JACKSON – While an ordinance concerning Houses of Worship is off the table by the governing body, it is set to return in a different format by a township land use board and some residents are taking issue with that plan.
During a recent Township Council meeting residents questioned the Council on its plans regarding an ordinance that had been introduced, then pulled, then put on indefinite pause that related to regulating houses of worship and permitting them within certain specified street corners in neighborhoods.
Over the last several years, residents have come before the Council complaining that Code Enforcement officials were not taking enough action toward perceived violations of “prayer houses” within residential neighborhoods that impacted parking, traffic and noise ordinances of the township.
The township faced some serious backlash in the form of litigation and fines by federal agencies concerning some of its building codes that restricted placement of religious private schools and housing. The ordinance that was put on pause was a result of a litigation settlement, according to officials.
Resident Joe Krakowski asked the Council if the committees had met yet who were looking at open space or rewriting the master plan.
Council President Martin Flemming said no. “Neither of those fall under the council. The one for open space falls under the mayor and the master plan is under the planning board.”
Krakowski then asked about the house of worship ordinance and if it was going to be written into the master plan and not “being brought to the attention of the public as an ordinance.”
Township Attorney Gregory McGuckin replied “they (the Planning Board) can recommend in the master plan and make recommendations but the ordinances would have to be approved by the governing body.”
Krakowski said he observed construction converting a four-bedroom house for the purpose of using it as a house of worship.
Flemming said if a house’s use is changed “that has to go before a land use board and should be handled at that point. The laws are different if it is not being used as a house anymore. Any approvals needed would come after the change of use was approved.”
“I was concerned with over use of septic and wells,” the resident added.
“Who came out with the idea that houses of worship should only be on the corner property?” resident Ian Bannon asked.
Flemming explained that in the smaller zones, “we tried to make it so the properties were big enough and not affect the surrounding properties. We didn’t want them in the middle of a block because that would be too much disturbance. It seemed easier to protect the housing behind it.”
He noted there “should be no on street parking” within such a ruling and that parking would be within a lot of such a facility.
Resident Randy Bergmann asked, “what is the intent of the council at this point? You introduced the ordinance and there has been no second reading? Why?”
Flemming said that “because of the type of ordinance it is, there was a requirement to make notifications and that would constitute somewhere between $200,000-$500,000 for mailings. We felt that was inappropriate and a better way to do it was through the planning board. It still has public hearings and still has a public notice but wouldn’t cost the township a half a million dollars.”
“It was virtually every house in town,” Flemming said responding to Bergmann’s follow up question on the notification requirements.
The Council President added, “every zone is affected so every house within that zone would have to be noticed. The Planning Board Chair has been notified. A committee will be put together of planning board members, other members and our professionals to create the ordinances that will keep everybody happy, the township, the litigants, the DOJ (Department of Justice) and everybody else we are dealing with.”
“Did this ordinance (14-23) come out of the settlement with the federal government (DOJ). Did you feel you needed to do this?” Bergmann asked Flemming.
Flemming asked McGuckin if he could answer that question. McGuckin answered “it probably wouldn’t be appropriate to answer that. The Council moved to table the ordinance to amend it. The Planning Board will review that process and make a determination.”
The status on the master plan review is that it has not started yet and a committee is not yet in place according to Flemming. “That is the chairman of the planning board’s responsibility.”
Bermann asked if there had been a preliminary audit done on the number of homes that would be taken off the tax rolls as their conversion would mean a tax-exempt status. “Those calculations are part of what the Planning Board will be looking at and I’m not sure if we can take that into consideration as to how much tax revenue that we would lose.”
Resident Nicole Koopman asked if there would be a limit set on how many houses of worship would be within each zone.
“We can’t legally do that,” Flemming responded. “It would be an economic decision for those who would use them. It is not something we can limit.” He noted that the number of Catholic churches could not be limited any more than a Jewish temple or Muslim mosque.
Flemming told resident Michele Whary Ordinance 14-23 can be found in full detail at the township website. “All this information is on the township website and these are all public meetings.”
Residents opposing this plan were promoting awareness and passing out literature of their social media sites Jackson Strong and Citizens Uniting along the parade route of the Memorial Day Parade.
Their fliers are calling Ordinance 14-23 unconstitutional, and are claiming it presents ethics issues within the township government, parsonage being established, increased traffic with no improvements to infrastructure, and favoritism in land use, zoning and building decisions.
The post House Of Worship Ordinance Questioned appeared first on Jersey Shore Online.
