Central to the public’s apprehensions was the issue of traffic and parking associated with the mosque’s construction. Residents expressed fears that the new facility would exacerbate existing congestion, particularly during peak times, with one individual comparing the potential traffic situation to attempting to exit a packed baseball game. Concerns were raised about the adequacy of parking facilities, with specific criticisms directed at the allocation of compact parking spaces, which some argued would be impractical for larger vehicles and difficult to navigate during winter when snow could further limit available space.

A discussion unfolded regarding the compliance of the proposed parking lot with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. Questions were raised about whether the dimensions of parking stalls and drive aisles met the necessary safety standards, specifically noting that the width of the aisles was two feet short of what NFPA requires. This shortfall, combined with the allocation of compact spaces, led to skepticism about the project’s ability to accommodate emergency vehicle access efficiently.

The meeting revealed a debate over the proposed detention basin and its impact on the buffer zone. The basin, located within a 50-foot buffer, was criticized for its size, potentially limiting the area’s ability to support the intended vegetation, leading to reliance on grass rather than the natural woodlands stipulated by township ordinance. This raised further questions about the project’s compliance with local zoning regulations, particularly regarding the permissible size of such a basin within the buffer zone.

Public comments also highlighted the broader implications of the mosque’s construction on the character of Liberty Corner, a historically significant area. Residents like Carrie Samuels emphasized the importance of preserving the neighborhood’s historical integrity, pointing to past efforts to maintain its character. Samuels argued that the mosque would alter Liberty Corner’s nature, a sentiment echoed by others who voiced fears about noise, pollution, and the overall transformation of the village.

In contrast, some community members, including Walter Ruby, a program director for the Foundation for Ethnic Understanding, advocated for the mosque as an asset to the community. However, objections to Ruby’s testimony were raised on the grounds that his comments did not directly address the site-specific issues under consideration by the board.

A portion of the meeting focused on the logistics of the mosque’s design, particularly concerning religious practices such as the removal of shoes before entering the prayer hall. Witnesses presented varying perspectives on whether the design adequately accommodated these practices, with some arguing that the proposed layout could lead to confusion and disrupt the flow of worshippers.

Board members and community participants also debated the proposed fencing along the property line, with concerns about its compliance with local ordinances. The proposed 6-foot high solid fence was seen as potentially non-compliant with township regulations, which emphasize natural screening methods over artificial barriers.

As the meeting progressed, logistical considerations for future hearings were discussed, with plans to address the housing plan element and the main application in upcoming sessions. The board also acknowledged technical challenges during meetings, such as audio issues, and agreed on improvements to enhance the meeting environment.