Franklin Township Zoning Board Hears Amended Plan for 19,350‑Sq‑Ft Place of Worship; Neighbors Raise Stormwater, Parking and Occupancy Concerns

The Franklin Township Zoning Board on Tuesday heard detailed testimony from the applicants behind a proposed 19,350‑square‑foot house of worship at 630 South Middlebush Road and set the hearing to continue on April 16.

Attorney Brian Schwarz told the board the application seeks final site‑plan approval and two narrow pieces of relief from prior conditions: a change to the hours and days of operation and adjustment of parking relief tied to the building’s revised footprint. "We're not reinventing the wheel," Schwarz said, describing efforts to conform to an earlier resolution while updating the design and operational commitments the applicant has placed in the record.

Why it matters: the proposal affects a roughly 16‑acre agricultural parcel abutting the Snyder family farm; neighbors pressed technical concerns about stormwater runoff and groundwater recharge, asked how septic capacity limits occupancy, and challenged how the township would enforce the applicant’s stated limits on regular attendance versus the building’s physical capacity.

What the applicants presented: civil engineer Mitchell Ardman walked the board through an aerial, the site plan and a list of prior conditions the plans are intended to meet. Ardman described a primary parking area adjacent to the building, a secondary lot and a banked set of 30 spaces retained from the previous approval. He told the board the design preserves on‑site wetlands, shifts the driveway away from a neighbor, adds evergreen buffers and limits driveway and parking‑lot lighting to three pole fixtures at 15 feet maximum, on timers.

Ardman also summarized a Delaware and Raritan Canal Commission (DRCC) review letter received that day; he quoted the agency as finding the project technically compliant with stormwater quantity, water‑quality and groundwater‑recharge standards in the commission’s guidance and NJAC cited in that report, while noting the DRCC’s final signoff typically follows the board’s approval.

Architect Yogesh Mitstry testified the building’s first‑floor footprint is 19,350 sq ft with a small 2,890 sq ft basement for storage. The combined worship area shown on plans is 7,981 sq ft; the architect’s capacity boxes on the plan produce a notional interior capacity of 458 people (288 men, 170 women), though the applicant has repeatedly represented smaller regular attendance numbers. "We show what can fit here," Mitstry said of the interior layout, adding that the design was reduced from an earlier approval and that classrooms on the plan are intended for religious education, not a separate school use.

Main points of dispute: objector counsel Martina Bailey — representing adjoining Snyder farm owners — and several residents pressed the applicant on three linked concerns: - Stormwater and regulatory basis: Bailey argued parts of the application rely on earlier township stormwater standards and pressed whether the project complies with more recent inland‑flood or DEP‑based updates. Ardman replied the DRCC had reviewed the stormwater materials and, in staff comments quoted at the hearing, deemed the submitted analyses compliant with applicable technical standards, while acknowledging some technical disputes in the objector’s engineer letter would require additional spreadsheet review. - Runoff path and the infiltration basin: neighbors asked where driveway and basin overflow would flow during major storms and whether runoff would move onto the Snyder farm. Ardman said stormwater routing follows existing drainage patterns toward the same low point that historically drained to the Snyder property, but that the basin and added nonstructural native‑planting measures address quantity and quality requirements called for by the DRCC review. - Occupancy, septic and parking: evidence in the record includes a septic design under 2,000 gallons (Ardman said), which constrains daily capacity; the applicant has told staff and the TRC that typical attendance would be roughly 70–80 at special times and up to 150 for larger events, while documentation and the architect’s layout show a larger physical capacity and zoning formulas produced a much higher required parking number. Board members and residents repeatedly asked how the township would reliably enforce a lower operational cap if the building could physically accommodate far more people.

Board procedure and next steps: the board did not vote on the application. After hearing the applicant’s civil and architectural testimony and receiving public questions, the board carried the application to April 16 and accepted an extension of time from the applicant to allow completion of testimony (traffic engineer Betsy Dolan is scheduled to appear next). The board asked the applicant to make the organizational representative available at the next session to answer operational questions about hours, how multiple daily services will be managed, and enforcement provisions for attendance limits.

What remains to be clarified: the board requested clear operational limits in a written statement the applicant previously submitted (referenced as exhibit A1), explicit documentation tying septic capacity to maximum occupancy, the final DRCC signoff language once the board acts, and a clearer parking‑build/banked‑parking plan tied to the applicant’s committed attendance figures.

The hearing record remains open for additional testimony and the public may submit materials to the zoning office ahead of the next session on April 16.