Lakewood Township's Planning Board already voted to approve Sunset Road Sefardic Congregation's Site Plan application. However, facing continued concerns from the neighbors, who are represented by Teaneck Attorney Jan Meyer Esq., the Board tonight held off from voting on the resolution of approval, demanding to first "see the hardware."
The revised Site Plan presented to Board at this hearing was for the construction of a proposed two-story synagogue, almost 4,800 sq feet in area. The architectural plans depict a main sanctuary of 2,900 sq feet as well as adjoining 748 sq feet cheder sheni on the first floor, as well as a 1,541 sq feet ezras noshim and 217 sq feet warming kitchen on the second floor.
Designing a sizable "cheder sheni" room next to the main sanctuary is a legal loophole to get away from parking requirements as the Township only requires parking on the main sanctuary room area and not on any "accessory rooms." The neighbors highlighted this issue to the Board. However, the Board responded that their hands were tied.
As such, the 2,900 sq feet main sanctuary room requires 30 parking spaces.
The shul's professionals presented a plan to provide only 2 parking spaces on-site, and to provide the remaining required parking spaces offsite at the shopping center to the southeast of the Sunset Road and James Street intersection.
The application was represented by Attorney Adam Pfeffer Esq. and Engineer Brian Flannery, who indicated that they have an agreement with the owners of the shopping center to utilize some of their parking spaces.
Per the Board Engineer's review, the application required variances for Aggregate Side Yard Setback, maximum Building Coverage, Buffer, and Parking Setback.
Additionally, the revised plans propose the parking lot only 2 feet from the front right-of-way line. This conflicts with most of the proposed Shade Tree and Utility Easement. Therefore, a design waiver is required from proposed street tree spacing since they can only be planted near the property corners.
Importantly, the application also sought a design waiver from providing the required 20 foot buffer on each side. The application sought to provide a 0 foot buffer.
Neighbors retained Teaneck Attorney Jan Meyer Esq. to represent their opposition to the application.
Numerous neighbors spoke up, saying that they have many concerns with the current ad-hoc shul, including substantial illegal parking, trash not being kept in the refuse container, as well as many members smoking close to their property line at all hours of the day and night.
Neighbors also emphasized that aside from just a shared parking plan, they also want to see a buffer plan to address their privacy concerns.
The neighbors also heavily objected to the proposed off-site parking plan, saying that many congregants will park on Sunset Road which is already congested. They added that the shopping center only appears to have unused parking spaces because Torah Umesorah has moved out and no new tenant has yet moved in.
Ultimately, the Board approved the application tonight with the applicant agreeing to revise the plans to show a 20 foot buffer on each side, submit a parking easement agreement to the Board, somehow address the neighbors concerns regarding the smoking, and all of the conditions which Mr. Pfeffer previously agreed to.
The Board's draft resolution of approval, which was intended to be memorialized on Tuesday night, stated: The applicant shall provide a non-revocable easement agreement for parking at the nearby shopping center to the satisfaction of the board engineer and board attorney during resolution compliance.
The neighbors were once again represented by Mr. Meyer who urged the Board not to memorialize the resolution with permitting the applicant to provide the parking easement agreement to the satisfaction of the board engineer and board attorney during resolution compliance, but rather to the Board before they vote on the resolution.
The Board agreed with the neighbors and held off from voting on the resolution, telling the shul's representatives to "first show the hardware."
The neighbors are also considering challenging the approval in New Jersey Superior Court.
To join a FAA News WhatsApp Group, click here.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
6 comments:
They were not supposed to continue hearing the application until an easement was provided. But Pfeffer lied and said he sent an email with the easement. For some reason no one was able to find the email. The only found email was one to the township attorneys private email with a contract that was not signed by either party (in other words- nothing). So the fact that are finally demanding to see the hardware is something that was supposed to have been done before they approved anything.
How many officially extra spots does the shopping center even have? Are these lifetime agreements? Why would a shopping center just give up spots? Do the tenants know about this fake arrangement? I was a tenant I would sue the landlord or demand a new lease! The shopping center is pretty far from the shul it’s an utter joke no one is parking there. Unless there is some kind of official land sale for the spots - they should in no way take such an arrangement - I’d love to see all the other fake parking arrangements in this town how they’re coming along!
205 James street already has a “parking agreement” with the npgs lot. No one parks there. The agreement was done in such a way that when Jan Meyer brought that agreement to the boards attention, the board didn’t beloeve that the paper with the agreement was real.
Interestingly enough there was a resolution drafted that said the board granted none of the variances.
Here is from the first draft.
The following bulk variances are requested or required:
a. Aggregate side yard setback: 25’ minimum required, 22’ proposed for Lot 18;
b. Building coverage: 25% maximum required, 40% proposed for Lot 18;
c. Parking setback: 5’ minimum required, 4’ proposed for Lot 18.
d. Buffer: 20’ minimum required, 0’ proposed for Lot 18.
Then 2 hours before the meeting on the 23rd there was a new draft that said:
The following bulk variances are requested or required:
a. Aggregate side yard setback: 25’ minimum required, 22’ proposed for Lot 18;
b. Building coverage: 25% maximum required, 40% proposed for Lot 18;
c. Parking setback: 5’ minimum required, 4’ proposed for Lot 18.
The Board granted the variance relief.
I wonder what caused such a change in the resolution.
Here is from the first draft.
The following bulk variances are requested or required:
a. Aggregate side yard setback: 25’ minimum required, 22’ proposed for Lot 18;
b. Building coverage: 25% maximum required, 40% proposed for Lot 18;
c. Parking setback: 5’ minimum required, 4’ proposed for Lot 18.
d. Buffer: 20’ minimum required, 0’ proposed for Lot 18.
The board did not grant the variance relief...
Then they changed the resolution
Not sure who does park in the shopping center lot.
Many times I, as a shoper had a hard time finding a slot, expecting the store to be pretty full, however I was met by a surprise, relatively empty store,
No, it was not shul time then.
Post a Comment