The proposal for a nursery school within the house of worship spurred extensive dialogue. Attendees sought clarity on various aspects, such as the age range and the number of children to be accommodated. It was revealed that no application had been submitted to the state for operating the nursery school, raising questions about preparedness and compliance. The school is proposed to occupy 5,200 square feet on the ground floor, with the kitchen facilities located on an upper level and not designated for nursery use. The school hours remain undecided, though there was mention of modeling them after a local program offering flexible drop-off and pick-up times.

A significant contention arose over the public notice for the application, with concerns that it failed to explicitly mention the nursery school, potentially misleading community members about the building’s intended use. The applicant countered that the notice sufficiently described the application as a “house of worship,” encompassing educational programs typically associated with such facilities. The objector argued for greater transparency, believing the omission of the nursery school from the notice could confuse residents about the full scope of the application.

Traffic and parking implications of the new development sparked further debate. A public attendee raised concerns about the capacity of the redesigned parking lot to handle expected volumes, especially during high-traffic events like the high holy days. The redesign proposes relocating the driveway across from Park Avenue, with the board’s traffic consultant tasked with addressing this matter. Suggestions were made to explore alternative traffic flow solutions, such as a single driveway onto Parsonage Hill Road to enhance safety. The applicant had not discussed this option with their experts.

Stormwater management was another issue. Community members expressed fears about the project’s potential to exacerbate drainage and flooding problems in neighboring areas. The applicant was questioned about their willingness to accept a condition ensuring no negative impacts on drainage, but they declined to agree to such a condition, citing it as an unnecessary burden.

The board also scrutinized the architectural design of the proposed building. The design features a relatively low structure, with a ten-foot first floor and a nine-foot second floor, set within a three-acre parcel. The architectural plan emphasizes a symmetrical design, with the sanctuary as the central element, surrounded by functional spaces. The second floor will primarily host Hebrew school classrooms, while the basement will include a daycare facility and additional program space.

As discussions progressed, questions arose about the nursery school’s internal routing, particularly for nursery school children moving between the parking area and the lower level. Both stair and elevator access will be available from the main entrance to the lower level, which includes classrooms, storage areas, and a Mikvah.

The meeting also touched on broader community relations and the history of the applicant’s interactions with the township. Concerns lingered over the applicant’s past compliance with zoning laws and judgments from previous applications. A settlement agreement related to the property at one Jefferson Avenue was mentioned but ultimately not introduced as evidence, with the board voting against its inclusion in the discussion.

As the board considered the implications of the new application, they grappled with the complexities of community interests and regulatory compliance. The applicant’s history with the township, including previous litigation and compliance issues, added a layer of tension to the proceedings. The board sought to balance these considerations while adhering to procedural rules and focusing on the merits of the current application.