Lakewood Township's ordinance for shuls, which was enacted in 2009, states:
If the place of worship contains less than 800 square feet of main sanctuary space there shall be no requirements for parking, if more than 800 square feet, then the following shall be required for main sanctuary space (main sanctuary area shall not include secondary sanctuary space, mikvah, hallways, bathrooms, kitchen, and other ancillary and/or support rooms):
800 to 1999 square feet - 1.0 spaces for every 100 sq. ft.
2000 to 2999 square feet - 1.25 spaces for every 100 sq. ft.
3000+ square feet - 1.50 spaces for every 100 sq. ft.
The important part here is that "main sanctuary area shall not include secondary sanctuary space."
Drawing a sizable portion of sanctuary space as a "cheder sheni" is a ploy used by Lakewood developers looking to get away from parking requirements.
As previously reported here on FAA News, the Planning Board is currently being sued for approving a shul which was designed with this ploy.
The lawsuit, filed by Attorney Jan Meyer, alleges that "counting only the “men’s section” of a sanctuary is plainly discriminatory on its face. The women’s section is a large balcony on the second floor overlooking the men’s section. Not counting it as part of the “main sanctuary” is exactly the same as not counting a theater balcony when counting the seating area for the theater."
Moreover, this "is a consideration that is wholly irrelevant to the Subject Resolution. The Subject Resolution requires you to look at the sanctuary space, not those that will be using the space. The woman’s section is clearly a part of the main sanctuary, as much as the balcony is a part of a theater’s seating space.
"Moreover, the failure to count the “cheder sheini” is an error of law. The testimony was that the “cheder sheini” will be separated from the men’s section by a wall, with windows that open to the men’s section, such that the services could be heard from the Cheder sheini. The Cheder sheini will be used for additional woman’s seating during services and/or for additional mens seating (though not both simultaneously).
"A room that is specifically designed to be used in concert with the primary sanctuary, and to provide additional seating for the services occurring in the main sanctuary, is clearly a part of the main sanctuary. To hold otherwise would invite manipulation. A House of Worship could construct a building with a small “main sanctuary”, perhaps smaller than 800 square feet with a large “overflow room” that opens to the main sanctuary, and is used in concert with the main sanctuary during services. By doing this, the parking requirements of the Subject Resolution can be entirely bypassed.
"Whatever the “cheder sheini” is called, given that it is designed to join with the same services, it contributes to the parking burden associated with those services, and should be included in the calculation for parking. The same could be case for the Women’s section to be used by men joining in the same services as the main sanctuary and therefore must also be included in the parking calculations...
"The sole justification given for not counting the woman’s section is that women allegedly do not regularly come to synagogue at times when people drive to synagogue, only on Sabbath day, when their congregants do not drive...
"For example, if there were testimony that a House of Worship would only serve those that walk to the synagogue, that does not obviate the need for parking, or the application of the statute. The calculation is based on the space, not the testimony regarding the who will be using the space," the lawsuit stresses.
Facing this lawsuit, which is set to go to trial next month, the Board just slammed the brakes on another such shul design.
The Board considered Application # SP-2595AA which seeks to legalize a change of use of 112 Chestnut Street into Sanz shul.
The architectural plans depict a mikvah in the basement, and a first floor with a 762 sq foot bais medrash, 166 sq foot ezras noshim, as well as a 181 sq foot library.
Citing the Township's threshold of 800 sq feet of "main sanctuary area... not including secondary sanctuary space," the developers argued the shul does not require any parking.
Aaron Hirsch, a Chestnut Street area resident, highlighted to the Board that the library and ezras noshim are actually part of the main sanctuary area and therefore parking should be required.
Already facing a court trial on the lawsuit on the other shul application, the Board wisely slammed the brakes on this ploy and directed the shul to figure out a sufficient parking plan.
To join the FAA News WhatsApp Status, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment