In response to MarkDS's ill-informed comment, while the NJ Law Against Discrimination creates an exemption for educational facilities, which are allowed to discriminate (see Romeo v. Seton Hall), the exception is not without limits. For example, employees can sue Religious employers for sex discrimination (Gallo v. Salesian Society). The question here (which appears to be one of first impression) is whether a town can grant a variance to a religious organization that openly discriminates against women (who cannot be bat mitzvahed, or even go to the Bimah to read scripture, don't count for a minion, etc). This is a valid question that deserves attention.

The only ill formed comment here is yours. The government does not know from Bnei Mitzvot, Bimas or minyons nor can it or should it. Those are totally questions of religious practice that are 100% out of the purview of government.

I apoligize for leaving out the word "religious" before educational facilities (i.e., religous schools may, for example, refuse to allow a gay organization to operate within). The bigger question is whether the Chai Center satisfies the positive criteria for granting a variance, as well as the negative criteria. I think that the attorneys for the various citizen groups have done a fine job of demonstrating that the requested relief cannot be granted w/o substantial detriment to the public good AND will substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance. Case law shows that when the impact is clearly substantial, variance denials will be sustained. I encourage anyone who opposes the variance, when presenting comments, to put their statement w/in the framework of this law: recite examples of how the Center will and has substantially and negatively impacted Millburn. Good luck, and I hope to see you all there for a spirited debate!!

The great thing about America is that no one needs be involved with a religion they do not like but those who do want to can do so without impediment. Sunny Forest is exactly why we need the first amendment - a person who wants to tell everyone else what they should and shouldn't do.

Yes MarkDS thank god that religious institutions still are free to discriminate against women without impediment. Of course women weren't even allowed to vote when the first amendment was written. But feel free to crucify me for my beliefs. I don't claim to be a prophet.

Well you certainly are quick to crucify others for their beliefs.

The only thing I would like crucified is gender discrimination. I guess our freedom of religion protects that practice in places of worship and ONLY in places of worship. They are the only institutions in America (and many other countries that won't be mentioned) that still get away with it. I guess I can thank god for that.

Sunny & Judy, don't try to make a zoning argument into a gender discrimination issue.

You are trivializing gender discrimination with your attack. Go protest St. Rose, I hear the Catholics have zero female priests in the whole world!

Such arrogance, Sunny Forrest. Thank goodness the Constitution is here to protect everyone's religious beliefs, not just the ones you agree with.

Being raised one of the above, I say yes and yes. There is no place in modern society for religions that discriminate against women. Call me un-american.

I don't think so, Sunny Forrest, and as a woman and a Catholic, I am not upset/angry/sad/feel discriminated against/blah, blah, blah, about what you call discrimination and I call religious freedom. But, since this is outside the topic of this discussion, I think I'll "shake the dust off my feet" and end this discussion with you.

I agree. Where do you think this inability stems from?

I think we need a strategic planning process which coordinates Town Government, businesses, environmental concerns, public safety officials, and others to decide what's good about our town and how best to address changes in population and resident needs. Our zoning guidelines don't mean anything if they are constantly granted exceptions. New challenges like how to increase parking will always arise; a clear vision of what MSH is and should be would make those considerations easier to manage.

religion is non-issue here. ZONING IS THE ISSUE. over the years there were many tax-paying homeowners who were turned down for small variances such as pretty picket fences (which is very much in keeping with the neighborhood - many homes in and around Jefferson have lovely, charming picket fences). Many years ago i had a small child's outdoor play set delivered to my driveway. The installer was scheduled to arrive the following morning to place the set in the yard. Well, within a couple of hours of delivery of the play set, i received a phone call from town hall telling me that play sets are not permitted in driveways! Of course i explained that the set was being moved and installed the next morning. Zoning laws are there to protect EVERYONE. This is not arbitrary! How on earth can the town zoning board approve an over-sized commercial building on a residential street which also sits on a small lot? Of course i must mention the dangerous/busy intersection at Old Short Hills Road and Jefferson. Let's all play fair now......

Yes zoning is the issue which is what makes Ms. Rosenthal's comments so very unfortunate and outrageous.

MarkDS, if you agree zoning is the issue, could you discuss it instead of fixating on Ms. Rosenthal's comments that you disagree with. I have loads of opinions about religion and gender discrimination and a million other things, but they don't belong in this discussion. This is about allowing the wrong kind of building in the wrong part of town on the wrong sized lot.

As Hedley said this whole thing is a circus. It is also ultimately meaningless. Eventually this will all be settled in the courts not in Millburn because whoever loses is certain to appeal. If the zoning decision goes against Chai at any point in the process it is actually likely to go all the way to Federal court to be argued on RLUIPA grounds. So we will be dealing with this for years to come. So while the proceedings are ultimately a sideshow, it is comments like Ms. Rosenthal's that are much more significant as they show a high level of intolerance for others.

It should be noted that Orthodox Jewish synagogues (such as the Chai Center) *must* be located in a "residential neighborhood", since Orthodox Jews do not drive on the Sabbath, one of the days when most Orthodox Jews do attend synagogue. As a result, Orthodox Jews almost always try to move to a house within walking distance of a synagogue, and no Orthodox synagogue would be built in a "non-residential neighborhood", for obvious reasons.

There's something called Godwin's Law. It states that "as an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." I can only assume there is a corollary that applies to public hearings lasting longer than one year....

I wish religion could be removed from the equation. However, under the law, when considering zoning variances, religious groups are considered an "inherently beneficial use." (Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Tp. of Wall). As I noted in an earlier comment, the only way to defeat the application is to provide examples of how the Chai Center presents a substantial detriment to the public good of Millburn. Those of you who attended the meetings and can cite to examples of such detriment should marshall your facts, and recite this test--which is the only one that the zoning board is allowed to focus on. For example, in Muslim Ctr v. Borough of Somerville, the denial of the Center's application was upheld because of evidence of noise, traffic and parking problems as well as an undersized lot. We have all of these factors at play, and should highlight them for Millburn's Zoning Board.

Dear CHP,

You play a clever game. Save Milburn cleverly pushed the number “1,6000 square foot building”.

The simple fact is: they are calculating the square footage of the (Chai Center’s) basement. Yet when they calculate the size of the home across the street (- and other huge homes in the very close proximity to the proposed synagogue -), they omit the size of the basement.

If you want to honestly and objectively talk about the size of the structure, and you calculate them the same way – either with or without the basement, then the proposed synagogue is clearly smaller then the house directly across and some others in the very close proximity.

Sara -- regardless, the zoning rules for homes and houses or worship are different. It is those rules that have to be looked at.

Dear KLF,

You have a point. What I’m saying is: all this talk that this proposed Chai Center is a “monstrous, overbearing” building that is totally out of character with the immediate neighborhood, is simply untrue.

The structure is totally consistent with the neighborhood, fits right it, both in size and architecture.

Sara, "The structure is totally consistent with the neighborhood, fits right it, both in size and architecture." Really: how many parking spaces do other structures in the neighborhood need?

CD, you have a point when it comes to parking. Yet all the arguments I hear, and this is also what is emphasized by the “save Millburn” website and the opposing attorneys is that the building is to large and is out of character with the neighborhood. This argument is patently false.

Sara, I'm not familiar with what the proposed building would look like, so I won't comment. However, I live nearby and know how quickly Old Short Hills Rd can become clogged when just a few additional cars are turning left as they go up the hill. If the turns are complicated by the side roads being clogged by people looking for parking, a goat rodeo will ensue.

Dear CD,

Your argument assumes that after the variance is granted, there will be a substantial increase to the current traffic conditions (and a new burden will develop).

This is simply not the case. The overwhelming majority of the traffic to be generated by the Chai Center – ALREADY exists.

As per the extensive testimony at hearings, the synagogues programming will not change from what is currently happening at this very same property. This “increased traffic” has been and is already going on for several years now. So there won’t be any discernible change once the variance is granted.

Have a great day!

What do you mean? Of course we all know what happened in Lawrence, Cedarhurst, and Teaneck. Those JEWS moved in. And not just Jews, who we can tolerate, but the "extremely Jewy Jews", aka Orthodox Jews. Horror of all horrors. After all, everyone knows Lawrence, Cedarhurst, and Teaneck are known as terrible places to live (not).

“as for your comments regarding the basement. It is not considered living space in most homes. Unlike the chai center which will use the basement for classrooms. Oops, I mean meeting rooms.”

I’m discussing the ACTUAL, physical size of the structure – the way someone would see it from the outside – without actually entering the house.

When you say something is too large for the neighborhood, you are obviously talking about the way it is seen from the outside. If one would look at the proposed Chai Center (already built), and compare it to the house across the street, that latter is clearly larger…

"do 40 people who seek to pray in a traditional orthodox Jewish synagogue not have the legal and moral right to have a house of worship in this town without being harassed by the township committee?"

Sara, who is harassing whom? I bought a house in a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood; I'd feel harassed if my entry into and exit from my home were regularly affected by the congestion this would bring.

I refer you to a letter published in last week’s edition of the Item http://bit.ly/Alo6vb

The Chai Center made multiple attempts to purchase 2 of the remaining handful of available 3 acre properties in town – only to be thwarted and obstructed by township officials.

They attempted to make a synagogue on Millburn Ave, adjacent to a cemetery and opposite the school. (There is a huge amount of parking available there). Again, rejected by the town.

So my question is: what would be a reasonable and acceptable place to place a house of worship?

By the way, all of the houses of worship in town are in residential areas.

"You have no more of a legal and moral right to have a nonconfoming building than someone who does not have a proper setback for a swimming pool in the back yard."

That is actually very possibly not correct. Though the final legal verdict on its full impact has not yet been reached it is more likely than not that religious institutions do have "more of a legal right to have a nonconfoming building" under RLUIPA.

To say that his persistence in the face of opposition leads you to believe he has no respect for residents is ridiculous. Persistence in the face of opposition is the only way change is ever made. This is not about a lack of respect any more than it is about religion. Stick to the issue - ZONING!

“In a developed community such as ours, it is nearly impossible to secure a lot for a house of worship that has 3 acres and conforms to local ordinances without the need for a variance, as nearly all such lots have been subdivided. Today, there are only five lots that would qualify, out of 6,172 residential lots in town…”

So unless you are proposing to stop the establishment of new Houses of Worship anywhere in Millburn Township (-as proposed by the Township Committee (Nov. 18, 2004 edition of The Item) -), then the only way it can be done is by requesting variances.

It's not a requirement that every town have a house of worship for every denomination of every religion. I personally attend a religious institution in a neighboring town. If your religion requires you to live near a certain institution, then find one and move there. Living in Millburn is a choice, not a guaranteed right that has to be tailored to specific needs.

Dear Susan1,

Are you suggestion that someone wishing to attend a traditional Jewish service, and might be required (by religion) to walk to services on the Sabbath, then they better move out of town, because Millburn will under no circumstances allow the accommodation of the needs of this group of people?

You are speaking hypothetically. As I’ve demonstrated above, since Millburn is fully developed, it is almost impossible to conform to current standards and comply will all conditions. One would have to seek variances to comply. If it your position that no variances should be granted, then it is not possible for anyone to start a new house of worship (short of spending countless millions in purchasing 3-5 properties and combining them).

And by the way, do you know why there is a board of adjustment? Exactly for this. “A variance” is not a dirty word. It is something that is granted on a regular basis.

Sorry Sara; many of us believe variances should be the exception, not the rule. Otherwise, having the rules means nothing. Everyone who wants to build a house of worship does not have an inherent right to build it exactly where he or she wants. And I'm sick of hearing that there's nowhere for these people to go., There's a Chabad on White Oak Ridge Road. Plus numerous orthodox synagogues in neighboring towns like Springfield. This is about one small group of people deciding they want what they want and the heck with what everyone else in town wants.

As stated by Jen in a later post (see 5:57pm on Feb 1): "Rabbi Bogomilsky was perfectly happy running services in his home. He was “sued” by the township committee and they demanded that he immediately stop exercising his constitutional right to hold prayer groups in his home. (click here http://www.shorthillsshul.org/6.html to view the court papers)

As part of a court settlement agreement, he was forced to submit an application (and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars) to transform the private home into a formal house of worship with the threat that if he fails to do so, they will force him to close down…."

The overall "character" of the town is a suburban community comprised mostly of quiet residential areas but also a thriving commercial downtown area. I think your question should be posed more specifically towards the AREA of town the Chai center is looking to expand in rather than the "character" of the town as a whole.
The AREA they are looking to build in, is indeed a quiet residential neighborhood.
The issue is NOT the building or expansion of a house of worship.
The issue is the building and expansion of a house of worship in a quiet residential neighborhood.

The town does have other houses of worship in residential neighborhoods but they were all built several years ago when the town was less populated and had much more open land around those buildings. (St. Rose built 1909, Christ Church built 1883, Community Congregational Church built 1953).

In the years since, many of the suburban neighborhoods encroached upon the houses of worship as the town developed ie. they chose to build close to the house of worship. This is called "coming to the nuisance" in simple property law terminology.
This scenario you have the opposite, a house of worship encroaching upon a quiet suburban neighborhood. Zoning variances need to be scutinized much closer than with a residence as the impact of a house of worship is much greater on the neighborhood when you consider pedestrian and auto traffic and potential noise from celebrations, etc.

As to your other question, the answer is a resounding "No" because unless we're talking about a small subset of orthodox jew homebuyers, that's not realistic.

Lawrence and Cedarhurst are not desirable if families desire public schools because their school systems have been gutted because the residents do not send their children to public school and therefore vote down school budgets.

If, as you state above, all congregants walk, why is there a need for parking? Also if the current facility is large enough, why is there a need for a superstructure and more parking?

The fact is, the property values probably will increase.

That's not a fact. It's only your opinion which you base on a small sampling of towns that frankly are not comparable to MSH. Those towns were not at the pinnacle of their real estate markets. Thus, they had a much larger room for improvement in terms of property values. An orthodox community that adds stability and sense of community to a town that lacks one certainly would increase property values to an extent.
MSH is already at the top. Adding a synagogue for orthodox jews simply will not increase property values unless you may happen to be a member of that community and value living close to your synagogue. Of course as a prospective buyer you could also lowball the current owners for the very same reason.

Dear Blanket Jackson,

The fact is that in almost all cases, the homes close to an orthodox synagogue will go up in value, as the people who pray there would rather live close by. So we are not talking about new people moving to town, rather current residents would have a strong incentive to buy a home which is close to his/her synagogue. (So that it would be easier for them to walk on Saturday and holidays)

It is certainly "curious" as to why "Save Millburn" chose this as their sole cause and seem uninterested in Saving Millburn from any other issue.

Didn't Save Millburn form to oppose a school bond referendum many years ago?

Once the permanent synagogue is built, there would certainly be a strong incentive for current participants (- residents of Millburn township -) to try and relocate to a home closer to the synagogue, thereby raising the value of the properties in the close proximity of the synagogue.

Good point, Susan. As to the flurry of e-mails regarding whether or not the proposed Chai Center will attract more Orthodox Jews, in the event it does, has anyone stopped to consider the impact of such a population on our schools? Orthodox Jews do not condone birth control, and if towns such as Lakewood are any indication, we can expect a large increase in the number of school aged children. At the next meeting, we should question the Rabbi regarding the demographics of his congregation. In addition to the number of MHS residents (as one blogger aptly suggested we discover), we should question him regarding the average number of school-aged children per family. This also raises the larger question as to whether there is any rational relationship between the number of seats in the congregation and the number of proposed parking spaces. If the typical Orthodox family has more than 1 child, then the proposed 1 parking spot per 3 people/seats ratio is a fiction. Does anyone know whether the 1:3 ratio only applies to adults (i.e. 1 car: 3 adults), or is it a 1car:3 people ratio? If the latter, and 1 car is carrying 6 people, then technically you have to have 2 spaces. Before anyone gets carried away, however, some facts are in order. Kindly weigh in if you have them. :)

There are numerous families in MSH with 4-5 children that are non Orthodox Jews. This is about zoning!

Judith – who is suggesting that orthodox people want to move to town? I believe the Rabbi is proposing to construct a synagogue to service a group of local residents who have been praying together locally for about 30 years.

CHP,

I believe that close to all participants in the services lead by Rabbi Bogomilsky at his home are residents of MSH.

Concerning the argument that the Chai Center needs to be located in an area within walking distance to people ... just ask the residents of Bodwell Terrace if this argument holds water. Many cars parked up and down the block on Saturday mornings and holidays. Cars parked on both sides of a narrow street make it difficult for an emergency vehicle to come through.

Dear Magma,

You seem to forget, that unlike on Bodwell Terrace, now, they have a large parcel of land, which can hold many cars. They are proposing a 50 car parking lot. This can easily hold ALL of the cars that would come to the Chai Center, and would not affect the (parking on) side streets at all.

Sara, I am familiar with the new property. But my premise still holds ... that because of the reliance of many of the membership on cars (hence the need for a large parking lot), the Chai Center's argument concerning walkability might not hold water.

Magma,

One minute you argue that the synagogue will cause hazardous conditions on the side streets due to parking. The next minute you agree that this is not the case, and then you move on to suggest that there are no people in MSH who want to walk to synagogue on Saturday and/or high holidays…

Can you imagine a scenario where one spouse wants to brave walking to synagogue Saturday morning, while the other spouse chooses to drive?

Sara, I am *not* arguing about the hazardous conditions in the *new* property. I was merely pointing out the conditions caused when the temple was located on Bodwell. I know that the same kind of hazard will not be present on the Jefferson site.

My statements only concern the Chai Center's contention about walkability.

Enough said on this topic....

From what I hear, the Chabad on White Oak Ridge Road has kept its distance from Rabbi Bogomilsky. Makes you wonder what they think of him.... In any case, when Bogomilsky claims that there isn't an Orthodox facility in town to serve his congregants, he is clearly lying.

M OKeef & Susan1,

Is that synagogue legal or is it a group praying in a private home?

Rabbi Bogomilsky was perfectly happy running services in his home. He was “sued” by the township committee and they demanded that he immediately stop exercising his constitutional right to hold prayer groups in his home. (click here http://www.shorthillsshul.org/6.html to view the court papers)

As part of a court settlement agreement, he was forced to submit an application (and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars) to transform the private home into a formal house of worship with the threat that if he fails to do so, they will force him to close down….

Just wait until the township committee puts White Oak Ridge Road in their crosshairs and attempt to force them to stop.

No idea as to legalities, just saying have heard rumors it exists but no one ever objected to it to my knowledge. Was just trying to underscore not a question of religious observance that is being objected to.

They have a website: http://www.chabadatshorthills.org/

Rabbi Bogomilsky also currently has regular prayer groups in his home. He has been hosting them in his home for 20 years. What is the connection with any other such group?

The township SUED Rabbi Bogomilsky and left him with no option other then requesting permission (a “variance”) to be recognized as a formal house of worship.

And as Sara has pointed out, Rabbi Bogomilsky did his best to try and get a 3 acre property…

That was a biased opinion letter submitted by an advocate of the Chai Center and not an investigative report including facts/proof by a journalist. This is about zoning. The physical plant of the proposed structure including the appropriate parking required is too small for the lot.

What was stated in the letter that was incorrect?

Never stated nor implied that it was "incorrect". There is however, a big difference between an Op/Ed piece and investigative journalism.

If the op/ed piece is factually correct, then what is the difference? If the letter is factually accurate it sure seems like some people have had it in for the Rabbi for quite some time.

Hedley: You're making an assumption that everyone is aware of the facts. An Op/Ed piece is just that; an opinion. If the writer wanted to make aware of the facts circumventing the matter, then provide backup. Otherwise, it's hearsay. If you have read any of my posts, I have NEVER implied nor written anything against the Rabbi nor the faith. It has always been about zoning.

If you build it, they will come.

I hope Save Millburn has time to deal with the photos given all the other issues they are involved with. Oh wait, there are no other issues. Odd.

Why would anyone object to a grassroots organization formed to address a common public issue? People banded together to fight the parking deck, and that was their only issue. Others have joined forces to fight the cell phone tower and the school budget.

A common public issue? Whether or not the Chai Center's application is granted will affect a limited few people in Short Hills - not even in Millburn. Shouldn't they change their name to Save Short Hills? A parking deck in downtown or a school budget affect everyone. Hardly on the same scale.

So I guess if you took pictures you would know that "the people" were a group of high school girls (classmates of one of the rabbi's daughters) on the way back from a ski trip at Mountain Creek. Happens to be they stopped by for dinner before heading back to NY.
But a group of girls visiting a classmates house is inconvenient for the story you want to tell. It sounds too much like too many other kids in town.

When 45 people drop in for dinner, that's not a private home - it's a catering facility. This is exactly what the opposition doesn't want in a residential neighborhood. Thanks for reinforcing our point.

On a full size charter bus.

I guess we should ban barbecues at private residences too.

And Super Bowl parties.

Of course they are picking on him. I bet that 99% of their listed "supporters" don't live within 1,000 yards of the subject property. How many other zoning applications has Save Millburn fought against?

Big bad Save Millburn is 3 families and a paid publicist: Welch next door and Sanna and Keating, each over 3 tenths of a mile away. The paid publicist is Becker who lives a mile away. Then they have a list of people they conned into giving them money by claiming either a steel structure is going up, or the entire town will be turned into nursing homes and halfway houses, or everybody's real estatewill be worthless etc etc etc. They've been collecting money for their cause since 2005, two years before the Chai Center group even began to use the property at 1 Jefferson.

Hedley, there is considerable opposition to this variance by people that are not listed as "supporters" of Save Millburn:
1 - I live within 1000 yards of the property
2 - I am not a listed supporter of Save Millburn
3 - I am opposed to the variance

One is allowed to have 45 people over for dinner. I find it hard to believe that no one in Short Hills, in those huge houses, has ever had that number of people over for a holiday meal, or for a wedding hosted at home, etc. The problem, of course, is that these were girls from *Monsey*. Yes, Orthodox Jews have large families. Yes, Orthodox Jews have a tight community (where they may invite all their daughter's classmates over from time to time, or even - horrors, have them stay overnight if need be.) Just because most others in town are so isolated in their big mansions with perhaps a friend over for tea once a month or two, does not mean that everyone in town has to act that way. Just because you don't like the Orthodox Jewish lifestyle doesn't mean you have the right to oppose their presence in town.

Excuse me, Cham. I am NOT isolated in a "mansion". I live in a relatively modest home. I live a full, active life here in MSH with my husband and children. We have friends, take part in town activities, attend the public schools, and shop/dine in local businesses. We pay our taxes, and have a vested interest in what happens here, as our investment in our home is a substantial percentage of our net worth. I deeply resent being reduced to a stereotype, and even more to be labelled as prejudiced against any religious group. Your attitude speaks volumes about your narrow-mindedness.

I'm a first generation Short Hills resident. I don't have the demographic data, but based purely on how many bar and bat mitzvahs my children got invited to, I think it is fair to say that MSH no longer discriminates against Jewish families moving to town.

Additionally, admittedly not a scientific survey, but there is considerable opposition to the building by Jewish people, based on my conversations.

The "character" that I'm looking for, for lack of a better term, is that I would like to drive to and from my home without additional traffic hassles (we have enough, thank you). It would also be nice if parking lots and congested streets were found downtown or some other suitable place, not in a residential neighborhood.

Every time someone disagrees with you, it doesn't mean they're anti-semetic. Accusing someone of prejudice is a tactic to invalidate their arguments and it's beneath all of us. For the record, I'm Jewish and, I'm against the Chai Center building on this site.

Did you know that ALL houses of worship currently in MSH are in RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods?

Did you know that if this exact structure was a private home, it would be aloud without any trouble, (actually one may build an even larger building on this site..). Also, there is adequate parking for PEAK usage – something that no other house of worship in town has. It has adequate buffers (I believe that most houses of worship don’t)

Did you know that the township committee has been harassing the Chai Center for over 15 years (see these court papers for a long list http://bit.ly/xfevnt ).

Did you know that township official repeatedly interfered with the serious attempts by the Chai Center to purchase 3-acre lots (105 & 272 Old Short Hills Road)? See: http://bit.ly/Alo6vb there is sworn evidence by the developers to this property. Actually they are currently in court suing town on this matter.

We are not talking about discrimination against Jews. We are talking about discrimination against Orthodox Jews.
I understand that some (self-hating?) Jews in town are against the Chai Center. That does not make them right, or make it right that others don't want the Chai Center in town either.

Sunny Forrest, if someone disagrees with you, it automatically makes her an “out of towner”/one of “them”? I suggest you stick to the issues.

Sara, anyone can read your previous posts and deduce that you are from Springfield. There is no shame in living in Springfield vs. Short Hills. It's just that you and I should probably not have a say in their zoning issues since we do not live there. I just invited Cham and his community to build in my town So what's the beef? Us women really need to practice more modesty in our interactions. Don't you agree?

Sunny Forrest,

Are you suggesting that if we want to have a traditional Jewish synagogue we better look to move out to another town, because MSH will make it (nearly) impossible for us to have a place to pray?

Sorry, I don’t live in Springfield. You also don’t seem to understand, that (many) participants of an orthodox synagogue would need to “walk” to synagogue, thereby requiring it to be in a residential neighborhood (within walking distance of their home).
Have a great day!

Sara, I do understand that the congregants have to walk to service. Do all of the participants already live within walking distance of that location? I thought you said the participants would be willing to relocate to be closer to their place of worship. If they are willing to relocate to be close to their center then I am sure there are residential neighborhoods in Springfield to build that would be appropriate for their purpose. I am just suggesting a path of less resistance if it is practical. (You did mention members willing to relocate in one of your posts.) If they aren't willing to relocate for whatever reason, then good luck with that.

Dear Sunny Forrest,

Most of the people who currently pray with Rabbi Bogomilsy live within walking distance to Rabbi’s house.

Okay, the Roman Catholic church was built in a residential neighborhood in 1901, the Episcopalian church was built in a residential neighborhood in 1883, and the Community Congregational Church was built in a residential neighborhood in 1952. But preventing an Orthodox Jewish synagogue to be built in a residential neighborhood in 2012 would not be religious discrimination? Newsflash: there were no Jews in town in 1909, 1883, and very few in 1953. Why were there so few, even in 1953 (when many American Jewish families immigrated to America in the first half of the 20th century, and late 19th century)? Because there was housing discrimination in Short Hills against Jews! To refuse to allow a Jewish institution to be built in a residential neighborhood in town, just like the Christian churches, now that Jews are for the past few decades actually *able* to live in town, IS religious discrimination.

Cham- Like always you missed the point and resort to your tired anti semitism. I won't even call it an argument because its not. You're like Uncle Leo from Seinfeld thinking everyone is an anti semite.

The point here is that THERE WERE NO HOUSES AROUND THOSE PROPERTIES WHEN THEY WERE BUILT UNLIKE THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OF THE CHAI CENTER. The space was much more wide open then since fewer people lived here. Again, this is not an issue of discrimination but simply of space and land use.

Dear Matt,

On a practical level, any “destroy the residential character of the neighborhood” has already been done.

The Chai Center is in full operation for several years now. The overwhelming majority of traffic, parking etc. is already happening and is ongoing. Also, the proposed new building will not look any different from other residential structures in the area.

So how will the granting of the variance “destroy the residential character of the neighborhood”? In my humble opinion, the “character” will remain EXACTLY as it is today…

(according to the master plan, houses of worship are highly desirable in residential neighborhoods.)

"...they have enhanced it and made it an extremely desirable place to live."

Desirable for whom? Only Orthodox Jews. A small percentage of a minority. Most people who chose to live in a suburban community want to live amongst other homes, not commercial buildings with traffic.

The plot is not too small; -- there is plenty of room for the new building and parking spaces. It is also on a corner, adjacent to a main road (not a quiet residential area as you profess),will be surrounded by trees, has a large circular driveway, and a proposed house of worship that will be essentially indistinguishable from the homes in the area. There will be little or no noise. You re making a mountain out of a mole hill. Save Millburn and its supporters are not saving Millburn but destroying it.

You can call it whatever you want, but it's not a private home.

You are forgetting that the traffic you are afraid of - AREADY EXISTS. The Chai Center is functioning for quite some time now at this location. There was extensive testimony presented, that the scale and scope of Chai Center activities will not be affected by the construction of the new building. It is the township officials who were adamant against letting Rabbi Bogomilsy operate out of the current home and forced him to apply for the construction of a formal house of worship.

Again, your traffic won’t be affected any more.

Sara,
I don't understand. If the Center has been functioning "for quite some time," and the scale and scope of the activities won't be affected, why do we need a new building?

Sara, You keep saying the traffic will not worsen. There is no way you can predict the future on that score. I think it is very likely that you are wrong.

You must be kidding. If the building is built, as it should be, you will hardly even notice it is there. And when you see a nice Short Hills or Millburn family using the facility, I hope you would share in their joy and happiness, not just because they are members of a wonderful congregation with an amazing rabbi, but because they live in such a caring and supportive community.

http://maplewood.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/other-rabbis-on-the-bogomilsky-case/

How many times must it be said? This is anti-Orthodox discrimination, not simply anti-Jewish discrimination. The other Jewish clergy in town are Reform or Conservative Jews. Perhaps they too are not in favor of an Orthodox synagogue in town. Just because some Jews (secular, Reform, Conservative, "self-haters", et al) are not willing to defend the Chai Center (because they want to discriminate against Orthodox Jews) does not make it okay, or "not discrimination."

Town residents have fought against Stop & Shop, the cell phone tower, and the expansion of Summit Medical group. I guess you believe they hate grocery store owners, cell phone companies, and doctors too.

Fact: the proposed sanctuary is not significantly larger then what they currently have.

If you think everyone here hates Orthodox Jews, why do you want to live here? There are plenty of towns with large, thriving Orthodox populations. Or do you enjoy playing the victim?

Everybody is forgetting that there are two things going on here. The first is a lawsuit filed by Millburn Township that asks the State court to stop a small of people from worshipping in a house. Yes, they have a website and a mailing list. Yes, they have classes for their children and adults. But, they are still a very small group, not more than 30 people weekly, and they produce no traffic at all, no parking issues at all, no noise issues at all, in fact no impact at all *on a regular basis*, with the small exception of 3 days a year, 3 hours each of those days. This group has no other place to go to to worship in the way that they feel comfortable. The group on White Oak Ridge is in the same pickle. They do not have permission from the town or the boards to do what they are doing. They have remodeled the inside of their building without permits. They have a website. They have a membership directory. No wonder they are afraid to come out in public in support of the Chai Center. It would be the pot supporting the kettle. Reasonable people should be willing to allow neighbors the benefit of the doubt. Everybody deserves to worship. If there is a specific complaint, it should be expressed, with a view to solving the complaint, not shutting down the group. This issue has nothing to do with the zoning board, and everything to do with petty Township officials reacting to petty citizen's complaints.

You have some nerve twisting my words like that. I am done discussing this with you.

Cham- You've dropped that ridiculous line before. Give it a rest. Nobody here has ever asserted that Orthodox Jews should "stay in their towns". You need to stay on point and focus on the issue. Otherwise you do yourself and your cause a disservice. Here, I'll put the issue forth for you...AGAIN to help you refocus your efforts.
A house of worship encroaching upon a quiet suburban neighborhood. Zoning variances need to be scutinized much closer in this scenario than with an ordinary residence as the impact of a house of worship is greater on the neighborhood when you consider pedestrian and auto traffic and potential noise from celebrations, etc.

this is the correct link:
http://www.northjersey.com/news/opinions/138544234_Letter__Chai_Center_benefits_the_Millburn_community.html

To follow up on the sentiments expressed in that letter: it seems that the Chai Center is filling a spiritual need in the community. So, my question to those against the Chai Center's current location: where would you have it located (if not on Jefferson Avenue) so it can continue to serve its function? Clearly it has a right "to exist", Rabbi Bogomilsky has a congregation and serves a role, so...where would you prefer for his congregation to be located? (serious question)

If I was in the congregation and lived across the street I'd probably write the same letter.
If I was Mr. Gamboni and lived next door to a 1.8 acre lot where they proposed building a house of worship that is required to be on a 3 acre lot I'd probably take a vastly different position.

Blanket Jackson,

It’s amusing that to this very moment, there was no factual explanation given as to why 3 acres are required for a house of worship and 1.8 is not sufficient. (also, why is 2 acres sufficient for a school and not a synagogue?)

If I understand the history correctly, the Town did try to shut them down and when that failed the parties settled and agreed that the Rabbi would submit a zoning application to transform the house in to a formal house of worship. So it would seem that retaining the status quo is not an option. Again if I have the history correct.

Colin,
Actually, the Rabbi’s group was functioning just fine. They were sued by town to shut down!
This whole thing is not about what size building should be aloud to be built on the property. The Rabbi asked the board and the opposing party’s to come up with a building size that would be acceptable to them (and the opponents would therefore remove their opposition.) To this very day, no figure was put forth…..
The (small but vocal) save Millburn crowd don’t want a smaller building to be built. They don’t want a synagogue to be built (even though most of them don’t live in the neighborhood and would not be affected by the synagogue at all).

Dear Blanket Jackson,

During these hearing it was clearly demonstrated that there is no clear rational for the number “3 acres”.

By the way, if you want to build a school (which may generate far more daily/regular traffic) requires only 2 acres. (does this mean that the ordinance discriminates against religion by requiring 3 acres for a house of worship – without any rational as to why a synagogue would require a larger plot then a school).

What would make you think that the membership is "clearly willing to relocate around the synagogue"? What kind of superhuman/congregants can "relocate" at any given time around their synagogue? What was written is that prospective homebuyers considering a move to Short Hills, if they are Orthodox Jews, will generally choose to buy a home within walking distance of an Orthodox shul (aka the Chai Center). But those already living near the Chai Center and going there for services can't necessarily willy nilly up and sell their homes and move! We are in a terrible housing market. It's quite difficult these days to sell one's home and move to another.

CHP,

Are you suggesting that the only viable option for a long time resident of MSH who wants to pray in a traditional synagogue, is to move out of their lifelong hometown – because MSH will refuse - under all circumstances - to allow for a synagogue to be constructed?

It's easy to make that argument until you look deeper and understand that the existing houses of worship in town were built when the land were wide open and there weren't neighborhoods around them. Since they were built, homes have encroached upon the houses of worship's property. Here you have the opposite scenario. A house of worship encroaching upon a residential neighborhood. As towns grow over the years and land and space grow scarcer they create zoning and land use regulations in order to preserve the character and feel the town has developed over the years. This is not something that is particular to MSH, it happens everywhere.

You make a good point. Orthodox Jews are one of the few (if only) religions that *need* to be in a residential area, because of needing to walk to shul on Shabbat. But since they moved to Short Hills later than the Episcopals and the Catholics, they are the ones being told that they *can't* build a synagogue in a residential area.

PS Regarding the other houses of worship being (technically) in residential neighborhoods, I think it is a safe bet that nobody currently residing in those residential areas was living there prior to the houses of worship being built.

Hedley, quoting parts and responding to your post:
It's one thing to be discussing the zoning laws and what qualifies and doesn't qualify for a variance. If the criteria is "character and feel" that strikes me as being code for something sinister.
==> In my 20+ years in MSH, I haven’t met any of the sinister, bigoted, anti-Semitic, self-hating, anti-Orthodox people that you guys seem to find in the neighborhood. Blinkered vision I guess.

I can understand having bought a house only to find out your neighbor wants to build a house of worship next door.
==> Not next door, but very near by, so I guess I qualify. I would be driving past the subject building 6+ times a day.

Regardless, I think it is a safe bet that the far majority of the opposition doesn't even live near the subject property. So if they aren't neighbors who are the one who truly would be affected, why would anyone else care?
==> I don’t know if I’m in the majority of the opposition or the minority, but I live very near the subject property, so I do care, and who are you to attribute despicable motives to my caring?

Hedley, thank you for your sensible and sensitive comments. Is anyone complaining that Christ Church, smack in the middle of a residential neighborhood, is diminishing the "character and feel" of the town? I agree, that there is something sinister going on: in the situation of the Chai Center, "ruining the character and feel of the neighborhood" is code for "Now there are going to be Orthodox Jews in town."

PPS Maybe it is a small thing, but you did at least acknowledge that those living nearby would "truly be affected."

Seeing as how no other zoning application has cost this much time and money, not too mention such opposition, makes me wonder why this one is different. There are houses of worship all over town in residential areas, with parking lots, parks, etc., but no one complains. So again, why is this one different? Why do so many people having no ties to the particular area, have such opposition? It's all very curious.

Of course those living nearby would be affected - at least on occasion. But I don't know that that is a dispositive criteria for rejecting a zoning application - particularly in the case of a house of worship and the greater good.

MillerTime, You might well be right that he will prevail in Court eventually, but that's no reason not to voice our opposition. I expect that this will lower my property values as well, but perhaps I am mistaken.

You hit the nail on the head in every respect.

You're making a mountain out of a mole hill. The Chai Center building would be a beautiful addition. There is simply no evidence to suggest that property values would be adversely affected; The "prestigious" address had nothing to do with the choice of the site and everything to do with it being in walking distance to various members of the Center and what was available to purchase at the time. Your attributions of dishonesty have no merit.

No, I haven't extended him a welcoming hand, but by the same token, I don't recall him coming to my door with hand outstretched either.

"Running him out of town"???? Cham, you are going to keep escalating the nonsense until finally those of us interested in civil conversation are "run out of the thread." At that point, I guess you'll sit back and smugly claim that you told us. Please, discuss this rationally, and stop being dramatic about sinister forces running children out of town.

At least one person in this thread has suggested that the synagogue relocate out of town.

His congregation owns 3 properties in town and has been here for decades! How does that translate into being run out of town?

M Okeef

Don’t you already know the very reason for this Chai Center application was that Rabbi Bogomilsky was SUED. The township committee were/are trying to force this group out of town. They have been harassing them for years! (see this link http://bit.ly/zaNP2H fort the documents proving this).