Clifton planning board hears mosque expansion proposal, parking and drainage concerns dominate public comments

At a Clifton Planning Board hearing, the Islamic Center of Passaic County sought amended site‑plan approval for 257–259 Pershing Road (Block 47.02, Lot 37.01), proposing demolition of most of the existing 6,100‑square‑foot building and construction of a roughly 20,279‑square‑foot footprint (about 43,000 square feet total) two‑story mosque with expanded accessory spaces.

The application aims to expand on‑site parking from 88 existing stalls to about 230 to reduce on‑street overflow, and requests minor variances for some parking stall depth (proposed 9 by 18 feet vs. 9 by 19 feet required), narrower drive aisles in portions of the lot (proposed 20 feet vs. 24 feet required) and one parking/drive aisle encroaching into the front‑yard setback. Attorney Sean McGowan, representing the applicant, told the board, “Critically, the application before you tonight is not to allow the ICPC to make changes to the property so they can move their house of worship onto the property,” and said the changes are intended to address existing crowding and street parking issues rather than to expand the congregation.

Why it matters: neighbors said vehicles currently queue and park along Pershing Road and nearby streets at peak times, which they contend can block driveways and hinder emergency access. The board’s review will determine whether the parking and circulation plan, and requested variances, adequately protect neighborhood circulation, lighting and drainage.

Testimony and technical details

Soufian El Moussi, the applicant’s civil engineer with Ingliesi/IngIesi Architecture & Engineering, described site changes and stormwater work. He said the plan provides a circular internal route, multiple ingress/egress points, a bus drop‑off zone and 7 ADA spaces (including one van space), with room on the plan for 10 future EV stalls. “We were able to fit 230 parking stalls,” El Moussi told the board, and said the applicant is proposing some common variances to maximize on‑site parking.

El Moussi said designers sized the mosque’s prayer areas to fit about 837 prayer mats (men’s and women’s rooms combined), which under the town ordinance translates to a parking requirement of roughly 210 spaces (1 space per 4 seats). The applicant proposes 230 stalls, he said, to bring as many cars as possible back onto private property rather than onto neighborhood streets.

On stormwater, the engineer described three underground storage systems that together hold roughly 183,000 gallons at peak capacity (about 128,000 gallons in the Pershing‑adjacent system, 47,000 under the parking nearest Lawrence Court, and 8,000 under the proposed playground). He said those systems would reduce peak discharge from the site compared with current conditions and that the applicant will perform a CCTV video inspection of downstream public storm lines and provide any required DEP compliance letters.

Design, program and accessory uses

Architect Steven Considine said the project responds to the existing congregation’s layout and Islamic liturgical requirements (individual prayer mats rather than pews). The design calls for a two‑story prayer volume, a gym/multipurpose area set at a lower level, accessory spaces (offices, kitchens, multipurpose rooms), a playground on the southeast corner and a planted buffer along Pershing Road and Lawrence Court. Considine said materials would include a translucent panel wall for daylighting in the main prayer hall and a stucco‑like finish with traditional patterning on facades. He described a non‑habitable vegetated (green) roof above the gym intended for stormwater and insulation benefits and said rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened behind a parapet.

Board and staff reviews

McGowan told the board the applicant had received and reviewed positive comment letters from the board’s professional reviewers, including the board engineer, board planner, the Clifton Police Department and the Fire Department, and said the applicant will comply with conditions in those letters. The board’s planner and engineer (Nagley Engineering and the board planner were identified in staff correspondence) were repeatedly cited in testimony; members said remaining items — including landscaping species, lighting cut‑offs and a construction/staging plan — would be addressed through review and conditions.

Public comment and issues raised

Neighbors questioned the sufficiency of the public notice and whether variances should be heard by the Zoning Board; resident Mary Fran Simmons said the notice “is deficient” and asked that her objections be part of the record. The planning board attorney and staff responded that the planning board has jurisdiction over site plans and variances incidental to site plans and that conditional‑use criteria had been met to place the matter before this board.

Residents pressed a range of operational concerns: whether expanded accessory spaces (gym, running track, table‑tennis areas) would invite nonworship uses or tournaments; how many people currently park on nearby streets; whether the proposed parking will eliminate existing on‑street queueing that can impede emergency vehicles; how contractors would stage demolition and construction and for how long (engineer and architect estimated construction could take roughly 12–18 months); and whether outdoor speakers and tented prayer during peak nights would be eliminated. Board staff and the applicant’s counsel said testimony later in the case (traffic consultant, operations witness) would address occupancy, hours and traffic generation and that the plan’s purpose is to bring overflow indoors.

Lighting and noise

Residents asked for commitments on light spill and night‑time illumination levels; the applicant said it will work with the board engineer on fixtures, shielding and color temperature, and discussed motion sensors and timed/dimmed lighting for non‑peak hours. On noise, the architect described the proposed translucent panel wall as a multi‑layer system with limited sound transmission and the applicant representative said there will be no outdoor speakers during worship once the expanded interior space is available.

Outstanding items and board action

Board members and staff asked for additional details before final action: a written or numeric breakdown from the police department on tickets/observed on‑street parking counts, a traffic consultant’s analysis of peak events (Friday prayer and Ramadan peaks), a construction staging/critical‑path schedule, a specific landscape/green‑roof planting and irrigation plan, and confirmation of downstream sewer/storm capacity via video inspection. The board accepted the engineer and architect as expert witnesses.

No final approval was taken at the hearing. The board carried the matter to the June 26, 2025 Planning Board meeting and asked the applicant to return with the outstanding materials and the traffic consultant, planner and operations witnesses. The carry was announced on the record and will be the next opportunity for testimony and for any applicant conditions to be read into the record.

What’s next

The board indicated it expects to review additional documentation — traffic counts, police data, a construction staging schedule, refined lighting and landscaping plans, and DEP/municipal sewer capacity verification — at the continued hearing. Neighbors were told no further mailed notice would be issued and that the case will resume at the scheduled continued meeting.