Update: Zoning Board Denies Chai Center Variances
Rabbi and board plan to weigh their options and figure out what to do next.
After two years of hearings and almost 5½ hours of public input Monday night, the Zoning Board of Adjustment denied the variances sought by the Chai Center, which would have allowed a 16,350-square-foot synagogue in Short Hills.
Rabbi Mendel Bogomilsky said he and his attorneys would review their options, which range from looking for another lot to appealing the decision and continue fighting for the space they have now.
“If this case goes to the Supreme Court, and it might, and it takes 10 years, the town won’t interfere with what we do now because they signed an agreement not to,” he said. “I don’t know what we’ll do, we’re keeping our options open, but we will continue operating as we are now.”
That means, they will continue to hold prayer services, Hebrew school classes and High Holy Day services in the Dutch Colonial he calls home on Jefferson Avenue.
More than 200 people attended the meeting at Millburn High School, where at least 44 presented views on either side of the issue – those who want the synagogue built as a welcome addition to the community and those who object to the size of the building and to the fact that the lot 40 percent less of the required three acres for a house of worship. Others were mostly worried about traffic, which is already an issue on Old Short Hills Road, where the center would have been built.
One of the positive things to come out of last night’s hearing, said Chai Center spokesman David Schraeder was the fact that residents repeatedly said they welcomed the Orthodox synagogue in the town, just not on that lot.
“That’s a big change,” he said. “I think it can be a step toward healing the community after this long process. Perhaps there’s a bigger lot we can find. Perhaps there are other options. We’ll see where we go from here.”
While many supporters of the Chai Center saw the fight over the variances as a battle for religious freedom, zoning board members said it was a zoning case and nothing more.
“It’s the most complicated case I’ve ever been involved in,” said Zoning Board of Adjustment President Joseph Steinberg. “It has taken 22 months to get here. And it is not a question of whether it is a good thing or bad thing to allow a religious institution. The law already states that a religious institution is inherently beneficial. And we agree with that.”
The issues, he said, come down to three variances – two front yard set backs as a corner lot and a minimum three-acre condition use variance.
The opposition to the center also argued that the center was also seeking an additional six variances that ranged from parking to land use.
It was the first time in 16 meetings on the subject that residents got a chance to give their views, and not only did the vocal opposition speak impassionedly about the proposed synagogue being too large for the neighborhood, residents who attend the center made emotional appeals of the need for an Orthodox synagogue in town.
“Many Jews in our town have to come to the center to celebrate High Holy Days or for prayer services,” said resident and chabad member Robin Halpern. “They are appalled by the opposition and what has been going on.”
That said, at Monday’s meeting there was little of the animosity that had erupted at the last meeting.
In fact, many of those in opposition said they hoped the Chai Center could find a more suitable lot in town and said they welcomed Rabbi Bogomilsky as a neighbor.
A lot had been said leading up to the meeting by members of the Chai Center that they felt discriminated against because they choose to practice very traditional Judaism.
Many neighbors opposing the center are Jewish and said that is offensive.
“As a Jew, I am deeply ashamed that people are raising anti-Semitism as an issue,” said Short Hills resident Jeffrey Beckerman. “It’s not a religious issue…. Respect the master plan; respect the residents of Millburn. By granting such a large exception to the rule, the exception becomes the rule.”
That line was repeated by board members later when discussing how large a variance the Chai Center needed to fit a 16,000-sqare-foot building on the 1.8 acre lot.
The Concerned Neighborhood Association of Millburn Township, also known as Save Millburn, was represented by a lawyer in the proceedings, so its board members were unable to speak. But the group’s communications director, Mike Becker spoke about their concerns about traffic, noise and a safety, as well as the structure being too big and sitting too close to the streets, which is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
Residents are also worried that if the Chai Center got its variances, the congregation would grow, despite the rabbi’s suggestions that it will remain small because Hasidism and Orthodoxy are not for everyone. In addition because the center’s other property on Millburn Avenue has a lien against it, residents said they fear a gift shop and a pre-school would eventually move into the building.
Roger Manshel recused himself from the vote and left at the beginning of the meeting, saying he had made the decision after the last meeting, where he was accused of being biased.
“I’ve asked difficult questions during these hearings…some have questioned my motives,” he said. “And while I feel I’m able to make fair and impartial decisions in this case, I am recusing myself.”
anonomous
6:49 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
What a loss for the community!
ChrisJ
9:56 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Really Mr. Anonymous
George Walsh
7:37 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
I take it that Millburn has been consistent in enforcing its 3 acre requirement. To permit a HOW on less than 1/2 of the requirement would be an extreme exception.
RJ
8:40 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
It has not been consistent and the limit is way too high to begin with.
20yearmiller
8:50 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
I can't argue about law and fact, I'm not a lawyer. I am, however, a 20 year resident that has driven the area hundreds if not thousands of times and common sense is screaming, on many levels, that the proposed location is not a good place for a HOW. I embrace any new HOW in the township, just need to find an appropriate location.
Sara
1:26 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Your statement sounds very nice and thoughtful. Bu the simple FACT is, that today, under the current rules, it is almost impossible to construct a HOW anywhere in town. Unless you can spend a huge sum of $$$$ on buying multiple lots and combining them.
It’s a shame that the township officials have made MSH inhospitable and unwelcoming to anyone other than the current establishment.
Cathy F
9:36 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Bravo, Zoning Board. You did the right thing.
J S Beckerman
9:40 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
anonomous (sic) Loss for the community? The community spoke and the denial of the variance was a victory for common sense.
RJ: The board is obligated to honor the Master Plan. If you think a 3-acre minimum is "too high," it needs to be changed by a legislative body. The zoning board cannot change the existing law.
ChrisJ
9:55 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
So happy that our neighborhood remains as a neighborhood! It would have not added any value to our community since most of its members lived out of town!
Pat Blagden
10:44 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
I fell in love with Jefferson Avenue over 25 years ago when we moved here. Take a walk. Take a drive. There is a sense of timeless beauty and elegance that has evolved over the years. It shouldn't be to spoiled.
Hedley
10:55 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Congratulations to Millburn-Short Hills. You finally got him. Pending appeal, of course.
J S Beckerman
11:21 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Hedley....no one "got him." It was not a personal issue...it was a land use issue.
Hedley
11:27 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Of course it was personal if you follow the history of his plight with the town - prior even to the present site. Calling it a "land use issue" is a pretense. If the documents I read are correct, and I haven't seen any that contradict his version of the facts, he has been thwarted by the town every step of the way. Now we will finally see if the courts agree. More time and more money.
Sara
1:33 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Of course, the politically correct thing to say is exactly what you said. But the sad truth is that the MSH officials have a very long documented history of treating this small orthodox group very harshly.
It’s uncomfortable to live with, but it’s the absolute truth.
Georgeann duChossois
11:27 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
A loss for the community? Really? The only loss I see is the additional traffic, noise and congestion that would have made things even more difficult on an already too busy road. I live on Old Short Hills Road near the middle school. Sometimes, I literally cannot get out of my driveway for minutes at a time - no only is there no break in the flow of traffic but cars stack up in front of my house and I can't pull out. (Sometimes, I cannot even get to my driveway when heading south on Old Short Hills due to congestion.) Correspondingly, as volume has increased, traffic noise has increased dramatically as well. It is now difficult to be outside our house and have a conversation or enjoy our backyard - not just during peak times but most of the day. Ask the police department how frequently accidents occur in the Hobart -Middle School -Brookside area. Then the Chai Center wants to add to that! This isn't a religious issue. This is a quality of life issue. To put it simplistically, my house was here first. We knew what the local ordinances were when we purchased it. (As did the Chai Center know the ordinances when they purchased.) Of course, the road became busier over time. But we counted on the town ordinances and the zoning to preserve us from additional encroachment beyond that. I am relieved that the zoning board was willing to stand up for local homeowners like us.
Leslie
10:35 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
How would the existence of a 3-acre lot address this concern? There would still be the same increase in traffic if the lot were larger. I understand your worry, but it is not consistent with the zoning reg that is being enforced, which only governs the size of the lot and not the number of cars that enter and leave.
J S Beckerman
11:36 am on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Maybe he was "thwarted" as his request for a variance was contrary to the master plan and community standards?
Maybe he took a calculated risk when he bought the property that the zoning application would be rejected...and lost?
Maybe he should look elsewhere in town on a size-appropriate lot where he would be welcomed?
Laura Griffin
12:05 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Story updated.
Hedley
12:18 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Maybe there isn't a single conforming house of worship in MSH.
Maybe half of the houses of worship in MSH are on lots of less than 3 acres.
Maybe variances have been granted to other houses of worship for less than 3 acre lots.
Maybe the Rabbi has been seeking a suitable site in MSH since 1994 and maybe MSH has prevented each and every instance, some of those denials being religious-based, rather than land use-based.
Maybe he has been opposed by MSH and various individuals regardless of where in town he looked and regardless of the size of the property.
Maybe other houses of worship, on less than 3 acres, received virtually un-opposed variances. Where was Save Millburn then? Where was Save Millburn when Greenwood Gardens and its nearly 100 parking spots was grated variances?
If this was just about Jefferson Ave., then maybe it's not personal. But when you look at the undisputed (at least none that I have seen) history of his efforts to establish a house of worship, it can't be anything but personal.
Georgeann duChossois
1:18 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Hedley,
It is interesting that in your summary above you totally ignored my concerns and those of the surrounding neighbors about traffic, noise and increased congestion? These are legitimate reasons for a variance denial. It IS NOT personal It is a fight for the quality of life in my home and my neighborhood.
As for your assertion, that "Maybe the Rabbi has been seeking a suitable site ....", who decides 'suitable'? Suitable for the new owner who knew the zoning coming in and bet that they could force a change or for the established neighbors who have been there for decades and are trying to preserve their quality of life and their investment in their homes?
Sara
1:32 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Actually, had you been paying attention last night, you might have heard chairman Steinberg explain that the board is NOT allowed to take the issues you raise into consideration.
Hedley
1:38 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
I did ignore your concerns as the dubious traffic impact on a few is not a valid reason for denying a variance.
The established neighbors who bought homes within walking distance of a middle school? Those established neighbors? Did those established neighbors organize and complain when variances were given to Greenwood Gardens and its 100 parking spots?
Again, if you look at the history of the Rabbi's efforts to establish a house of worship in MSH (dating to at least 1994), you cannot conclude anything other than the fight against him is personal.
J S Beckerman
1:49 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
If the vote was closer, you could argue inherent bias, but it was one vote shy of unanimous and the public sentiment was clearly against the variance.
Hedley
1:51 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Looking at the overall history of MSH's efforts against him for nearly 20 years, I see a pattern of bias against him. And why is "public sentiment" so vocal against him, but never against anyone else or any other variance application? Does Save Millburn disband now? Their job is done, right?
Noreen Brunini
5:10 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
No evidence of opposition to other variance requests? Have you ever tried to get a new fence approved or watched an appeal for a fence variance? Especially on a corner lot? Opposition comes on even the smallest matters. And what about organized opposition to among others: Stop & Shop, to the Petsmart kennel development, to the cell tower near Kings, the expansion of Summit Medical Group ? Just to name a few.
Hedley
5:20 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
How many alleged neighbors (from across town) band together to fight fence applications? Do they form groups with catchy names and create websites all focused on one sole application? When was the last large scale opposition for a residential application?
WRR
5:44 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Difference between residential and HOW. HOW has it's own unique laws. Comparing apples to oranges.
Hedley
6:12 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Zoned residential.
WRR
8:25 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
To become an official HOW - hence the 3 acre requirement. Apples to oranges.
Sara
1:55 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Well yes, township officials and some of the “public sentiment” have always been against this small congregation. The record is sad and crystal clear. They will not allow this group to be established anywhere in town, under any circumstances.
See:
www.shorthillsshul.org/2.html
www.shorthillsshul.org/6.html
J S Beckerman
1:56 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Hedley: You are futilely grasping at straws. Greenwood Gardens is a 3/4 mile away from 1 Jefferson, sits on 28 acres, is 100% gated and fenced and predominantly borders the reservation and OSHP.
Since this argument has gone on too long, feel free to reply...but I am done.
Hedley
2:07 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
100 parking spots is a far more potential traffic impact on Old Short Hills Road than the Chai Center. Where was Save Millburn then?
Hedley
2:06 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Also, curious is how many of the people who were so vocally opposed to the Chai Center, actually live near it. My guess is not very many.
J S Beckerman
4:38 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
What concerned me was Jos. Steinberg's comment that one a HOW is legally established, it has the right to bypass the normal variance process when it wants to make reasonable changes.
Once the floodgates are opened, stopping 1 Jefferson from becoming an aural and visual eyesore [and traffic nuisance] will be impossible.
Noreen Brunini
8:06 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Maybe I don't understand full import of decision- does this mean the informal house of "in home" worship can no longer exist if no changes are made to the existing property since it has not yet been "legally established". Is that what this whole thing was truly about?
Yenta
5:18 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Does anyone know if the township collects real estate taxes on the two properties?
CHP
8:21 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Only 1 jefferson is owned by the rabbi. The property next door is owned by a member of the chai center. To answer your question, taxes are being paid on all the properties right now.
MarkHJay
10:30 pm on Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Bogomilsky - like Chabad as a whole - has played "mock the zoning law" for years. He deserved to lose, and he has.
The really interesting question is whether in fact Bogomilsky is indeed permitted to continue using the existing structure as a house of worship. The settlement between Bogomilsky and the town obliged the town to refrain from enforcement action while Bogomilsky's application was pending. The application is not pending anymore. I have no doubt that Bogomilsky will institute litigation, but I do not believe that the settlement agreement will prevent Millburn from taking action to shut this synagogue down.
Cham
9:45 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Obviously Orthodox Jews in MSH (including Rabbi Bogomilsky) have a right to pray. I am wondering if the opponents to the Jefferson Street Chai Center have a suggestion: where might Rabbi Bogomilsky legally establish his congregation in town?
Noreen Brunini
10:20 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
My understanding had been that this group would retain its right to use this site as a center of "in Home worship" . But the quote above got me to wondering what is the line that crosses one from a center of "in home worship" to a legally established HOW?
Hedley
2:34 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
They don't want him anywhere in the town. They want him out. Some have even said so on these discussion boards.
MillerTime
10:40 am on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Well done board not allowing this variance that wasn't even close to the required amount of land. To Cham : I don't know of enough land anywhere in MSH for that size structure. I suppose he has to wait for enough land on some side by side estates to go on the market,knock them down and build. My sympathies to those neighbors whose homes will lose so much value.
J S Beckerman
1:46 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Per land use law, yes. Once a HOW is established, they are allowed to bypass the variance hurdle for many on-site uses.
WRR
2:26 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
@ Susan1 and JSB: I believe they would have to get different variances for HOW, yeshiva and for-profit enterprise for tax purposes. Interesting: http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2011/a1390-09-opn.html
WRR
2:59 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
To add: HOW are property tax exempt. I don't know about tuition at the Yeshiva. Any portion of the HOW that sell any goods or services are not exempt from income taxes. Variance for the different land use, I believe, is required. Also, traffic and "feel" of the neighborhood is not a viable reason to deny variance approval. It all comes down to land use and whether it's in accordance with the law.
CHP
3:38 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
As I have said several times, what is wrong with the facility that used to be occupied by the Short Hills caterers? There are plenty on homes close by for the walk to pray people. Though from the chai supporters who spoke in front of the board, it seems very few people walk and most drive. Other than one or two people, most lived several miles away. Not to mention Livingston and South Orange.
Hedley
4:25 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
"Other than one or two people, most lived several miles away."
That's fair considering that many who claim to be affected by the dubious traffic claims don't live near the proposed Jefferson Ave, location.
CHP
10:47 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
It is zoned commercial so the use should work. Plus it was a catering hall that held events for 200 plus people so traffic is not an issue.
CHP
11:03 pm on Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Hedley,
You clearly were not at the meeting on Monday. There were no less than 10 speakers that opposed the site that lived on Park Circle, Park Rd, Jefferson Ave, Madison Terr, Nottingham, and Adams.
For thr proponents, I counted only one family that lived on Park Rd. Others lived on Oval Rd, Watchung Rd, Millburn Ave, White Oak Ridge Rd, Livingston and South Orange. Mr. Gross the donator of the 7 Jefferson, lives on Highland. The one chai center board member, who had a hard time comprehending the rules, lives in Maplewood. Does anyone live near this thing? Or are they all tri-athletes?
Hedley
12:37 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Wow, 10 people. How many of the "supporters" of Save Millburn live close by? It's easy to check. How many who post here live nearby?
All in all, not many.
CHP
1:16 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Is that the best you can do? It's you who contends that this is so vital to our community to have this religious center located where it is yet it's followers live no where near it. I guess they don't want it in their back yard either. Which only goes to show that the 47 car parking lot is a joke at best.
Hedley
1:41 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I never said it was vital to the community, just that the Rabbi is clearly not getting, and has not gotten for nearly 20 years, a fair shake, and his application never stood a chance. I have only expressed continuing curiosity as to what makes this application for a zoning variance so different from all other that it draws out such vitriol and extreme opposition - much of which coming from people who don't stand to be affected.
M OKeef
7:06 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Anyone who lives in town stands to be affected for two reasons: 1) that area is on a key crossroad in town and so many pass through that area frequently in the course of their normal day so traffic/safety issues affect even residents who don't live within 1/4 mile and 2) a similar situation could happen in any other established neighborhood with larger properties in town if a precedent were set. Can't say I'd like to find out my neighbor sold their house and surreptitiously it was going to be turned into an oversized cultural center and disrupt my neighborhood on a regular basis. Also hurts neighboring property values; who would welcome that?
Leslie
10:46 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
But the traffic issue has nothing to do with the lot size. If the lot were larger, you would have all the same problems and would have no basis to stop the HOW from opening.
Cham
7:46 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Hedley, you *know* what makes this application so different from all the others.
Also, I wonder why the Chai Center moved from its original location years ago across from Millburn High School on Millburn Avenue? Or were they kicked out of that location as well?
CHP
10:14 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Cham, maybe you should play the Jewish card. Oh wait, that is all you do. You have not put forth one substantive comment regarding zoning. If you were to go to any legitimate planner and ask them to design a proper HOW with 16000 usable square feet, a play ground for children, a real parking lot with drop off zones and room that allows for reasonable expansion, necessary green space to make it look attractive, I guarantee he would say you need at least three acres if not more. Not to mention, why would the rabbi want to have a facility that has a infrastructure that is inferior and undersized from day one? The cost if that property in insignificant if it does not meet the requirements of the facility. Hence the 3 acre minimum.
Hedley
10:44 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Even if the property was 3 acres, the opposition would be the same. The 3-acre requirement is simply a pretense.
And yes, I "know" what makes this application different. All it takes is a few idiots to shout references to Hitler to prove that.
CHP
11:28 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
If the center had three acres there would be a new HOW standing there right now not a big legal bill. People could protest it all they want it but it would have been built either way. Traffic conflicts could have been worked out. Like no left turn out of the lot and no left turn into the lot for example. If the lot was of proper size the parking would not impact public streets or have the redneck parking on the front lawn. It amazing how a 3 acre site cures all these issues. Maybe our forefathers were correct in their desgin of the master plan.
Cham
7:55 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
I would like to know what lot in MSH has 3 acres? From what I understand, the Chai Center moved from their previous Millburn Avenue location because they were under the impression that the Jefferson Avenue properties would better meet the zoning requirements, right?
Zoinks
8:11 am on Friday, February 17, 2012
The arguments for the appeal are coalescing.
Cham
3:07 pm on Sunday, February 19, 2012
CHP, how disgusting that you talk about "the Jewish card" so cavalierly. As if anti-Semitism is something to casually joke about.