PL1 1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the zoning board of the township of Franklin has been provided. Board members, applicant professionals and members of the public, please speak directly into microphones so that our recording secretary can
properly process minutes. Applicants and professionals, please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed your testimony. And uh just like to mention before the roll
call, we have uh Mike Dy and Canol Leia who were just sworn again in again tonight a few moments ago for new terms on the board. Uh and I want to congratulate them. They're very valuable to our work. And then the roll call.
>> Okay. Uh again, apologies that the meeting's starting late. We had technical difficulties. Uh, Robert Shepard is the only one that asked to be excused this evening. Cheryl Batia >> here. >> Richard Brokanic >> here. >> Basim Verdas >> here. >> Alan Rich >> here. >> Gary Rosenthal >> here.
>> Michael Dy >> here. And thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Kunalakia >> here. And again, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. >> Right. Minutes of the regular meeting, November 20th, 2025. >> Cheryl and Michael Dy cannot vote.
>> I'll move. I'll second >> Richard Panic. >> Yes. Mdas. Alan Rich. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosenthal. >> Yes. >> Kuna Lakia. >> Yes. >> And chairman Thomas. >> Yes. Resolution. Ramkumar Vanka Ramen
ZBA 2523. >> Cheryl Allen and Kunal cannot vote. I'll move. >> I'll second. Richard Proanic, >> yes. >> Rashine Verdas, >> yes. >> Gary Rosenthal, >> yes. >> Michael Dhy, >> yes.
>> Chairman Thomas, >> yes. Uh, we have no uh discussion and we are now moving into the one hearing that we have this evening
to weed Dway Center ZBA 2417. This is an amended preliminary and final site plan plus relief of condition in which the applicant's proposing construction of a 19,000 350 ft place of worship at 630
South Middlebush Road Somerset block 37.02 lot 46.03 in agricultural zone. Uh before we start, uh I'm going to have uh turn the meeting
momentarily over to our attorney who's going to explain for everyone how things are going to operate so that everyone knows ahead of time what to expect. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, I I know we
have a lot of people here tonight. Um, the board received today a letter from Miss Bailey who represents the Sniders uh and also a uh stormwater uh report from her stormwater engineer today.
Those documents will be marked as exhibits uh 01 and O2 respectively. Uh the applicant will uh continue with its uh presentation of its case. uh any um including Miss Bailey or any
other um individuals that want to ask questions of each witness uh as they're presented, they can do so. Uh but the objectors uh represented by Miss Bailey uh will present their case,
whatever case that is, after the applicant has completed its presentation. So, the way it's going to go, like I just to reiterate, is the applicant will present its witnesses. Uh, after the testimony, the direct testimony of those witnesses,
uh, Miss Bailey or any other, uh, individuals from the public will have an opportunity to ask questions of that witness. Uh, and then we will proceed that way. And then at the end after the applicant has put in its case and chief
uh the objectors will uh be permitted to present whatever they want to present. >> Okay, that's how it's going to work. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I have extra copies of those. >> I think the entire board has them. So, >> thank you. I would just want to add to
that at the uh the applicant will present the case present as witnesses at the end of the uh test conclusion of the testimony of each witness. All members of the public, with the
exception of those represented by an objector attorney, will be given the opportunity to ask that witness questions concerning the testimony was given. It is not a time to tell us you don't want
something or you don't like this or whatever. It's your turn turn to help us factf find ask questions based on the testimony. Uh you don't ask the traffic engineer
you know why the building has an earthtone color or a green color. You ask the traffic engineer questions pertaining pertaining to traffic and I will aggressively step in and stop you,
you know, and let's not not an intention to be mean, but to keep things moving and to keep it on on point. Go ahead, >> Mr. Chairman. If I could just make one suggestion, Mr. Schwarz, um if you could
just for the benefit of the um the board and the public just in your opening just explain who you're going to be presenting so so the public can know. I'm sure there's going to be a site engineer, an architect, etc. Just to let everybody know who is going to be speaking so they can, you know, direct
their questions appropriately. Thank you. >> Uh if the board please. My name is Brian Schwarz from Schwarz. There you go. >> Is that better? >> Yes. >> Just pull a little closer.
>> Do you mind if I sit down? Because if I stand up, you're not going to be able to hear me again. >> I think it's going to be a long night. I think you better start sitting. I don't think anybody should prepare to to expect a vote on any anything tonight. I'm sure it's going to carry over.
>> Well, I'll talk faster then. >> We can try. >> Okay. Uh I I just want to bring the board up to uh I'm sure you do recall that in November we were here and at that time I explained the focus of this application or really the purpose of
this application. The predecessor religious organization from whom my client purchased this property had obtained a preliminary site plan approval with a very comprehensive resolution that included a lot of conditions. We are here uh because even
though we still have preliminary site plan approval, we're asking for final site plan approval, but also relief from two conditions. One was very specific in the hours and days of operation of the religious use of the property. We are going to have a
slightly different hours and days of operation. Even though it's still going to be a religious use, the use is no different. It's a religious worship and that's what this building is going to be used for and nothing else. It's just that the hours and days are going to be different. And just so the board would
have no uh confusion about what those hours and days were going to be, we submitted a document that my client testified to at the last hearing explaining exactly what hours these religious worship would take
place, how many people were expected, why he expected that many, and we expect that we're going to be bound by that. We expect that any resolution approving our uh final site plan approval will include that. Unfortunately, we got bogged down
and that's because a very astute board member found that on the website of my client, it still talked about having a much broader expansive use of the property. And I'm going to explain why and I'm going to fall on the sword. When
we bought this, when I when we brought when my client bought the property, we did not have the resolution. We had a reduced copy of the site plan approval showing the size and configuration of the building. We were not aware of the
limitations in the resolution. At that time, when my client purchased the property, they put on the website, this is what we intended to do. We then later got the resolution and we found that there were limitations and my client and its board it's decided that it was going
to comply as strictly as possible with the conditions in that resolution in terms of the size and configuration of the building the parking layout and the use in terms of number of people and that's when why when we applied we submitted the sheet that I showed you
and we entered into evidence showing how many people were going to be at each of the uh worship services. Now being Muslims, they have a different schedule of worship than do people of other
religions. They have five worship services a day, but they are short ones lasting approximately 30 minutes in duration and they have a relatively small number of people who come and that our application is relief from two
conditions. One is the hours and days of operation and substituting what we have now introduced into evidence. And the second is because the building although smaller in footprint and square footage has a larger area of worship, we are now
need to change the variance for parking which was approved last time. I'm not going to I'm not going to lie. It was a rather significant u variance. But the explanation at that time which the board accepted was that there would not need
to be more parking. We have shown you that the number of people who will be at this property at any given time will actually be fewer than under the resolution uh in the in the prelim preliminary site plan approval and therefore we will have
proof showing that that second component of relief from that condition is also merited. Those are the two reasons we're here along with fi final site plan approval. We're not reinventing the wheel. We have tried to as closely adhere to the previous approval as we
possibly can. Okay. Having said that, um where witnesses are going to be uh this gentleman to my left, Mitchell Ardman, who is a professional civil engineer. We'll have Betsy Dolan who is a traffic engineer. We'll have Yogesh Mitstry who
is a licensed architect. And finally, we will have uh O'Brien, Mr. O'Brien, who will testify from Shamrock, who's a professional planner. Okay, those are going to be our witnesses. Probably not in that order. We're going to do Mitchell first, probably do Yoga second,
we'll do Betsy third, then we'll do Kevin last. Okay, any questions? I'll proceed with Mr. Arman. You may have to add another witness. And we may have already touched on this the last time, but I I think the board might want to
review uh the operating procedure, the person in charge of of the facility. uh how many people are going to be here, how many are going to be on what day,
what days, what what special events there might be, uh things like that. >> Mr. I thought we covered that last meeting and I thought that the exhibit I I presented uh which I can present again if we need to but it was very specific
in how many people they expect and what time of days and it and we also emphasized that the two things number one is the big Eid which of course is the biggest u activity uh the the most holy day of the year for Muslims is not
going to be held here. they go to another location. Actually, I believe it's a school. So, that's not going to happen. And if there is any kind of special event that would have more than a reasonable number in terms of what we already have said, we have to get a
special events permit. So, it's not going to happen unless it's approved. Just making sure everybody understands that. It was November and I'm getting old and uh sometimes it helps to review some of these. I I resent that.
>> Okay. Go ahead with your your witness. >> Okay. Uh Mitchell Arman. >> Mr. Arman, raise your right hand. Do you swear affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> Yes, I do. >> You can just repeat your name and spell
your last name for the record, please. >> I'll I'll do it brief. Mr. Chairman, >> let's cut right to the chase. You still have a license. >> I do. Asman, a license. you've been here a million times before the board, we accept your credentials. We'll get started.
>> Um, and for board members who, again, this this goes back a ways, this application, and for new board members, uh, basically I'm going to give a an overview and then we'll get into the details. Um, as I think the chairman said last time and you heard, there was
a very detailed resolution on this. It was a lengthy application, many hearings. It was in the middle of COVID. There were a lot of Zoom meetings. Um but in the end, I think we got a a very uh tight resolution uh and conditions
that addressed uh the um issues of many of the neighbors. Um there there was really very little push back from our uh client at that time or from the client now. And really the reason again for my testimony is going to go through again
the overview then to show how we've met all those conditions for the site plan specifically. So what I have up on the screen right now is an aerial view. This is actually uh the 200 foot location map that's on the cover sheet of our plan. So I don't
know that needs a another uh exhibit number. I think it's covered by that. But um we can go from there. So basically what we have, you see South Middle Bush Road. The site is outlined in the black line and the dash line
around it is is the 200 foot line circling the property. It's block 37.02, lot 46.03, just shy of 16 acres. You can see on the property that
basically and we're about um 1,500 ft south of Cordu Lane. That's where the property is located. So the north side of the property here is an open field. Uh the southern side, southerntherly and the easterly side is the uh wooded
sections of the property. There's an existing single family house right in the middle of the property. And that is accessed by a driveway that comes in along this uh southern property line here uh along our neighboring property
on lot 45.02. So that's the existing driveway accesses the house. There's a small pocket of wetlands in the southeast corner of the property. Again, with the I'll show on the site plan. As with the prior application, we're not disturbing that
wetlands nor the buffer area. There are two single family houses that are but the property along South Middlebush. And um south of that, this is actually Township uh preserve area on the south
of our property. Uh to the north property line here, you see the farm drive uh the Snyder farm and the farm field behind us. And just I'll scroll up because it's a ways off. Probably just over 800 feet from our property line is
the actual residence of the farm of the Snyder farm there. So that's pretty much the existing conditions on the property. There we go. Very good. Uh so this is what we have proposed. This is the rendering. This is a uh the dimension
plan that's in our set, but it's labeled R1 for the rendering and it has the uh landscape superimposed on this. So, I'm not sure if you want to make this a separate exhibit. >> Yeah, I think we should. I don't know where we left off in the exhibits.
>> I think A1 was the statement of proposed use of the property and I don't think there were any others. >> I think you're right. So, we'll call this A2. >> Very good. I do I don't know if you wanted for your record a hard copy, a small one. Just uh
>> uh Sure. >> Yep. Just so you keep them straight. >> And is this color rendering of the site plan? >> Yes. >> Could you um >> Yeah. >> Yeah. So >> zoom in a little bit.
>> Yeah. So I'll I'll zoom in. So, we'll go over it um a little bit at a time. So, basically, as we noted, the approved site plan and um I'm going to go through the numerous uh portions of the site and then we'll
go over how we meet all the conditions of approval. So, we basically have the entrance to the site here on the northern end of the property from South Middlebush. This is the location that it was agreed to shift to and not use the driveway location along our neighbor on
452. So, we have shifted that and that is the location of the driveway. As you can see, it swings down into the property. Um, and that driveway basically comes through and as you come into the site,
as you go south and east, this is the main house of worship on the property. Again, all these features I'm showing are basically in the location as were approved on the prior site plan. So, you see the footprint of the house of worship. We have a drop off area right
in front of the building there and we have a 37 car parking lot which is um basically right adjacent to the proposed house of worship. There are 88 parking spaces again located right in front of the building with good access and
accessibility. into the building there. There'll be a nice plaza area in front of the building and a small patio area on the side of the building as well. As requested under the prior application and continuing for the fire official, we
have a fire lane which is just on the southerntherly side of the property. And this is the existing uh dwelling that'll remain on site with access through the parking area. The storm water detention basin is in the southern corner of the
property. And as I noted, the I don't know why that pops up. I don't want AI. There we go. As this southeast corner of the property is the wetlands area that's in a permanent conservation easement of Franklin Township where we've set those
uh conservation area markers around that area. There's a secondary parking area of 120 car parking spaces which is um on this uh southwesterly side of the property.
And that that lot is closest to uh the properties on the single family houses on lots 4.01 and 4.02. And again, as part of the prior application, we've uh shifted that over in accordance with
that resolution of approval. Uh so that's really it with the the main site features that we have. There will be on-site septic system which you could see on the site here and you can see the buffering that we have proposed. What
I'd like to do to really hit the uh conditions of approval because they were well outlined in Mr. Healey's report. I'm just going to flip to that report. That was the September 23rd, 2025 report. And as uh we get into that,
basically on page five, uh there's planning issues here and there's some traffic, but these are the ones that specifically deal with the site plan conditions that I'm going to go over. So on actually on page four on the
bottom it starts uh item five where Mark references a colorized uh rendering that was an exhibit in that application and required um uh to incorporate changes for landscaping on the site and there
were many fold on that plan. Uh, one of those was to add landscaping between the parking lot and our neighbors, uh, those single family neighbors I talked about. There was also on the northerly side to add a double row of evergreen trees in
that location. Uh landscaping was added uh on the side of the building here nearest the uh Snyder farm property to screen it there as well as landscaping and a fully planted burm which we agreed
to on the bottom of the site. So all those were incorporated into this plan and as noted in Mr. Healey's report that was satisfied. Um, next condition, the house of worship. So, be 130 feet from this rear property line. Uh, we've met that
condition and actually with the adjusted footprint, which is slightly further, we've moved it almost another 5T. So, it's 134.9 ft. So, that condition is satisfied. Uh, there was a condition uh that the Sners had asked for, we agreed to were a
deer fence. And really that was to prevent people from wandering off the site through their farm field that was agreed to and that's shown to be added to the plan. Next condition uh closest it was noted as the Warwick's property but those two
lots that I mentioned signal families on um South Middlebush 100 ft minimum. We've actually held that to 110 ft. So, we meet that condition of approval. And evergreen trees to be planted in those gaps. Again, as I showed you, uh there's
significant existing trees there, but we're filling those in with six to 8 foot high evergreens. Oh, shifting the driveway is number 10. So again, as I stated, the driveway basically came down right along uh lot
452 and we are shifting that over 300 ft minimum. We're just over 310 ft or so for that new driveway location. Um lighting on the site, uh numbers 11 and 12, there was a lot of discussion. We know we're in a scenic corridor here.
We're also near residences, so to keep the light, uh minimal as we can. So along this driveway, there only going to be three lights. Um, one was added on this curve. Um, from what was shown on a
prior plan, but it uh it seems like staff recommends that is a good location for one. So, we're we're meeting the conditions of limited lighting on the driveway. And we've also reduced the site lighting down to 15 foot high maximum and LED. So, those will be good
downward throw on the property and very controllable light and a and a very low height of light uh for a parking lot area, but it works well and it works with this site plan um where we took the uh driveway out uh
along the neighbor's property. This is condition or item 13 to additional six foot high evergreens be placed through there. Those are the darker trees as well as some of the smaller ones that were interplanting. So, we're really filling that area up where there was
basically the paved and stone driveway right along that property line. Item 14 uh just dealt with street trees that are uh proposed along South Middle Bush. Actually, they are on the plan. kind of the only ones it really you
can't see rendered on here, but they are all um set back from the site distance of this new uh intersection configuration. We've also noted on the plan that that existing driveway cannot be used for construction. This new driveway has to
be used for construction and that'll be a continuing requirement of this application. Item 16 again with the lighting uh requires that the lights on timers. Obviously, there's significant time when the parking lot will not be used at
night and we've agreed that uh condition that the lights be on timer so they can be off when necessary and also circuits because as you've heard the you know this 37 car parking space will be used
primarily uh for uh worship services. any overflow time would go uh times they would go to this lot but there's no need for those lights to be on if there's no overflow parking so they'll be circuited separately so that can be done can I Mr. No, I'm sorry to inter
interrupt. >> Number 16, I think you said something and I don't think you meant to say it. You said that the property would not be used at night. >> There are going to be times when it's being used after after dark. >> Yeah, sorry if I misspoke on that. So,
when it is used at night, um I meant to say the circuiting would be so only the parking lot used at night would be lit at night. Thank you for clarification. Yep. Uh the sign up front will also be LED and again will only be used when the
facility is in use. So it won't be 247 or through the night that that'll be shut down when services are over. It shall also comply with the setback requirement, which it does. Number 19, the house on the property was required
to have access off this parking lot. Uh which it does. uh item 20 uh that will abide by D regulations for clearings for certain times of year. There were questions about were there limitations or not on
clearing, but we've agreed that if there are any particular limitations on clearing uh per DP that the site will not be cleared during those times of year 21. Also, in regards to um maintaining
the trees there, typically there's a two-year bond on landscaping, it was a requirement to maintain the trees and buffers, securing uh screening to ensure their long-term health and survival for at least five years. That's a condition that's been agreed to. It's noted on the
plan and will continue um for the banked parking um as part of the prior application. the 30 spaces that basically face the two neighbors properties on South Middle
Bush. We agreed to bank those uh not to install them because of um in that prior application and for this one, we feel that they won't be needed. Again, you'll hear Miss Dolan talk about traffic and and number of parking spaces. they can visit the exact
numbers, but uh no issue on continuing to bank those and no issue with the uh um second bulleted item about um just for construction, how to deal with demarcating uh those parking spaces.
Item 23 that all utilities will be underground. That's a condition we're agreed to as noted on the plan. 24 um to comply with staff and engineering uh comments and of of course we'll do that
and I'll go through um uh Mr. Mazy's uh review letter in a little bit there and 25 is to agree to title 39 and that's acceptable and noted on the plan as well. I'm going to skip down then because a lot of these deal with the uh
time of of services etc to item 34 um striping fire lanes and that's fine and we'll work with your engineering and and Mr. House to stripe uh fire lanes as needed. Um
let's see. I'm going to skip now to page 10 to the bottom. There's just a couple of bullet points on that one. Uh and really guess the the third one down uh per chapter 22 uh for tree replacement
that's continuing payment in lie of those trees we will agree to and um the next bullet item. So, actually there was a question on how the building height was measured and I thought we had and I checked the plan on sheet five. It's on
the left side. There's actually a note and a little calculation there that shows how that uh calculation has been done. So, basically we took the the building height and we've done these before in town knowing that the the parapits are not included in that
height. It's up to the roof height and we use the there's a lower and a higher roof. So we used a higher roof per the architect of 32't 6 in and the associated grade change which wasn't much. So that's how we came to that uh 32.75
ft which is below the 35 ft um permitted. So if there's any questions going forward on that we can review that. But I think we show that that's how we made the calculation then we're in compliance. and marked just on page
11 had included the exhibit which was again part of the prior application were the conditions which showed where we're going to add the landscaping and it's if you take a a quick view of my rendering now in that plan I you know obviously
you can't count every one but we've kept all those plantings and we've met the uh that requirement to add that landscaping on the project >> so So basically Mr. Arman the there are two it just two areas that have not been
complied with uh in terms of the resolution that being the parking and the hours of operation. >> That's my understanding. Right. >> And that's what this application is all about. >> Right. >> What about under number 35 when it addresses building color? I may have
missed it but I didn't hear a statement. Um I think our architect will handle >> yoga shall go through that with the the architect with the building. >> All right. Sorry. That's right. >> Yep. No problem. Uh just to hit some of the other um review comments as well. Uh
we have the um October 8th uh environmental commission uh report there. The first bullet item deals with EV and make ready spaces. Um even though I believe this was probably prior to um
I don't think we'll have any any objection to uh providing EV spaces. I do want to note I think they cited a residential standard versus the um a commercial or a house of worship standard as far as the exact calculation
you do, but we can review that with your engineer to make sure the correct parking spaces are are shown on the plan. Um Yogish will talk about cool roof if any on the site. Um for the number of trees that were and
the replacement trees required again from the prior application we added significant trees from our initial plan and uh we try to again fill in as many gaps as we can. There's significant wooded areas.
So we think we've updated uh the planting plan significantly and again we'll pay in lie of uh any plantings that uh are not on the plan. Um pvious pavement we we do it in you
know many cases uh this time you know you can address it with a storm water management basin as we have on this site. Honestly, for houses of worship, not always the best because there is there is a good maintenance plan that
has to be kept and there's they don't have typically an on-site uh person that's going to, you know, know pavement and know how to take care of it. If it's an office complex, uh a shopping center, people who have regular maintenance people who know how to
vacuum them properly, how to check things properly, makes sense. In this case, I think we've I know we've met the regulations without the impervious pavement. Uh so we we were not proposing any on this site. And then uh no idling
signs. I mean, we can and I'm not actually sure if this is left over because they talked about adding it to the in from the office maybe. No, we've definitely added them on uh truck locations where you don't want the truck titling. If it's important, we can add
some signs. I'm not sure it pertains as much to a a house of worship site where people are just going inside. Um, we have the County of Somerset Department of Health Review. There's three bulleted items
there. Um, and again, we'll comply with each of those. Trash and recycling is the first one. um for the new well of course and we have notes on the plan already for the permits to be obtained and uh for testing required for that
well and for the septic system um to properly abandon the old system and we will do new testing. We are aware that the testing originally done has expired. Uh so uh if and when this board approves it the this uh application will go back
do the new testing but we will fully comply with uh the department of health review letter. Last review letter uh from Mr. Massie. Um these are and I'll let Darren speak for himself if I miss anything but I
think these are pretty technical items. I don't see anything that's going to substantially change the site plan. There's some notes, there's some signage, things like that. So, in the big picture, um, we're going to say, uh, we're going to agree to to each and
every one of these bullet point items. And again, if there's questions on anything specific, I can go over them in more detail. So, I I think um that's pretty much it on hitting my portion of the site plan and and how we
met the conditions of approval. Um have you um applied to the county and if so, have you heard back? >> We have applied to the county and um I don't think we have any final review letters from them yet. Yep.
>> Okay. Uh we also have a letter dated March 17, 2025 from the Delaware and RA and canal commission. >> Yes. >> What's the status with that? >> So uh we are technically complete and and we usually don't bel labor the board
with the nuts and bolts of these, but as you noted um Mr. Chairman and your board attorney, there was a letter that came out just today. So I was a little bit disadvantaged. didn't have a lot of time to review it, but we did did manage to
review those uh comments that came from the uh objector's engineer. Um in summary, I would say I I do think they missed several of the points in our stormwater uh report that addressed just
about all those comments. And I'll let Mr. Massie speak for the town, but to go on the record for the DNR canal, they did a full review. I think this board knows they are very thorough review agency. Uh so um they look at each one
of those uh items in detail. Many all the same items that were listed in the uh review letter from the objector's attorney. And I just if you don't mind I would like to quote a couple things out of here. first believe that
on page two is staff's opinion that the proposed project has been deemed in compliance with the commission's technical requirements. So the only reason we don't have approval, as you probably know, they need your approval first before they give their final approval for the board. and on the
specifics of storm water uh quantity runoff listed on page three and their summary says therefore the commission has determined the applicant is compliant with specific storm water quantity quantity standards of NJAC745-8.
So, we've met the quantity for water quality, which some questions were raised in the uh review letter that came in again on page four uh bottom of that section on water quality. Therefore, a commission staff has determined this
application is compliant with specific water quality standards. NJAC 7458.7 groundwater recharge. And we don't want to get in the weeds that much, but it talks about the uh GSR 32 spreadsheet,
which there were comments on how we did that from the applicant's engineer. Again, groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project is in compliance with the groundwater recharge requirements NJAC 7458.5 and as nonstructural methods. Uh that
and part of that is uh we've um on this north or right side of the property here, we've actually added, and on this plan, I really just showed the major plantings, but in the full front of the site and the back of the site, we've added significant areas of native
plantings in there. And under the stormwater guideline, best management practice guidelines, low impact development, that's one of the things that the state has been pushing for a long time to use methods like that and we did. So going to those
nonstructural methods on page page four again. Therefore based upon the results of the NSPS spreadsheet analysis the project proposed nonstructural measures that are adequate and the project is designed in accordance with NJAC745-8.4.
Uh and finally the maintenance plan with all these sites we need a stormwater maintenance plan. Again it's in compliance. So, I uh the board should have been copied. Uh the township is copied, but if you want an extra copy of
this, we can provide it to you. We we also received a letter or the I should say the uh the zoning department received a letter date September 26, 2025 from the county department of public health and safety, Department of Health.
>> Is that a different one? >> That's the same one. Yeah, that's the same one that dealt with the um the wells and the septics. So, I addressed that. So, we're good with that. Yep. >> All right. >> What is the impervious? Do you know the
percentage of imperous coverage on this property, >> sir? The proposal? >> Yeah. And again it's uh basically uh what we had provided um the last time uh we are the approved one uh under the
prior one was 18.47% and we're at 18.08% when is permitted. So we're well we're we're half of what is permitted and we're below the original application >> and that's even with paving the driveways. >> Correct.
>> Okay. That's all the questions I have. >> Okay. Any board questions, >> Mr. Chairman? If I I just a um a few questions and one just a clarification. Um so I do think you do need based on
the plan as proposed one additional u modification of a condition which is condition number 11. So, the condition was um that along that driveway, lighting was going to be limited to the curb cut on South Middle Bush and then
where that access drive met the parking lot and that was it. >> Yes. >> On the on the revised plan, as you indicated before, there's a light um basically in the bend in the road. >> Yep. So, I mean, >> yeah,
>> and you know, in our the TRC memo, and I'll defer to Darren because that I think is maybe more of an engineering uh item, but um you're adding a a light there. So, I think that's technically a modification of that condition. Um can you describe can you tell the board why
you added that and from an engineering perspective why that's proposed? >> Certainly. So, you know, the the two key spots that we always like a light at the intersections as uh you're coming for traffic coming from different ways, but as you're coming through the curve here,
also because it's it's a long distance road and it's the bend in the driveway that we've put in there for safety reasons, we felt that's a good location to add one single light that'll also be limited to the 15 ft. >> Okay. And then the the the intent of the
board's original condition, I believe again that you had indicated this in your testimony a few minutes ago, the intent of that was to try to minimize impacts to the scenic corridor. Um, do you have an an opinion, at least from from your from an engineering perspective, of whether that would have
an impact? Does the the the the landscaping that's proposed, would that mitigate that impact either initially or eventually when those plants grow? Yeah, >> if you could address that, please. >> Certainly. >> Yes. Um, so that light will be approximately 250 ft from South
Middleush Road. So that's again quite a distance. Uh, with the landscaping we're adding on the southern and northern property lines here, uh, with the light here, that's going to shield it from the view shed of South Middle Bush Road considerably. So again with LED and it
being just a downward throw, it's not going to be a globe that you see and a good cut off on that light. I believe there'll be limited impact uh to the scenic corridor along South Middle Bush. >> Okay. And then my question, so the
testimony that was pres provided at the last meeting and and and I and it was indicated in the um materials that Mr. Schwarz was talking about. um that the occupancy of this building has
been indicated to be I believe the figure was 80 people and up to 150 during Ramadan. Um is that your understanding of what the octa maximum occupancy of this building is going to be? >> Yeah, I mean I can only go by what the
applicant is saying. the architect can talk to just legal capacity of the space there. But yeah, that's my understanding as we've been talking to them for, you know, over over a year really since been we've been working on this project. That is that has been the discussion.
>> Okay. So, a as the site engineer, why does the site plan propose 157 spaces? Because typically when you have a place of worship, usually you would have one space for every three people. So if there's going to be between 80 and 150, you would expect maybe 30 to 50
spaces, there's three to five times that proposed. So from as a site engineer, why are you proposing that? >> So again, we've kept the site plan as was approved. Uh we had knew there may be a discussion on, as I said before,
banking parking spaces. In the original application, we agreed to bank these 30 spaces. Um there definitely could be a discussion. Would it be proper to bank a significant amount more than the 30 spaces? I think everybody has to weigh
uh the comfort level. Um that obviously it'll it'll be more than just this 37 space area that that does include the handicap spaces. So it'll it'll need to be at a minimum a portion of the secondary parking area for the the
bigger times. I think it's a, you know, a worthy conversation with the board if they feel that more of those spaces can or should be banked. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Any others? >> Yes. Um, Mitch, you had mentioned you
had a uh uh report from DRCC. Our office hasn't received it, so if you could forward that along. >> Yeah, we'll do. >> Uh, that's the first thing. You did touch on the storm water management system. Has there been any major changes? Have they been dimminimous just for the board's edification? Sure. Um
the report that DNR reviewed is the same port that you reviewed as well as the uh objectors and uh no the minimous changes. The drainage systems in the parking lot. The inlets are where they were under the original application as I
noted. The impervious area is slightly smaller. The piping network to the basin is is virtually the same as it was uh as is the basin configuration. and the outlet location is as it was under the original application.
>> Mr. Chairman, I have an extra copy of the DNR report. I can either hand that to the uh to the township engineer or I can mark it as into evidence, whatever Mr. Hack wants to do. >> I'm not sure it really needs to be into evidence, but since it was commented on
by a witness. >> Uh yeah, why why don't we mark it since it was commented on by a witness? I'm going to make it A3 and it's the DNR report that um that Mr. Ardman was referring to. >> Yeah. >> Any other questions? >> Uh Christine and um Darren as well. I
got extras. >> Okay. Then uh we'll start with objectors at turning. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Make sure this is >> Hello. Hello. >> Okay. Good evening, ladies and
gentlemen. Mr. Chairman, Martina Bailey on behalf of the Sniders, uh, John and Ray who own the Snyder Farm, which is pretty much wraps around the entire north side of this site. Um, and I appeared previously in November when we
met for the first time. Um just um before I I get into my questions, am I to understand that because the applicant is not presenting a representative from the the organization that any questions that I might have had for the
organization, I should redirect to either Mr. Ardman or to anyone else? >> Mr. Chair, this this attorney was here in November. She sat here while our client testified the entire evening. >> Excuse me, Mr. Schwarz. This this was a question for the for the board.
Actually, >> I I understand and I'm anticipating what you're saying. I I als I anticipate that the board may have uh need a few clarifications from the witness that you're discussing. So, we
may ask for that person at some point in the presentation, you know, to come back again. But we're we're right now dealing only with Mr. arg and when he testified to >> fair enough, but if if we're going to be
deprived of the chance to actually ask questions of the applicant itself, I would like to know that ahead of time because I would I have questions which maybe Mr. Oddman >> I completely understand and we also would have liked to have your letter ahead of time so we could deal with it
and our engineer could deal with it. >> Miss Bailey, why don't you ask the questions of Mr. Ardman and he can he can tell you if he can answer. >> Sure. I mean with all due respect to Mr. Ardman, he he's he's an expert in his field, but he's not the applicant. And
so the questions around the usage, I think, are questions that really have to be answered by by somebody organization. You didn't didn't you ask these questions at the last hearing? >> Um I did some of them. Yes. Okay. But there were several
>> to repeat everything. There were a lot of followup >> deal with this witness. >> Okay. Very well. Um >> Mr. Ardman, you um you went over some of the storm water management aspects. Um you mentioned that you had received our
storm water management report. We provided that to the board. Um >> just a couple hours ago. Yes. To the extent that you can, you said you disagreed with the contents of that report, would you comment with
specificity on what what it is you think is is incorrect in our report? >> Mr. Chairman, that's beyond the scope of the uh direct examination. There's no reason for him to comment on somebody else's report. >> This part of the hearing is intended for
you to get clarification of his testimony. If you want to, you'll have an opportunity to present and question your own experts and present that information. Let's not get bogged down
like we're starting to. Please focus on what Mr. Ardman's testimony was. >> Okay. Very well. I'll start with septic. And you mentioned that the the applicant is replacing or abandoning the existing septic um and installing a new system. Has that design been been provided as
part of the application >> that went to the board of health uh on the original application and received a tenant of approval at that time? Uh it'll have to go back to the board of health uh pending approval here. >> And am I right in recalling that the the
capacity is 2,000 gallons? >> Under 2,000 gallons. Correct. >> Under 2,000. Is it >> what is it? >> Basically 2,000. Yes. >> And and why why is it that that much? can just explain for my benefit and maybe others um what the significance of
that capacity is. Is it what determines the maximum occupancy of of the facility? >> Yes, that that will limit the daily occupancy of the facility. >> I see it. And do you happen to know if that's why the maximum capacity was 458
and that was determined to be um under the the 2,00 gallon threshold. >> Yeah. So, uh that's correct. So, using that 2,000 gallons and the gallons per day per person, that sets the maximum daily capacity.
>> And does that does that contemplate the single family dwelling which I think has four bedrooms if I'm if I'm right. >> Yes, it does. >> So, that factors into that very well. Now you had touched on the storm water management but I think one of the things
that we've highlighted in our submissions is the fact that you are um relying on outdated storm water management regulations. Um, >> is that >> specifically specifically the storm
water management >> regulations that were in place when the prior applicant applied in 2019? Is that correct? >> What part of it? You said a lot of things in that statement. >> What is the exact question?
>> What what are the storm water management regulations? what's that that aren't that were in effect and that you're relying on in the current application. >> So the the approval that the town gave uh were with those 2000 that were in
effect in 2019. uh with the application that we did resubmit and with the DNR canal commission uh as is noted in many places in my report, there are other um factors that are that are shown in there
that do meet uh requirements uh specifically in the DNR canal as I noted in my letter for this for this current time. So we we do meet with this application um basically uh the current regulations
of the of the DNR canal and we are still have the approval from the 2019 from the township >> and the those 2019 regulations those township regulations do you know when those came into effect it wasn't 2019 it
was long before that correct >> there have been a series right I mean originally I go I go back many many before that but yeah there have been upgrades over the time so some of those go back to 2004 >> right that's that's my understanding to so what you're really saying is that the
the the current storm water management design is based on 2004 regulations. No, I'm not saying that. >> With the exception of the DNR regulations that you've just mentioned, >> which is significant. >> And do those do those regulations reflect um Department of Environmental
Protection up updates and revisions? >> Yes. I can't Yep. I mean, I don't think in front of the board we're going to get into each spreadsheet and each one that we do and do not comply with. Uh but as I said, we comply with the current DNR
canal regulation standards which are largely based on the D regulations. >> But you don't comply with the inland flood regulations that came into effect in 20 um 23. Correct. >> Many of those are covered in my report.
>> Covered or or are they met? >> Met. Met in my report. >> Yes. >> Many which are not met. So I guess I mean it's >> um objection I I don't know how to define many. So >> um and I really think this is beyond the
scope of a prelim a final site plan approval and relief from two conditions. This isn't uh testimony that you're going to try and get your experts to testify to also are I mean again we're
supposed to be limiting these questions to what he testified to and to >> Mr. Chairman he did really didn't address this at all in his testimony. >> He has an approval from the Delaware Rare Canal. Correct.
>> A a provisional. Yes. It's a conditional. >> Well, the it's conditioned on us approving the application. They don't approve it until we do. >> That's that's right. But this is separate apart from the question of of whether it's appropriate for the applicant to be relying on the old storm
order management regulations in the first place. And that's what I'm trying to get at. >> Mr. Chairman, >> but that's that's hold on a second. That that's an argument that you can present during your case. This portion of the of the hearing is
for you to ask questions of Mr. Ardman as it relates to his testimony, his direct testimony. If you want to present those types of issues, that will be part of your case after the applicant has completed its case.
>> That's fine. I want to understand what M Mr. Ardman has said that that that the application meets some of the current D regulations and I'd like to understand which of those are met because I think that's pertinent to the arguments and
Mr. Mr. Ardman is the expert that really should address that. I'm not sure who else could. >> Mr. Chairman, this is the problem I have and Mr. act. I'm not aware that in the land use law, the municipal land use law, we have planning boards and zoning
boards decide engineering issues. Uh, with due respect to everybody here, you're your local experts, but I don't know if any of you are civil engineers. I certainly am not. And you have engineers who are retained by the township to make these decisions. Mr.
Ardman is doing what the township engineers told him to do in terms of compliance with which regulations? And so for Mr. Ardman to go through regulations, I think that's an administrative issue and not an issue for this board. It's just simply not part of the misal.
He will have to we will have to comply with the necessary uh standards, but those standards are going to be decided between the engineers. >> I disagree. I think boards decide engineering issues all the time and this
board has full authority to decide to apply current storm water management regulations. That's not an expert issue, but it it would inform the board's decision if they if Mr. Ardman could explain h how the current application already
meets those requirements. >> I'd like to see some law on that and I'd like to see some law on that be more than two hours before next hearing. If Mr. Arman can answer that question, it's fine. Can you answer the question?
>> I would say, excuse me, I would say again on on the short notice here of of receiving their review report. I we have gone through a bit to see which I think in the uh Princeton hydro reports that are actually in our report that they
cited or not. But I I don't think at this time to weigh which ones are or are not. I wouldn't want to be incomplete in that review. >> That's that's fine. That's your answer. >> Do you know if the DRCC reviews the township regulations?
>> No. They have their own regulations as far as I know that they stick with. >> Okay. Well, what I'd like to do is go through some of the points that were in our storm water management report and just ask Mr.
Ardman to respond to those. >> Again, you're going to have an opportunity to present that when you present your case. Just limit your questioning to questions that relate to Mr. Arman's direct testimony. >> Okay. Very, very well. Very well.
Um the you mentioned that the pa the pavement is being um the driveway is being paved. Is that a change from the prior approval? Um, I'm not sure exactly which
statement, but the there was a driveway alongside our neighbors property, and as part of that prior approval, we were requested to shift that to the north, uh, which we have, and it it is was always designed to be paved, and it is still being paved.
>> Right. So, there's no increase in impervious cover resulting from the paving of that driveway. Correct. >> Correct. I I wonder if we can bring up that sheet of the site plan which has disappeared from the uh the screen there.
And the driveway I'm referring to, of course, is the one that intersects with South Middle Bush. Now, when when you have a major storm or water event, where does the um where does the water flow off that off that paved driveway? off this pave driveway that this is going to
sheet flow. This property actually had even though I didn't testify to this this time, I'm fine uh going through this. There's a divide. I'm going to just roughly through the property in this location where the southern half
continues south and east into the basin and where this northern section flows uh north and east to to this corner. So that property would sheet flow in that direction. Um so it basically the
driveway that we took out as as a gravel drive that is considered uh basically impervious under storm water calculations also flowed in that direction. So we're basically replacing that prior paved driveway with or
impervious driveway with this new driveway. >> And and where does the water go once it flows off the driveway? Yeah, she flows in the southeast direction where where the land has always uh drained to. >> And how much of that could end up on the Snyder farm? >> Yeah, the uh that's that direction it
flows. This whole area has always flowed to the Snider Farm property. >> Are there any is there any stormwater infrastructure being provided in that area to mitigate that? Um we have balanced the amount of impervious that goes there and we've also addressed uh
water quality with the native plantings the low impact development plantings that we show in that area >> but none of that runoff is being treated in any way. >> I just said it's the water quality is being treated and the the quantity of runoff is matches what's required uh
under existing and uh conditions. >> Right. And then as far as the the basin in the in the southern portion, um, now that's a b that's an infiltrate that's an infiltration basin. Correct. >> That's correct.
>> And is that designed as a dam or more as a basin? >> It there is a an embankment as part of that basin there. >> Does that make it a dam? >> Uh, there's are some under Yeah. So
technically it is a dam. I know we think of dams of large scale, but under the state guidelines, it it does qualify as a dam, >> right? And if if there were a major storm event and that basin overflows, where does
that water flow to? >> Uh, it'll flow in the same direction that the land has always flowed. It'll flow to this corner here, to that wetlands area on our property, and then continue off site. Just to the east is the Snyder property and then it it flows
down further to the township property. >> Right. And you I know that the applicant had previously obtained an LOI from the DP for for that wetlands that expired. Has a new application been made or obtained? >> We haven't. Uh actually the conservation
easement was already filed on that and we have the the township uh basically easement has been set around that. So uh we're confident in the location of that. Uh we can review if there's any need for a new LOI on there but um we've reviewed
that area. >> I think the D indicated in its letter that that would need to be reviewed that renewed once it expired. That's not necessarily that they don't say it has to be renewed once it's expired, but um it it just expires. Um if it's not being
disturbed or or touched there, you don't necessarily have to, but it it there may be a requirement, too. >> Right. Um there there was a comment about the burm and the the grading of the burm. I I I apologize if I missed
this, but it was currently a 2 to one >> burm. Is that being addressed in the the engineering comment I think was that that wasn't compliant? >> That's okay. >> Yeah, we've agreed to change that to on on this BM down here. I didn't ex uh talk to that explicitly, but yeah, we'll
change that to a threeon one slope, >> right? Are you able to speak to the the size of the building? >> And I have a number of questions about um >> So, I I don't want to get Well, he can say what the size of the building is,
>> right? Exactly. Okay. So, the the footprint as we show is 1900 19,350 square ft. Uh, which is um looking if I see it right on here. Uh, the first
floor that was originally approved was 21,083 square feet. So, it's a smaller building footprint. And by making it smaller, that gave afforded us the opportunity to give another 5 ft of buffer between the Snyder property and the building end.
>> But the worship area is increasing. Am I correct? >> Yes. And that the architect will speak to. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um but the increase has triggered a a lot a greater number of parking spaces that
are being required. Correct. Yes, I'm just looking if I have those numbers, but that's correct. And again, that's a a technical requirement per the number that you can fit. As you heard, there's discussion should should these all really be built, as you heard
testimony from the applicant that the usage won't be that high. Uh the architectal talk about, you know, the need for that space and what's going on there besides total occupancy. Uh but there there is a change in the number of uh required
>> the the required number is 532 spaces >> correct >> which is more than what was required under the prior application and >> correct >> and so a conditional use variance is being sought tonight. It's not a relief of a condition. It's actually a new use variance. Correct.
>> I I don't think that's accurate and I don't think this witness can speak to that. >> Who can speak to that? >> Well, he's not a lawyer. is an engineer. >> Right. Understood. I'd like to know who could address that question. >> It's a legal issue.
>> You can talk to me about >> and how is that not a C variance or a conditional use variance uh when the prior application involved the the exact same variance, but you're actually
increasing the deviation. How is that a condition and not a variance? I thought I made it pretty clear that that was a variance that we were requesting. In fact, that's one of the two reasons that we are here and Mr. O'Brien will address the basis for that variance. >> Okay. Very well. You described it as a
condition though. I might I might point out which is not accurate. >> Yes, there are relief from two conditions and that's one of them. >> Well, it's a variance. It's not a condition. >> I I I will speak to this. It's a variance. They need a new variance.
Um just going back to the the the the parking requirements that's generated. My understanding is under the township standard there are two ways to come up with the required number of parking. One is that you provide one space for every
15 square feet of worship area. Correct. >> Correct. >> And that's that's the standard that generates 532 spaces. Correct. >> Yeah. That's the more stringent standard or or shows the the highest number. >> And what is the other standard?
>> Um one I believe it's one per three um users or occupants in the area. So if we had the 400 and some max people that would be 150 plus or minus spaces. And is that
how the 157 requested spaces was arrived at? >> I I couldn't recall how that we came up with that for sure. That goes that that go dates me as well back to then. So I couldn't say how that came.
>> But why wouldn't if that's more you're saying that's closer to actual usage. Why wouldn't you go with with that standard? Well, the township has two and the requirement for asking for the variance and I'll again defer to Mr. Healey is the higher of the two.
>> I see. >> So, we we feel we're justified with the much lower number. Um and per testimony uh the applicant, the traffic engineer and the planner. Uh but that's how the township in my experience has uh
required to ask for the variance on the higher number. >> Mr. Chairman, if I could just clarify just for the record. So the way that the parking requirements work for houses of worship, it's one space for every three seats if there's fixed seating like pews or otherwise fixed seating. If it's an
open area like this area is is an open worship area, it's one parking space for every 15 square feet. So in this case, since it's an open worship area, the parking requirement is based on one space for every 15 square feet. >> I see.
Now, you you you indicated that you didn't think the banked parking spaces, and there are 30 of those, would actually need to be constructed. Did I get that correctly? >> That's correct. >> And that's based on what? >> The testimony you heard from the applicant that they're, you know, well
under the number that um that we show here, the 157. And that's based on maximum attendance of 150 attendees at Ramadan, >> right?
>> I see. And what would happen if there were more than 157 cars that were actually coming if the if the congregation grows? >> Um, >> I think this is really um into the traffic engineering testimony and not the civil engineer.
>> Tend to agree. Let's move along. Where where would the parking go if you needed additional parking? That >> that's hypothetical and that's not what we're here for. >> It's a legitimate question if this congregation grows and
>> it's not what the testimony for the use was. And I think at the first hearing uh or at least one of the hearings involving one of the facilities uh we talked about in in having that uh
the parking enforced and they've agreed to hand over that ability to the police department traffic. >> Correct. >> So let's >> y >> stay relevant with his testimony.
Okay, I have nothing further at this point. >> All right, now we will open to the public. Is there anyone in the public, if there is, who would like to ask this witness a question based on his testimony?
And again, questions, not statements, not I don't like this or I like that. Uh, and based on what you heard the witness say in his testimony, you want to speak or ask that
question, come up to the podium. We need your name and address. Come on up here. Um, hello council. Um, thank you for the opportunity to speak here. Uh, my name is Charles Hamilton. Um, I live at 48 South Middlebush Road
on the road that, uh, this is being built. I'm not typically one to speak from an emotional place, so I'm going to direct them, you know, to you. Um, I think a major point that she made was that the person who really can answer a lot of the questions regarding how the
space is going to be used is not here. Do you have a question? >> Yes, sir. >> Um, what is going to be the square feet again of the actual prayer space? >> The architect's going to get into that.
>> Okay. Roughly how many square feet per person um does it take to pray in times like you know standard times? >> Yeah. Again, this is architectural question. So, and aside from that, uh, we base our parking requirements on 15
square ft. >> And that's and that is, you know, that's that's fine. When I look up data on mosques and places of prayer and worship in this type of community, a total building of around 19,000 square feet
can have a prayer area of 11 to 13,000 square feet. That's a very significant >> we're we're speculating the application is for what is it 6,000? >> Well, they but I mean I can answer too because it's this question because it's just a matter of the record. The the
architectural plans that are submitted the worship area is proposed as 7,981 square feet. >> Okay. >> That's what's on the plans that have been submitted to the board. >> You said 9,000, sir. >> 7,981. Just short of 8. just short of 8,000.
>> So that's perfect. I have conservative numbers for a prayer area of around 6,000 square ft. Usually in times of prayer. >> Can I ask what the question is to the engineer? >> You're supposed to ask questions concerning his testimony. The architect would probably be better able to address
some of the things you're about to ask anyway. >> Okay. Then I will I'll wait for the architect because no, everyone knows that there's going to be more people than yourself. That's a statement that I want to make sure that we're not going to be repeating. This part of the
hearing is for the public to ask questions. >> So, if you have more questions, that's fine. If not, that's Thank you for your participation. >> Would would any questions relating to the traffic on South Middle Bush Road appropriate? >> We have a traffic expert coming. You can
ask her. >> Thank you, sir. >> We're talking about his testimony. I don't know how much clearer that I can make that. >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Thank you for your time, council. >> Not the council.
>> Anyone else dare to ask a question? I'm being facitious there. Then we'll close to the public and we'll move on to the next. You want Yes. >> Come on up. Give us your name and address. >> Good evening. Good evening everybody. My
name is Dr. Anant V. Jooshi. I'm a veterinarian. I live at 49 People's Line Road, Somerset, New Jersey. Um, I do not understand whether my questions are going to be regarding the testimony or whether they're general questions. You decide. My first question is u South
Milbush Road being such a one lane narrow lane road. What is the impact if there's an emergency for the emergency vehicles? It's a traffic question. Okay. So, I'm not allowed to ask that. >> Okay. My other question is regarding the mosques. Are there going to be loudspeakers?
>> Going to be what? >> Loudspeakers. >> That's five times a day. >> Not his testimony. >> But I can tell you right now that there are no loudspeakers. >> That was at the last meeting. >> Okay. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Anybody else? Anybody? I don't want you to go home and
say you weren't allowed to speak. Okay. We'll close the public now. You're your next witness. >> Okay. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, we'll have Mr. Joshi, the architect, testify so we can answer some of these questions. >> Good. Everybody's anxiously awaiting. >> Thank you, Mr. Arman. Yes. Just clearing
this. >> Mr. Schwarz, just so we can move things along. I think a lot of your witnesses were sworn in the last time. Can you just identify new witnesses and and move? >> I don't think they I don't remember. >> All right, fine. Then we'll swear them in. >> Mr. Yoshi, can you raise your right
hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give before this board is truth? All truth and nothing but truth. >> Yes, I do. >> Can you just repeat your name, spell your last name, please? >> Yeah, it's it's Yogesh Mystery. M I S T R Y. >> Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. Before we start with Mr.
Mystery, I get a feeling that nobody remembers this exhibit A1, which was the statement that my client testified to as to the use of the property. And my thinking is perhaps I should make a lot of copies and submit this so everybody
has it, make it available to the public because obviously this is an important document. It seems like everybody forgot about it. All right. So, um, should I retain it for now and anticipate it'll be another? >> I think that's a good idea. >> Okay. Because it seems like there's a
lot of questions about what the use is going to be and this is what this is what we committed to. All right. so much for that. Um, Mr. Mystery, >> Mr. Sorry, uh, Mr. Chairman, can I make a statement or anything based on what,
uh, they had already just said? >> So, if I recolct the last time, the way we ended was was in a little bit of a flux.
the stated what and I I'm sorry I don't remember that document. Um whatever on was on the document versus what was on the website was vastly different. >> I address that. >> Right. So, um
I just wanted to be that on the record that that what was there versus what was on the website was not uh exactly accurate. >> And sir, I addressed that and I explained that when we bought this property, we were not aware of the
resolution and I I was neglectful in not being sure that website was not taken down. And I'm sure you've checked recently and you've seen that the website was taken down. Okay. And I guess I should have been more diligent in being sure that my client took it down and just instead of
forgetting about it, but I'm going to be sure everybody has this because I started off the hearing saying we're committing to this under oath. Okay. I take that seriously. >> All right, Mr. Chosi. >> Just real quick, Mr. Chairman. Sorry to
interrupt, but it does get to exactly this. So, you're speaking of the document called the statement of proposed use of property, >> correct? Yes. So that is on the website just for the board's >> your website. >> Yes. It's so the application material under the the general application form. It was attached to that and it's the
last page. It's on the website um under under this application. So if the board wanted to review that they can do that. >> The label is important. There's nowhere to get it. That's good to hear. Go ahead.
>> Okay, Mr. history. Have you testified before this board before? >> Many times. >> And what is your profession? >> I'm a licensed architect of the state of New Jersey. >> You're licensed still in a in good force and effect. >> We'll move on. We'll accept that. >> Right. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> And Mr. Mister, you actually testified
in the first hearings in this application way back several years ago. Correct. >> Yes, I did. >> Okay. I'm not going to get in your way. I'm going to let you make your presentation, but I would appreciate if you'd include in your presentation. What if anything is different in this proposal from an architectural
standpoint as opposed to the last one? >> Sure. Sure. Um, okay. I'm going to just not talk about the site. I think um Mr. Ardman did a great job with the site. Just going to focus on the the new building itself. Uh, and it is very similar to the original building and in
fact it's slightly smaller than the original building in terms of the footprint. Um, you know, we kind of shaved the the back off a little bit and shaved parts of the the right side of the building. Um, the original building that was uh proposed here was 21,083
ft. Our current first floor is 19,350 ft². There's also a small basement towards the rear of the building that's 2,890 ft, which is essentially just for storage and utilities. Um, but just kind of walking your walking you through the
first floor. I'm referring to sheet uh A2.01 of the architectural plans that were submitted as part of this application. So, I'm not sure if that needs to be marked again, but >> do you want to mark I mean it's it's part of the initial application. >> It's part of the application. So, we don't have to mark.
>> Okay, that's fine. >> Um, so just looking to the kind of the left side of the page, this is the uh first first floor plan. Um towards the um towards the bottom of the page is the front of the building. Um and where my
pointer is is the the main entrance to the building. There's a small vestibule and then as you enter to the right there's just uh sort of a a foyer lobby area. Um there's a women's restroom uh to the left side and there's a men's restroom to the uh sorry the other way
around. Um, well, there's two sets of restrooms here. Uh, one on the left side and one on the right. I think they're both labeled women's by by accident. Um, and then there's uh, uh, an area for for them to cleanse themselves. Um, it's
kind of a religious practice uh, for their faith. Uh, again, on either side of the reception area. Um, and then there's two two doorways. Um, they do have separate halls for uh, for men and women. The left side hall as you enter is the larger hall and that's a men's
hall and then uh to the right of that is the women's prayer hall. Um the combined area of the two halls is or the worship area is 7,981 square ft and that includes the sort of the entire inside perimeter of this
room. uh you know minus those kind of closets for use for uh uh some of their their the rugs that they they use in their in their practice. Um we have labeled these two spaces uh or or shown these spaces with 3T by 3 foot boxes.
Again, these are just kind of representing somebody sitting on the floor because there are no physical seats and then some aisleways in between. Um they're they're showing on the men's hall 288 occupants and on the women's hall 170 occupants.
>> If I could just interrupt you. So that's not keyed into the formula used for parking the 15 square ft per person. >> Correct. Okay. If you did the 15 square f feet, if you took the 7981 divided by 15, it comes out to like 532
spaces, which um you know, which is uh really not translatable to this layout. Um and then to towards the rear of the building, there are two small classrooms um that'll be used for religious purposes and you know, sort of their uh
Sunday school program. Um and then there's a few offices, a utility room. Um, again, some just storage closets in the back. Um, there's also a coat room uh to the front corner. Um, and then the basement, which is accessed through
either the exterior rear stair or an interior uh internal stair is a small basement. It's 2,890 ft. Uh, again, it's just used for storage and utilities in the back. Um,
that's that's essentially the the building itself. Um, >> no second floor. >> There is no second floor. And I'm just going to open up the other. Um, so this is a rendering that uh we
had prepared. Uh, I believe it was submitted as part of this application. Um, I don't know again if it needs to be marked as an exhibit, but Well, Mark, this is A4. >> Sure. >> Um, this is A4 is a 3D color rendering
prepared by our office uh depicting the building from the kind of the front left corner if you're facing it. Um, and you can see the uh the canopy for the vehicular uh drop off area and then the
the main front of the building. Um there is sort of the higher portion where the hall is and otherwise it's essentially a one-story uh kind of a lower one-story portion. The height of the building from average grade is 32t 9 in and that's measured to
the the roof line of the higher portion. There is about a I think a 4 and 1/2 ft parapit above that to screen uh some of the rooftop units. Um, and then there's the the two spires on the end on on each end of the building. And those are just
confirm the height of those two uh 49 ft 1/2 in from uh average grade. So just to the peaks of those. Um the building is uh going to be maintained to be in earth tone colors. Again, these
are just kind of a beige and tan colors. There's kind of a darker tan for the uh uh the decorative element on the upper portion. Uh the decorative element on the upper portion is not metal. I think that was a question that came up in one of the reports. It's a GFRC type
material which would kind of have a matte finish and it's just be um you know kind of painted a little bit of a darker tan or brownish color just to to accent the uh the lighter beige areas. Um the materials on the building are
combination of some stone and stucco. Um again just finished in the in the earth tone colors. Um we also do have a sign in the front of the just kind of going back to the A21. There there is a sign
believe uh Mr. Ardman had mentioned at the front of the driveway. Um, and it's a kind of a small freestanding sign just to uh depict the the address and the name of the property. Um, and it's shown
on right here. Uh it's about five feet high and uh the signage area uh is 25 square feet and um oh the m sorry the maximum allowed uh is
25 ft and we are proposing 67.5 square ft um for that signage area. Um >> approved >> and um >> signage approved in the uh last application. Yes, there was a sign and
yes um the TRC there there were also some comments uh from the environmental commission uh regarding the the roof materials and we are proposing a cool TPO roof that's white in color believe
that meets their requirements. Um there were also comments regarding the the use of the classrooms um and some of the or the breakout rooms, but those will not be used simultaneous to any high holidays. It's it's really just you know when they're having the regular Sunday
service, they'll be used um and you know not simultaneous with any kind of larger function going on. Um the building itself would be brand new. It's it meet all ADA uh code
requirements for handicap as well as all fire codes. It will be a sprinklered building and um going to meet all the current building codes. C >> can you talk about any lighting that would be visible from the outside?
Yeah, we're not proposing any um substantial lighting except for life safety lighting at obviously at any exit doors you have to have uh some basic uh egress lighting we call it. It just those are just for emergency purposes.
Um you know there's some small decorative lights at the front entry just for illuminating that area. Um other than that we're kind of just relying on the parking lights and and so forth. We're not we're not going to illuminate the spires or the upper portion of the um kind of the decorated
portion of the building. >> Where what's the orientation of the building? Where is uh where's the entrance going to be on the site? >> Um the I mean this is the front of the building that I'm pointing to. uh it faces the that small parking lot and
again the building itself is generally in the back of the site uh far away from South Middle Bush. Um it's I believe 130 ft off the rear property line. Um so it is kind of tucked away and I I think um you know u Mr. Ardman's site plan, even
though he had it colored and he was showing the new trees, I think if there was another rendering that showed all the trees are still remaining, you would see that there's so many more trees in that kind of right half of the property that you know would again just help to
uh kind of screen the the building itself. So, and we're not a lot of those trees were not taking down. So, Okay. You have anything else to add? >> That I think that was it. >> Okay. I have no further questions. >> You have a basement?
>> Yes. Yes, there is a small basement. Um it's uh it's at the rear of the building. Um sorry, this is the basement plan itself. It's uh >> it's about 80 82 feet by 35 ft.
>> How about a kitchen? >> I'm sorry. No, no, there is no kitchen shown for this. >> Okay, thank you. The basement's only for storage and utilities. >> Yes, it is. It's right at this kind of back corner. You see this dash line in
the uh the first floor below that area. The rendering that you showed of the building, is that accurately depicting the color and everything about it? That is that if if this is an approved application is
what we see what we're getting. >> Yes. Yeah. >> Including the colors. >> Correct. >> So, just for the record, can you clarify what those colors are? Um, I mean I could, you know, select a specific uh, you know, like a Benjamin
Moore color. They're they're really just earth tone colors. They're kind of a light beige and then this is a darker kind of tan or or almost like a light brown. Um, but that's, you know, we're not we are staying in that kind of family of colors. We're not trying to do
anything outside that. You know, we're not going to show you this and paint it pink or something. But >> and the reason I'm asking that is that is you know it is a scenic corridor and that is one of the specific recommendations of that scenic corridor. So I just wanted to make sure that was clear. >> Yep. >> Well that's the same thing the just to
zero in >> uh make it defin there there's no backlighting in that >> no >> top part. No no we don't tend to like sort of >> I know what you're saying to illuminate the inside of that. No. >> Are the earth colors on all four sides?
Yes. >> Yeah. >> Any other board questions? >> I I do have a question if I may. Um, so I I think some of the confusion from the public and from me and maybe the rest of the board members is your floor plan
shows u up to 458 occupants in the prayer area. So 288 170 uh 458 attached that exhibit A1 um that as the statement of proposed use
of property indicates that no more than 150 people would be out of service. If if I say anything correctly incorrectly please let me know why do you need three times the amount of space than the maximum committed um prayer area? Well,
our our plan wanted to depict, you know, what can fit here. It's a sort of a capacity drawing. You know, like if if we we wanted to show that we, you know, we're not exceeding that 458 number. Now, when people come here, they don't, you know, when you come to pray, you don't just sit in one box and and, you
know, the next guy is right next to you, so they're touching each other. You know, people, you know, they do prostrate and when they pray, they want a little space around it. So, you know, they're not going to take every single box that's shown here. So you know I mean when you go to a space and you know you don't have to use every square inch
of or square every square foot of space that people will spread out you know if there's 150 people total you know maybe you have uh I don't know 75 80 people here and another you know 75 people here I don't know but you know so they're
going to spread out and that's you know they had to you know they they did shrink the building down from what was originally designed and you know this that's kind of the space that they they wanted. No. And and I I'll admit I am perhaps quite ignorant on the on the prayer that would would occur here. Um
so if I come across ignorantly, I I apologize. Um but it it's it's a what would be an appropriate square footage or an area for an individual to pray comfortably? >> I'm not sure if I could answer that. I don't think there is a specific answer
to that question. You know, I mean >> people everybody prays a little differently. You know, I think in this religion they do um like I said, prostrate and they they they lay down and you know, they pray. So, you know, you need a little space. You're not going to be on top of the next person. You know,
>> sir, can can I just interject? I of course maybe there's a point that I have not made clear. Okay. The board approved a building that was of similar size, a little bit larger, but the worship, the general worship area was a little bit
smaller. I think it's like 10% smaller, maybe 12%, I forget the percentage. And the the applicant bought the property and wanted to match as as quickly as closely as possible what had already been approved. Now, >> I wasn't here. I I don't know if you
were. I I know a lot of board members were. >> Yeah, I was here. >> And I'm I'm assuming the same kind of analysis was done. And it would appear to me that the numbers that were in the resolution as far as how many people were going to be there was still a lot
less than could have fit into the building because you still had what was it 6600 square feet of worship area. Okay. So my client's idea was let's stay as close as we can to what was approved because that
way we've got, you know, basically we we could build that almost as of right and let's keep it as close as possible. And that was part of the analysis. I mean it was never that you know we're going to bring 500 people in at a time or over 24h hour period. You I can't guess
what's going to happen 40 years from now. I'm not going to be around. But that's not what is proposed. And that's I'm going to go back again and say we're we're show telling you what we're going to do and we expect you're going to we're going to comply with it and you're going to enforce it. But just like last
time, the building is significantly larger because the people like the idea of praying in a significant uh beautiful place. >> Yeah. And and that's kind of the reason I'm asking. I mean it previously I believe it was um it was a different
religion. I I forget which exactly which one. I don't want I don't want to insult um anyone but you know th those prayer procedures if we'll call them the the way they pray between religions is significantly different. So that's why I'm asking this specific question and if
I could kind of draw this to something a bit more realistic. If you count the number of seats here there's x amount of seats. We can say, well, people like to spread out and not sit next to someone, but it could still support every seat being occupied here. I
>> I guess the answer to the question is, the simple answer is uh my client was aware that a building had been approved. They wanted to match that building as closely as possible. They wanted to have a substantial impressive area in which to worship and so they matched as close
as they possibly could. >> No, and I get it. I'm I'm I'm a huge fan of houses of worship architecture. It's beautiful. But I'm just trying to understand how these these numbers that your test your experts are providing kind of jive with each other. So understandably I
think on the architectural floor plan it has a 3x3 little box and that's the prayer area. That's kind of tight. Completely on board with you sir. but what would be a more realistic area and and maybe we can kind of apply that to the overall floor plan and have a deeper
understanding of what in a realistic scenario that this this prayer room can support. Yeah, I'm not sure if there's an exact answer to that, but I mean, you could make the comparison to, you know, your own house. Like, you know, I have a
living room that's 12 by 16. And I just No, I have a living room that's 12 x 16. You know, it suits my family. I have a family of four, but somebody same family of four might say, "Well, no, that's that living room's too small for me." You even though you can fit four people in my room, maybe they wanted something
twice the size. You know, I'm not saying you, you know, we were showing the boxes to represent that we're not exceeding this number that supports the parking. That's all >> with what was previously proved. >> No, I I understand. And and you know, I
I think we've all to some extent have admitted that the parking calculation for houses of worship isn't exactly accurate to the true function of such a facility. But I I I think what the testimony being provided is 150 people
at max in the prayer area and I'm just trying to understand how the architectural design and the internal operations support that 150 when your plans show 4 58 tightly very tight um
per areas. >> I I don't think there's an answer to that. I Mr. administr chose to show it this way. Um, the client wanted to be careful. I I've said it already. I don't want to repeat myself. I mean, it's >> No, I know. I understand your point. You're I appreciate the legal
perspective and and what you're you're saying, but I it's a question I think that the majority of people here are looking for some level of clarity on. >> I'm I'm I'm Jewish, but I've been in many cathedrals because my wife is Roman Catholic. and the really impressive
places even if there's only 10 people worshiping there. I mean, I love it from an architectural standpoint, you know. >> As do I. It's spectacular. >> What more can I say? You know, >> well, you can say how big a reasonable prayer area is for for this type of uh religious facility. >> How how how much area does a person need
to uh to pray? >> I mean, we're I mean, we're going to zone. I mean, of course, but that was my question. Um understandably the the expert here can't give me a specific answer. I completely understand but that that is the question that I I had asked.
>> Any other questions? >> Yes, I have a question but before I think the question may be more for Mark than anything else but before that uh to our neighbors happy Ramadan Ramadan Mubarak to all of you. Okay. Um Mark B
and if it's not for you please guide me. All right. And I'm referring to the statement of proposed use of property. And uh it says no more than 150 people
at a time with an upper limit of 458. Mhm. >> In a day, right? And majority even during Ramadan they are saying is about going to be 70 to 80 people in the service at and and of course it's their choice.
If my math serves right, 5 * 150 maximum is 750. How would township ensure that it is no more than 458? >> I that's a very good question and I
think my answer would be that's going to be very difficult to enforce. Um, I mean, I I don't think staff is going to I don't think it's reasonable to expect that staff is going to have a zoning officer uh, you know, throughout the day for five services all the time clicking
people coming in inside of the building. So, you know, my recommendation has always been to this board, if an applicant is is making representations to something, and in this case, it's the 80 people, you know, on regular services, 150 for Ramadan, then that
application should, and this speaks to to Rich's, you know, questions and frankly my question to Mitch about the parking, the application then should should at least more roughly equate to what they're proposing. you know, if they're if they're if they're if they need a space
for 150 worshippers, we brought it up in our staff report. I still don't understand why they're proposing a space for three times that. And I also don't understand why they're proposing a parking lot that would accommodate for three times that. So, I
have the same questions. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? Okay, you have questions. >> Thank you. I'm going to object to the testimony that was just provided in in answer to Mr. Prokynic because those were use related questions that the
applicant needs to answer. And I'm sorry, but these expert witnesses and the applicant's council are not qualified to provide fact testimony that needs to be coming from the applicant. and you know in point of fact they weren't able to answer a lot of the questions. So I think that's a real
problem for this board in creating the record because we don't have the testimony from the applicant. I would behoove this board to require the applicant's representative to come forth and answer the questions. >> Okay, we did that before. We will
probably do it again. Not probably. I I know the board has questions about the operations and the facilities that will be coming. So, let's stop belaboring the point. He's the architect. Ask questions
about his testimony. >> For the record, >> that part will come at the end. >> As the chairman said, the entire first hearing was the applicant. So, if there's additional questions, again, as the chairman said, maybe he needs to come back. But to say that that that they haven't presented that
testimony, frankly, is just not factual. >> Well, I think there were more there were more questions than there were explanations from from the applicant. >> And if there's more questions, they may he may have to come back. >> The minutes are very clear and council had the opportunity to cross-examine and
um frankly um that portion of the hearing is done and the minutes are very clear about it. >> Respectfully, >> you're right. that part of the hearing is done. But as I said a while ago, some of us are getting a little old and as you alluded to yourself, the other
hearing was back in November and there was something that you couldn't remember. >> I forget what it was. I forget what it was now, too. We may very well ask for a couple, you know, to have a few more questions
concerning the the person operating the uh the facility, but it's not appropriate when we're in the middle of a hearing and we have architectural testimony and that's what we're supposed to be dealing with. It'll come before we
wrap anything up. I'm sure, as I mentioned, I can guarantee you I'll be asking questions. I have a couple questions along those lines. I'm not going to pass up on pass by the opportunity, but that's not what we're doing now. And, you know, we're running
the hearing. There's a procedure. It was outlined at the beginning. architectural testimony, architectural questions, and then you have your opportunity to present your witnesses and do anything you want to with them.
>> Um, Mr. Mystery, could you pull up A401, please? >> Yes. Um, you indicated there was only one floor. There are not two floors because when I first looked at this, I thought that that extension on the top was the second floor, but what you're saying is there's only one floor.
Correct. >> Yeah. The the the prayer hall area is actually like a, you know, like a tall ceiling space. So, >> so if you're inside and you look up, you would see the roof where that top horizontal line is that says top of the roof line. >> Yeah. You Well, there would be some
structure in there and then Yes. You'd see the ceiling below that. some when you say structure but there's nothing in between there's no um occupancy space no between the first between the the ground level and the top of the roof
>> no there's no space that the the roof itself is I believe close to 32 ft high but then you know you would lose some structure inside the building for the like to the roof structure so you know the ceiling in there might be like you know 20 25 ft high or something
>> right and the parap what you're calling the parapet is just the portion above the roof line. >> Yes. >> And what does that screen? >> Um there's some rooftop units uh you know the HVAC units. >> Okay. >> Which can be seen above the the parapet
or or is are they completely shielded by the parapit? >> Um it depends on the final height of that but they might go slightly higher than the parapit itself. >> Is there a limit on the height of the parapit? Is there >> uh I believe 5 ft is the >> 5T but this is not above that is it?
>> No. >> You said 4.5. >> Yes. >> Okay. Is there any I think you alluded to this. Is there any lighting in the decorative elements, architectural elements on that um upper portion of the facade?
>> No. No. We don't uh propose any lighting there >> or or the or the spires. >> No. >> Okay. Um, now going back to A201, you mentioned there are two classrooms that would be used for Sunday school.
>> Yeah, they're they're religious schools. Yeah. >> Um, I didn't see a reference to that in the statement of proposed use. As Mr. Schwarz indicated that was the statement of use, but it doesn't say anything about educational uses.
>> Um, correct. >> I I'm not sure um what was said in that statement. I I believe they they outlined them as classrooms or uh sort of breakout rooms. They call them like small religious sessions. I think that was the the testimony
>> the original uh last time >> and maybe Mr. Schwarz could could address that. >> I think Mr. Admission was accurate. That was the testimony. Well, I don't see that reference here, which >> so makes me wonder what other
>> it may not have been in the initial statement, but now there's been testimony on the record saying that that is for religious religious education. >> Correct. >> So, so, so now that the record's been clarified, those classes are for religious education. Do you have any
questions related to that fact that's been put on the record? >> Well, yes. If we're required to refer to a to exhibit A1 as the definition of the uses here, I'd like to understand what activities consistent with and closely related to religious worship may entail
because they're clearly not spelled out here and they haven't been spelled out by Mr. Mystery. And I'm not sure they could be because he's not the applicant. >> There was testimony to that. >> I'm sorry. >> There was testimony on that >> to to the to the uses.
>> Yes. Okay. Classrooms for Sunday school. Um, now does that mean Sunday school will be taking place during the prayer sessions which are 30 minutes long or would those
extend beyond the 30 minute prayer session? >> It's getting a little beyond the architectural testimony. >> Is there something about the building you don't like? I'd like to understand what the educational uses uh look like and Mr.
Mystery indicated there were two classrooms that would be used for Sunday school. So >> there was testimony that the iman who is resident on the property has small group sessions. >> Okay. And who would I ask about when those sessions occur and what
>> is is that the architect? No, but we clearly I >> a lawyer, right? How many years of schooling? >> I'd like to ask the applicant these questions, but you're saying what I'm asking you to do, please. >> Okay. Very well. Um,
>> get your chance. >> Well, I'm not sure we will if you don't call the applicant. So, I'm I'm sorry, but I think that's >> You're just wasting everybody's time when you do what you're doing. >> What is the basement going to be used for, Mr. Mystery? >> Uh, storage. has been asked
>> storage and utility. >> Okay. >> That's all I have for now. Thank you. >> We'll now open to the public and again the the rules are the same. Questions about the testimony concerning the
architecture. Come on up. Give your name and address. Hi board. Uh my name is Chinten Dupar. Uh and I'm a resident on on uh 13 Sawmill Drive in Pleasant Planes. >> You might need to get closer. >> Closer. Is that better?
>> I think that's better. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh I have a question sort of like we've made a This is my first hearing so if I get it wrong just uh bear with me. So it appears that there was an existing approval and on the basis of that a new
application has been done right and uh that was for one type of religious worship. This is another type of religious worship. I'd like to ask Mr. Ministry what architectural assumptions have you made because these religious
are different types of worship. what assumptions you have made that that those approvals that were done for one type of religious worship are still valid for the other. >> Architecturally speaking, you know, we have nothing to do with sort of what's
going on outside of the building, but architecturally the interior did change. We we generally kept the footprint because there was a certain approval for this footprint. Even though we did make it smaller, but within that footprint, if you look at the old plan and versus the new, we we accommodated the the new
religious functions that they needed, our current client needed. >> Yeah. But it seems like a little sort of fitting a square peg in a round hole, right? Because you're not design, right? You're doing this from scratch.
So why why not like take your religious worship use case and design for that and the right number of spaces and do so on instead of taking an existing you know footprint parking and so on and now trying to fit
retrofit into it. >> Well it was mainly to help expedite the process. This was an approved application. and they wanted to come in try to expedite the process you know try to do minimal changes to the footprint and you know kind of work within the the
boundaries that they had. So that was >> it just seems like this is a question to the board right now in your first approval you've probably gone through a lot of similar questions to the previous one saying hey how are you what worship how many people which days what all of
those questions you made an assumption when you approve now those assumptions are completely invalid >> because that's inaccurate that's argument and there's time for questions right questions of this witness.
>> I I I the question was is that a is that the right approach for the board? So, you know, >> this this witness. >> Yeah, I already asked the question to the witness. I'm done. >> All right. Thank you. Anyone else
come on up to this after she speaks you. >> Good evening everybody. I'm Shampachaji from 15 Hasbrook Drive. Uh you mentioned I think it's only going
to be one floor. How is the foundation built? Is it accommodated for further expansion? >> We haven't even designed the foundation yet, but no, it'll be designed for what you see here, just a one-story building. >> Just a one-story building. >> Correct.
>> Okay. Uh I think you mentioned that uh the signage the allowed size is 25 square ft and you're asking for 67. >> Correct. That was the prior approval. >> Um why is that? Why do you want to
exceed what is allowed and is it going to be led signage? >> I think the answer was there. It was priv was previously approved. >> I'm sorry. Uh this sign was previously approved. So the it was previously approved then I
would ask the board why was it approved which is more than double the size of what the size that was allowed because definitely you know if it is a LED light with a signage that is more than >> double of what is allowed it would I I
believe the person who spoke before you mentioned that it would be a LED signage. No. Um, it's not LED sign is that there's it's a a simple sign. There's lighting like landscape lighting that shines up onto it. That's all. It's
depicted here. There's it's kind of three small lights in the, you know, in the ground just shining up at the light on one side and then three more on the other side. Just kind of small landscape lighting to illuminate the sign. Um, >> so no LED and that was >> No, it's not it's not like a retail sign
that you'd see at the strip mall, you know, of LED. No, it's not the >> And if I recall correctly, the way that we calculate sign area is we we calculate the entire structure. >> Yes. >> So, if I recall correctly, and you can kind of see on that exhibit, they have a
a stone element on the base and on either side of the actual sign display. We we include that entire thing. And if I again, if I recall correctly, that was designed partially to comply with the standards of the senior corridor
ordinance and the board required that it not be an internally illuminated LED sign. >> Correct. >> And and they're not proposing to change that. That's not one of the changes that's before the board right now. >> Okay. And my last question, I know this
house has been beaten to death, but I still have to ask, and I'm not sure if it's a question for the board or for the architect. What are the constraints that would allow you not to have the max capacity of 458, but I know we have
addressed this, but I'm framing it in a different way. What are the constraints the board is putting or maybe you have already discussed that would allow not to have 455 people in the facility at one time? Can >> can I may I address?
>> They would be allowed to have as many people in the facility as as there are seats for it. However, they need to understand that if that happened at one service, then they would basically have to close for the rest of the day because
that's the permitted occupancy for a day. Now, I don't think Mr. Healey is going to be out there like he said counting people. Absolutely. enforcement isn't is always sometimes
a little bit of an issue but we have to make a decision here eventually that's not only based on the facts but in you know based on the credibility of the applicant >> who is not present. So uh my question
again would be >> as residents of the area who are you know using the one lane south middle bush to commute all the time >> technically they could have 455 people in that building at one time throughout
the whole day and there's nothing to stop it >> technically they can right >> this is not a question for this >> it is a question yeah >> if anything it's a legal question and um to suggest that there is no enforcement
mechanism for a grievous violation of a use limitation is just simply not true. Mr. >> I'm not suggesting that there's no enforcement mechanism. What I'm suggesting is the reality is that that
could conceivably happen on a given day and there's nothing that would happen. >> Anything is possible. Anything is possible. >> Exactly. So >> the it stands that we can have 455 people with x number of cars
at the facility every single day and there is no way to enforce it. Thank you. I wanted to emphasize on that. >> Uh the lady back there was first. You can you still want to speak? >> She asked my question.
>> Okay. You want to come up, sir? Uh my name is Based Kari. I live at 78 People's Line Road >> and my question to you, >> you might need to get closer to the mic. >> Oh, sorry. >> You can hold it that way too. >> Okay. Uh Basit Kari, I live at 78
People's Line Road and my question to the uh architect is this. Um I mean the number of people that are allowed in the on the building and how it's enforced. I mean I'm assuming this is not an issue for the first time. This
is an issue for any any public uh place that is built with a limit on the number of occupants. So I'm I'm hearing a lot of discussion about how enforce but I'm I just want to ask my >> okay get to the question that's
>> Yeah. So I mean is is there some uh is this all is the enforcement question a part of you know the calculation that you need to do to that how many people will be admitted at one time because >> oh I'll answer that.
>> Yeah >> we we establish the conditions for enforcement >> and it's mist that's a mistaken impression that there's no enforcement. There is enforcement. But nobody's going to be at every, like
he said, at every religious service counting cars. So there's a lot of dependence on the credibility of the applicant to abide by the rules. If we if if if they're habitually, routinely
doing what they're not supposed to be, that will probably be become obvious. All right. But there no there's no township official riding around with a car that says enforcement on it. >> I agree. But like you said, I think
there's many tools that the township has to enforce those and there could be penalties for not not agreeing to the uh not not following the terms of the approval. So I'm I'm hearing a lot of discussion about inability to to enforce
these rules as if this will be the first time that problem exists. I mean that problem always exists and you have equal amount of tools available to enforce those things to any kind of a a public place whether that's a place of worship or a school or anything else. So how is
that you know why I'm trying to understand why is there so much focus on that? Well, sometimes oftenimes enforcement depends on people like you and members of the public observing these violations, letting the code
enforcement office in the township know so that something can be done. And we establish conditions for what will be a re what we think will be a reasonable approval. If
it comes time to vote and we don't think it is, then we vote no. And after that, we're not the enforcement part of it. But the general public is. If you think they're violating one of the conditions,
you're here. Call up and report it. Right? But too many people like to say things like that, but oh no, I don't want to call and report it. I don't want them to know my name. And then people get away with things. I would say the
vast majority of applicants do observe the and it's these conditions. It's also our responsibility to make sure that the conditions are reasonable and reasonably enforcable. >> Right? But there's nothing unique about
this application with regard to that problem. That's respectfully >> this this look >> at the end of this if the board approves this application there are going to be certain conditions attached to it. The expectation is that the applicant
will comply with those conditions based on the fact that they they they have agreed to it. But the enforcement issue is separate and apart from that. All right. the the expectation is whatever the conditions
are, they will be complied with. If they're not complied with and it's determined that they're not complied with, then the enforcement will will will take place. But we're talking about hypothetical situations right now. >> Yeah. And we can't reject this application
be because we say that uh there's no enforcement. >> Yeah, Mr. Chairman, let me just speak to that because I'm respectfully the gentleman is is not correct. In my opinion, there is something unique in this application in that again the applicant is saying they're going to
have 80 to 150 people and I don't I can't this this board has reviewed dozens and dozens of houses of worship. I I can't remember one where the applicant is saying that we're going to have 80 people or 150 people yet they're designing a space that can fit three times more. So that is a concern and
this it is somewhat unique >> and the only way to enforce that >> definitively is to have a zoning officer sitting there counting heads. So as as the head of the zoning department I have a concern about how that would be
enforced and this is a unique situation. >> If I heard the architect clearly he mentioned something like 3x3 box 3x3 box uh in which they're that's how they're coming out the 500 number or 600
number that's obviously not possible. I mean I I I attend many mosque in my life and there's no way you can play in a 3x3 box. Uh you you need at least probably 8 by4 space just to be comfortable at a minimum to to be able to do something
like that. But again, I I don't know. >> And that question was asked and they didn't have >> Mr. Panic asked that exact question. >> But the only point I'm trying to Anyway, this this is just an observation. It's not a question. So I thank you for the opportunity.
>> Thanks. Anyone else? >> All right, we'll we'll close. >> Two two quick architectural questions. One, am I right? There are two there are two staircases going into the Yeah, one from the outside, one from the inside.
>> What's the reason for that for having two? >> Uh, they might have some exterior, you know, landscaping tools and things that they want to access from the outside and, you know, storage of like outdoor stuff they might have. So, direct access.
>> The one at the top there, that's the one that leads outside. >> Yeah, this one outside here goes down to the basement. And this also goes to the basement. >> Um, so it's not for safety reasons. just for access. >> Yes. >> The other question is the patio on the I
guess the north side of of the building that faces the neighboring property. Was there any consideration >> or is there a patio on both sides? >> Uh no, it's just on on the left side. >> The left side being but but if you're
looking Yes. site plan, it faces the property. >> Correct. Was there consideration given to to locating that >> on the other side where it wouldn't face the neighbors? >> Um, no. I think this was part of the original design, the original application. So, they, you know, the
client said, well, you know, that's fine. We'll just leave it there and, you know, it work for their use as well. >> Do you happen to know if that's going to be used by by the applicant for outdoor activities? >> Um, we never discussed any kind of
functional use like that. It was just kind of an outdoor space that, you know, allowed people to walk outside from the prayer hall. >> Okay. Question >> that you forgot to ask last time when you asked questions of the applicant.
>> My name is uh Steve Callahan. I live off of uh Butler Road. Question I just had for clarification between uh Mr. and various people on board speaking of to the parking and basically the the use of the property. When I was here
November 20th before Thanksgiving, um the applicant was talking about 35 people that were currently going to be in the congregation and he was growing it to 60. and that there would never be more than 35 people per session, meaning if
they had five sessions over the course of the day. Tonight, I'm hearing 80 and 150. And I'm also wondering where those numbers change between tonight and the last day. >> Mr. Chairman, again, I'm going to refer
back to exhibit A1. Um, the statements are just made are just completely incorrect. I would ask I would ask for the minutes to be pulled up on that meeting. I got a free member. >> I've got minutes right in front of me and there's nothing about that that you just said.
>> Scroll down. >> I can't answer that because I don't have the paper. My suggestion before the next meeting is if you're really interested, go on the township website, read the information that's provided up there
concerning numbers, use, service, and operation of the mosque and I think that will uh answer a lot of questions. >> Those those numbers did change from that night though. >> Those numbers definitely change.
Seriously, >> I don't know when that I don't know when that was submitted, >> but the numbers that I was hearing >> from the applicant that night with 35 current people, okay, that were going to be part of his congregation and he was talking about the school that he had over in
>> Excuse me, Mr. Callahan. The gentleman in the back cannot He's recording the whole thing. He can't hear you. You have to speak into the mic. He just texts me. >> Is it red? >> It's red. >> Oh, okay. >> Is it on? Just hold hold up. The batteries must have gone. Hold up.
>> No, that's all right. I didn't know it was off, >> Mr. Chairman. While that's going on, um what is the policy of the board and concerning how how long you go? How what is the policy of the board of how long the uh hearing will go?
>> No new testimony after 10:00, but I don't we're not going to start. And >> so, okay, that answers my question. interrupt the witness in the middle of the >> I got it. So again, just to clarify the record a little bit, I and I I'm just reading off of the TRC
report that was drafted in September of 2025. So this is so and this would have been based on information that was on the record and submitted with the application and that speaks and and that mentions this 70 to 80 people during
Ramadan and up to 150 people during special events. So you know prior to the hearing the applicant did did present those numbers. Um so that's part of the record. Now, what may have happened, again, we're all trying to remember from
back in November, and again, maybe this speaks to having to bring bring that person back, but I believe he was talking about during the week there might be this ser you might be, you know, there I think they meet several times a day. They might have and I know certain certain uh religions you have
the larger service, then you have sometimes people come for smaller prayer services. I think that may have been that may have been I think there's different numbers for different days and different events, but it's but just to make it clear this 70 to 80 during
Ramadan and up to 150 during special events has been part of the record from the beginning. >> But 150 being over five different sessions. >> Well, I again I can't answer that. I'm just I'm just saying that that it's not like it's been 35 now all of a sudden they're making it 150. >> Okay. No, because if you had if you had
35 >> Okay. over five sessions, you're getting closer to the 150 that you're talking about. Okay. >> So, when it was back in November, okay, I remember a question coming up from somebody uh as a resident that said, "Is
there any other congregations that you own?" I think there was one over in South Planefield or Edison. >> Okay. And he sat there and said, "No, those congregants would not be coming over to the Somerset facility. the Somerset facility was only for Somerset Franklin Park residents, okay? Or they
were going to be attending there, okay? And that the current inflow of new congregants was going to be 35 and he was hoping to grow it to 60. Okay? Because I remember asking the question, why do you need 19,000 square
feet, which is more like 8,000 square feet when you look at uh the floor plan from the architect? Okay. I was saying, "Why do you need a 19,000 square foot building for 60 people?" Okay. But I remember them also sitting there saying the maximum amount of
people that you would ever have at one session would be 35. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to object to somebody getting up who's not under oath, who's misstating what the testimony was. There's no basis for that. It's not in the sheet that was um possess A1. It's
not in the minutes of the meeting. Basically, we have somebody who's just um making things up, quite frankly, and it's in the middle of testimony. >> Maybe somebody should pay for a transcript. Maybe that would be helpful. >> Somebody should what? >> Pay for a transcript. Maybe that would be helpful.
>> I'm asking questions. But in all honesty, Mr. Lawyer, you're wrong. >> Anybody else have any questions? >> Uh just a second. You want to ask? >> Let him go first. You had an
opportunity. >> Hi, Harvey Serotaa, Benjamin Griggs Drive. Just want to get clarification. So, you said there's >> Harvey Serotaa, Benjamin Griggs Drive. You said there's going to be no kitchen facilities. Is that correct? >> Yes, that is correct.
>> So, there's not going to be any food on premises brought in or catering or that type of thing. >> I couldn't tell you that. There just there's no kitchen. >> So, they're not going to be able to have that. Okay. And the second part was you mentioned classrooms. Just want to get clarification. Are they breakout rooms
or are they actually classrooms for teaching or you're not able to answer that >> they were you know meant to be religious classrooms if they use them as sort of smaller I don't know religious >> teaching
>> teaching rooms or speaking rooms you know they're not that they're the size of a classroom each one of them. So, >> okay. So, I'm just curious, are there any, this is to the board, are there any differences in zoning for a school and andor what is considered a school versus
a religious facility? >> Mr. Chairman, the use >> Yeah. Yeah. I'll answer that. If it it's not the classrooms are not a school >> and and any places of worship, different uses have what are called accessory
uses. Uses that that are customarily incidental to the larger use. In this case, it's a house. It's a place of worship and places of worship commonly have I mean there might be um I mean having I think it's two classrooms for religious education. I think that's
customarily what you would find in in various houses of worship. So I would I would consider that part of the the larger use. >> Okay. And that's part of the application process, right? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Anyone else? back again. Shampi from 15 Hasbrook
Drive. Uh just one question about the foundation. You mentioned that there is no architectural plan in place yet, but the plan is to have a one floor uh foundation that accommodates only one floor. So the approval by the board uh
is it given after the architectural plan officially is presented or on what they think is going to be the plan? Yeah. So they can only build what we approve. So they can design the foundation for 30 stories. They can build it.
>> Sorry, can you repeat that again? >> They can only build what this board approves. >> So if >> the architect wanted to build a larger foundation than necessary for one story, they can't build anything more than what's approved by this board. >> Period.
>> Okay. So the approval is given after their architectural plan is done, right? You know, we we give our approval and then our approval goes to the building department. The building department makes sure what is designed meets what our approval is. >> Okay, I get that. Thank you.
>> Anyone else? Come on up >> after him. Uh, thank you, Charles Hamilton, South Middle Bush Road. Um, could you just zoom out on the screen for us real quick? >> And just, you know, I'm I'm not an
architect. I'm a surgeon with a physics degree. Is this picture to scale roughly or is this just a sketch or estimator or so on? >> No, the drawing is is drawn to scale. >> Okay. And then okay, that's just all I wanted to know.
So then that is 19,000 square feet and the inside the prayer room is approximately the 6,000 square ft or so. >> Uh 79.81 inside the inside these two room the the prayer hall is 79.81 and the the whole outline of the first floor
is 19,350 ft. >> Okay. And the the Okay. All right. Thank you. Appreciate it. Good evening. Uh my name is Sean Akmawala from Cardia Drive. Uh my question is regarding the classrooms. Um
so two questions there. uh the is the the intent of use different from the original application with the classrooms coming in play or is it is it a variation in the application or is it considered same use case? >> I'm sorry I I didn't get that. >> So with the classrooms coming in play
the the plan has classrooms in here. So would that mean it's a different use compared to the original approved use for the last or is it the same? >> The classrooms were added. So I guess that's it's not a different use because they're they're permitted uses in houses
of war. >> And last time the applicant spoke about uh inviting imams from different countries who would come and teach in those classrooms. So would there be also residential uh which I don't see in the plan but will there be residential use
also at some point? residential one resident the the >> an imam will live in a residence >> right only one person is there in the house not in the mosque >> okay so but because I don't see any any
you know living spaces or kitchens as they said at any point so >> there's an existing house on the property over here there's an existing house on the property that's remaining and the Iman is going to live in that house. Is that correct? I'm asking the That's correct. >> That's correct.
>> And again, that was presented at the last meeting >> and he will be the only resident there and no other residents will be living in that property. >> Correct. >> Permanently. So if he if you find out 10 people are living there, that's a violation of the code. >> Yes.
>> Okay, that's my question. Thank you. >> Anybody else? All right, then we'll close. You need to first get a date for the next meeting. Your your next witness would be >> next witness >> would be who? No, don't call him.
>> Miss M Dolan, the traffic engineer. >> All right, we'll start with traffic. Uh I hope you can follow through. I think it's we can encourage the audience and everyone else to read the township
website and uh look at the information that you provided there. Uh I don't know how effective that is or isn't but if you could bring some copies of those the to distribute I think we would head off
a lot of questions that we don't need to deal with. >> Absolutely. >> And now date and I don't know do we need an extension >> year once we created a date? >> Yes.
>> Okay. >> Mr. Schwarz. Hi. Um, would April 16th sit well with you and your professionals or >> I was so afraid you could say April 23rd which is my anniversary and then I'd have to >> say authorities
>> but April 16th is okay with me but let me >> you can confer. Yeah, of course. Yes. >> Okay. So, >> yes, >> we're good. And we'll extend uh the time for the board to decide the uh application till after April 16th. >> All right. Let let me also be clear for
your benefit. I would hope people read this material and it's available and uh I would like you to have the person available that we could have clarification. I don't want to be
uh redoing the testimony again. >> Mr. Chairman, of course, I'm going to want to accommodate the board, but tonight it seemed as if people were saying we didn't have a hearing in November, and I'm sitting here with the minutes, and so I I am concerned about
that of just starting from scratch. But certainly, if the board has questions in addition to what was already asked, of course, we're not going to deny you that, right? I'll put it I'll frame it from my point of view. I would simply need a few clarifications. >> I just answered that question. Certainly
>> and I'm hoping all these interested people will take the time to read the material and then if there's any clarifications, that's fine. But I I do not intend for you to bring that witness or or I don't intend to conduct the
first hearing over again. and and you know that's just not going to happen. >> Yeah. And I'll just make a a suggestion to Mr. Schwarz which is you know I understand that you might be frustrated that a lot of the questions were asked
and answered at the first hearing but it has been a number of months. There were a few additional questions. I guess what I'm leading to is I think it would behoove you to think about the the issues that are maybe a little outstanding with respect
to that witness. >> I understand >> and answer and have him answer those to to the best of your and his ability in your direct testimony. >> That way we're not just just opening up to just wild questions that have already been answered. You may have to repeat some of it from November just again just
to bring the board and the public back up to speed. I think that'll help move it along. >> Got it. Okay. >> So, this will be April 15th. >> Yeah. I need to take >> Okay. Um, so Toahi Dawa Center ZBA 240017
is going to be carried to April 16th at 7:30 p.m. here at 475 Dat Lane. And an extension of time, Mr. Schwarz, would be needed, I know you said it on the record, but it will be needed in in writing. Correct.
If there's no further business, then >> there'll be no further not there's no need for further notice. Right. >> And we will uh entertain a motion to close. >> I'll move we close >> and a second. >> Favor. I
meeting adjourned. Hey Christine, the April 16th meeting, is that the whole meeting is this application?