The Alternative Press

Jeff Hopkins

Tuesday, December 21 2010

MILLBURN, NJ - As has been the case virtually all year, the proposed expansion of the Chai Center was the main issue of discussion during Monday’s meeting of the Millburn Zoning Board of Adjustment.  While the testimony was in no way as heated Monday night as it had been at previous meetings, it was certainly not lacking in terms of length or complexity.

Chairman Joseph Steinberg envisioned things going a bit more quickly when the meeting began.   “I know most of you plan to be up at 2 for the lunar eclipse,” he said early on, referencing last night’s almost quadricentennial happening.  “I’ll try to get you in bed at a reasonable hour.”  As things turned out though, only the Board’s rule against hearing testimony after 11 p.m. prevented everyone in attendance from having to pull an all-nighter.

Most of the testimony Monday came from Paul Gleitz, a licensed planner who serves as chief planner for several towns throughout the state, whom Larry Kron, attorney for the Chai Center, presented as an expert witness. Despite claiming in his opening comments that, “I’ll be brief,” Gleitz turned out to be anything but, as he launched into a heavily detailed analysis of why he believed the synagogue should be allowed to expand.

Gleitz began his argument by comparing the dimensions of the center after the addition with the present figures for nearby properties.  He specifically focused on Gross Floor Areas (GFAs) of the various properties.  Gleitz claimed that according to figures obtained from tax records, the plot where the expanded center would stand has a GFA of 9.7%.  He then went on to say that the proposed addition would only raise the GFA to around 12%.  Considering the average GFA for all properties within a quarter mile of the facility is 12.8%, he concluded that the addition would not make the synagogue an egregiously large structure.

Rather than focusing on what Gleitz was arguing, much of the attention turned to how much he was saying, and how fast.  As he was reading off the various dimensions for properties around the Chai Center John Lamb, attorney for those opposing the project, interrupted, clearly exasperated.  “I really think we have to have this graphed out,” he said.  For his part, Board member Roger Manshel agreed.  “It’s just meaningless to write this out now,” he said, in reference to the various figures and calculations Gleitz was dispensing so quickly.

Gleitz’s level of thoroughness and speed would continue to be an issue throughout the proceedings.  After comparing the GFAs for properties, Gleitz began analyzing the various town ordinances that governed the Chai Center’s request for a variance.  Gleitz’s position was that in order for the center to comply with law, all it had to show was that it would have an “inherently beneficial value,” without having a detrimental value on nearby properties.  While this may sound simple, Gleitz sped through much of the legal grounding for his position, causing Steinberg to try to rein him in.  “The speed with which you’re moving through this material is too much for me,” Steinberg said, “and I teach this stuff at law school.”

After promising to slow down, Gleitz began to argue against the suggestion made by critics of the plan that the Chai Center should look to build on another property.   Gleitz claimed that because Millburn is such a heavily developed town that finding an empty 3 acre property, which would meet zoning laws regarding a house of worship, was not a truly feasible option.  Manshel and fellow Board member Kevin Suszko disagreed with this assessment however, mentioning the former Short Hills Catering property, which they said would be the necessary size.  Manshel was especially vocal, questioning why Gleitz had not analyzed the property.

Gleitz didn’t have a definite answer but continued undaunted, looking at other houses of worship in town that operate on less than 3 acres. Gleitz concluded that none of these structures had a detrimental impact on their neighborhoods.  He did not get to finish his analysis though, as Steinberg interrupted because there was only about a half-hour left in the meeting. “What the Board really wants to hear is that your client has an overflow parking plan.”

Gleitz said they did.  He said the Chai Center could provide 17 spots on its lawn towards the north side, and then would be able to provide overflow parking at the Millburn Middle School if necessary.  However, Gleitz also said that it might be possible that such a situation never occurs.  For his part, Lamb contended that the overflow-parking plan was not part of the Chai Canter’s original application, and thus would merit an amendment.

The only other person to testify at the meeting was lighting engineer Laurance Appel, who gave the board a follow up lighting report on the site.  The next hearing on the issue will be held on February 7^th.