussed minor revisions. Revised site plan exhibit was provided. His testimony is only to discuss the revisions, at the Boards request he has prepared a phasing plan. Sheet C301 and C300 depict phasing plan. C300 depicts the plan while the tent is in operation, the site will be improved with additional gravel area, additional asphalt. There will be a section of 15 spots, followed by a section of 4 spots, in total 19 spots servicing the tent. The ordinance requirement for a 650sq ft place of worship is 17 spots. The applicant is requesting this parking remain gravel as the tent is temporary. The applicant would improve the graded rear asphalt and add additional asphalt for parking for the wrestling school. Phase 2 depicts how the site will operate when the tent is gone. The parking spaces that previously existed will no longer be there. The wrestling school will be improved with parking spaces that are asphalt and the gravel area will remain just for emergency turn around. The wrestling school will have 2 EV spaces and ADA spaces compliant with the requirement. This is all the improvements proposed. Cipriani said if the Board were to issue a condition that after CO is received for the permanent Shul, what length of time they will need to take down the tent. Ms. Jennings stated 30 days. When the permanent Shul is in place the tent, concrete pad and hvac will all be demolished. Dr. Hofstein asked how many spots the wrestling school will have after the tent is removed. Mr. Halpert said 29 asphalt spaces and 2 EV spaces and 10 green banked spaces. Mr. Martins raised a point about the EV spaces and proximity to a structure. Mr. Tremer said it is always a great concern, they are suggesting the spaces be located as far from structure as possible. Mr. Tremer asked what if the future of the property. The Rabi will no longer occupy the home. Ms. Cipriani said the request was to allow two principal uses but the uses would shift. So phase 1 principal use is Shul and wrestling school and when tent is gone, the two uses would be the single family dwelling and the school. Mr. Tremer asked if the EV are necessary, Mr. Halpert said at least 1 is required by law. Dr. Hofstein asked what the reason to have principal structures is, why not have the home and the school an accessory. Ms. Cipriani advised the school was approved as a home occupation but the owner no longer lives in the home. Dr. Hofstein noted from last minutes, wrestling school is great benefit to the community and can occur without detriment to the community. Dr. Hofstein agreed with the testimonial about the school but is concerned this issue is over land use. The wrestling school would need two variances, one for use and one for principal structure. Dr. Hofstein asked Ms. Jennings if she still stands by her statement, she does not represent the school and if the Board does not want to grant the D variance then she would ask Board to approve the Shul. Ms. Jennings agreed, she would like to see the school continue. The main argument is it is the same exact use that it has been for years and when it was granted the Board found that it did not interfere with the adjacent property. Dr. Hofstein said once he sold the house that changed the use and he lost his variance. Ms. Rosal asked if the house will remain vacant. Ms. Jennings said no someone will live there, if the home is sold the wrestling school will be part of the property. Mr. Peters asked about the phase 1 parking improvement, and the time frame for completing those. Ms. Halpert said should the Board grant approval they will be

back for site plan approval and they would agree to a time frame to submit the site plan application. After the site plan application is in they would be able to install those improvements. Mr. Halpert said they would agree to a time frame for site plan application and then he would give a date 4-6 months is reasonable time frame. Ms. Bradley asked how long until the permanent Shul is complete. Mr. Halpert said construction has commenced, so maybe 18 months. Dr. Hofstein cited township ordinance 31-23 & 244-46AG and the house of worship is a permitted use and does not require a D variance. Mr. Rohmeyer said it is a satisfactory layout. Mr. Heimann asked will the applicant stipulate that the use stay specifically a wrestling. Ms. Jennings said yes. Dr. Hofstein asked why the wrestling school deserves a variance. Ms. Jennings said it will operate exactly the way it is going to operate and it should be granted under quasi-public club. Ms. Jennings said it is a commercial entity, that is why they are here, they are not arguing that. Ms. Cipriani said the request is that the wrestling school be given a conditional use as private recreation. Mr. Silecchia asked if Mr. Rivera no longer runs the school, can the Board make the new owner come before the Board. Ms. Cipriani advised that there is not a land use problem. Ms. Cipriani said the Board can reflect on the years it has operated and that it has no complaints. Ms. Tumolo stated if they are going to continue renting they would need CO, Ms. Jennings agreed. Ms. Tumolo asked for a sunset provision, the approval would be based on the new construction and the approval would be vacated in 1 year and they can come back in a year time frame. Ms. Cipriani said the condition discussed was triggered by the CO on the new Shul. Ms. Jennings suggested wait and impose the condition during site plan. Ms. Tumolo said she was just giving another enforcement tool. Dr. Hofstein would still like an up to date inspection by bldg department and up to date fire inspection report for NJ State fire code 31-01 for the tent structure. Mr. Hofstein asked if the use is expanding. Ms. Jennings said they do not need the 29 parking spaces, they are just meeting the code. Dr. Hofstein asked if they can impose how many instructors. Ms. Jennings said he is not looking for any relief from the original resolution, just wants approval to continue. Ms. Jennings agreed to the restrictions being put in the resolution. Ms. Jennings also noted if a new owner took over they would have to come back before the Board if they plan on changing the hours.

M.s. Cipriani advised conditional use variances for the wrestling school, which was approved as a home occupation. To have the two principal uses and they would shift. The Shul and the wrestling school and then the home and the wrestling school. Conditions were discussed that after the CO on the permanent Shul, the applicant will have 45 days to take down the tent and parking spaces, the concrete slab and all mechanical apparatus having to do with the tent. The approval for the tent to remain will be good for 24 months, if extension is required the applicant will have to come before the Board. All necessary construction permits and updated fire inspection are required. Wrestling school parking will have required EV and ADA spaces. The EV spaces will be placed as far from any structure as practically possible. The wrestling school will remain only a wrestling school, with continued restrictions on hours of operation and all other restrictions from the original approval. The site plan application is required to be submitted with 5 months. Ms. Jennings added there are two variances. Ms. Cipriani added variances for side yard setback and buffer setback. In addition the variance for having the house, is an accessory structure, and it is in front of the tent. Mr. Silecchia has some concerns, and understands how important wrestling is for the town, but still struggles with the change from it being a home occupation. Another concern is the C variances, he feels this was an applicant created problem, after covid the tent should have been dismantled and relocated. Mr. Martins is ok with the Shul, it is temporary, and he is

struggling with commercial use in a residential area. Ms. Bradley commented it was legal with the 2009 resolution, the current home owner worked with Mr. Rivera to continue operating. Mr. Heiman does not see a problem with the Shul, the school is the exact same use and its use has not changed. Mr. Tremer visited the site today and believes the wrestling school is a good thing for the kids he is more concerned for the tent. Mr. Tremer observed the large propane tank and people outside smoking in the area. Mr. Tremer wonders what will happen to the property when the tent is removed. Dr. Hofstein asked if Mr. Rivera can come back on his own if this Board denies. Ms. Jennings said he cannot come back and ask for variance on his own. Ms. Bradley has no issue on the tent due to the agreed inspections and conditions placed on the record. Ms. Bradley does not have a problem with the wrestling school, it has been operating and there have been no complaints for this business.

Motion to approve / Bradley Second / Heiman Vote and Yes Vote: Heiman, Martins, Rosal, Tremer, Silecchia, Dr. Hofstein, Bradley

Motion Approved

Motion to Adjourn / Bradley Second / Rosal Agreed by All

Meeting adjourned 10:21pm

Respectfully submitted,

Kathleen Bibza Zoning Board Recording Secretary