The primary discussion focused on the traffic implications of the proposed High Center for Living Judaism, located on Short Hills Road. The development plans include a 21,000-square-foot structure housing a 13,000-square-foot synagogue and an 8,000-square-foot nursery school. The proposed facility would offer 95 parking spaces. Concerns were raised about traffic during peak hours, particularly in the mornings and afternoons, as well as on Fridays and Saturdays when services are held. A traffic engineer presented a analysis, indicating that while traffic flow would be affected, the existing road infrastructure could accommodate the projected increase.

Residents questioned the safety of left turns onto Old Short Hills Road and Parsonage Hill Road, particularly during peak traffic hours. Members of the public expressed concern about the adequacy of the traffic models used, questioning whether they accurately reflected real-world conditions, especially during high-traffic events like the high holy days.

The potential impact on local traffic from other developments in the vicinity, such as the Ansay development with 149 units near the train station, was also questioned. Residents were concerned that these developments might not have been fully considered in the traffic analysis, potentially underestimating the cumulative effect on local roadways.

Further scrutiny was given to the nursery school component of the development. The traffic engineer’s analysis accounted for a 30% reduction in traffic due to sibling drop-offs, which was questioned by residents who felt this assumption might not hold true. The board discussed whether to cap student enrollment at 50 to mitigate traffic concerns.

Discussion also included the potential for overflow parking during high-attendance events, which could impact nearby streets such as Jefferson Road. Residents noted existing issues with pedestrian safety due to parked cars narrowing the road and expressed a desire for measures to prevent overflow parking from exacerbating these conditions.

The board debated the need for additional traffic studies, particularly to address concerns specific to Park Road. While some board members pushed for further analysis, others considered the existing data sufficient, citing the consultation with the board’s traffic consultant, who did not recommend a separate study. The applicant expressed a willingness to work with the board’s traffic engineer to address any outstanding issues but resisted additional studies citing undue burden.

A resident named Jessica raised concerns about the timing of the traffic study, specifically its alignment with Shabbat services, which could start earlier than the study’s timeframe. She emphasized that the study should accurately reflect traffic conditions during these times to ensure safety for congregants.