Bernards Township planning board continues hearing on Islamic Society of Basking Ridge site plan amid parking, growth concerns

Bernards Township (Basking Ridge) — The Bernards Township Planning Board continued a public hearing on Sept. 4 on a preliminary and final site‑plan application from the Islamic Society of Basking Ridge (ISBR), focusing on the society’s projection of membership growth and neighborhood impacts including parking, traffic and fire‑code capacity. The board carried the application to Oct. 16, 2012, and requested technical testimony from engineers and acoustics and traffic specialists.

Attorney Vincent Bisano, representing the ISBR, called Dr. Ali Chadri to the stand to explain how the society arrived at its forecast that Friday‑service attendance could reach 150 people within roughly 10 years. “We have now approximately 65 members,” Dr. Chadri told the board, and said he used three data sources — World Bank population measures, Pew Research Center projections for U.S. Muslim population, and county‑level data from the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA) — to bracket plausible growth scenarios. Using those sources, he testified, projections ranged from roughly 70 (U.S. population rate) to 113 (Somerset County trend) and up to 140 under an 8% annual growth assumption; the applicant’s board chose 150 as a conservative planning target.

Why it matters: The projected increase matters for parking, traffic and safety on Church Street in Liberty Corner and for the planning board’s conditions should it grant site‑plan approval. Several residents said the parcel’s on‑site parking and nearby street capacity would not safely absorb a larger congregation arriving for Friday services.

Board members and residents pressed the witness and counsel on definitions and data. Board members sought clarification about ARDA’s ‘‘adherence’’ statistic versus total population or mosque attendance, and whether ISBR had considered adjoining counties (Union, Morris) and Professor Ishan Bagby’s mosque‑attendance study. Dr. Chadri acknowledged multiple measures and told the board his analysis was intentionally conservative and used a range of scenarios rather than a single source.

Parking, traffic and capacity: The hearing turned to operational details. The applicant said the proposed prayer hall is being designed for a 150‑person fire‑code capacity and that the project’s parking calculation applied the municipal ordinance ratio (roughly one parking space per three congregants), which produced an on‑site provision of about 50 spaces for the 150‑person scenario. Opponents and several board members questioned whether that on‑site count would be adequate during peak times, whether special events or holiday services would increase demand, and whether staggered Friday services, off‑site parking or outdoor services could safely mitigate oversubscription.

“I’m concerned that the parking plan as presented will not meet peak demand,” said Rob Simon, representing Bernard Township Citizens for Responsible Development, who asked the board to require an engineering analysis and clear off‑site parking commitments before any approval.

Neighborhood impacts: Neighbors raised secondary concerns including lighting and headlights spilling into adjacent homes, whether internal amplification or an exterior call to prayer could be audible off‑site (applicant said any amplification would be internal only), and the timing of services relative to school pick‑ups and a summertime camp. One resident asked whether opposition to the application reflected religious discrimination; Dr. Chadri replied that he did not believe the opposition was based on religion.

Technical testimony requested: The applicant told the board that it had submitted environmental and traffic studies and that engineers for site layout, parking, lighting and sound would be available to testify. The board repeatedly asked for that expert evidence to resolve disputed technical points including off‑site parking options, traffic flow during school pick‑up and camp periods, sound‑level modeling for interior amplification, and whether the site could be expanded or phased in later.

Next steps: With these factual gaps remaining, the planning board carried the ISBR preliminary and final site‑plan application to Oct. 16, 2012, at 7:30 p.m. in the same chamber; no final action was taken at the Sept. 4 meeting. Several routine consent items (approval of July 17, 2012 minutes and charges against escrow accounts) were approved earlier in the session.

What the transcript shows: The hearing record contains repeated numerical statements about current attendance (“approximately 65 members”), the applicant’s chosen planning target (150 in 10 years), county counts cited from ARDA (1,891 in 2000 rising to 3,274 in 2010 for Somerset County per transcript testimony), and the applicant’s use of a one‑space‑per‑three‑congregants parking ratio under the municipal ordinance. Where transcript figures were estimates or described as projections, the article makes that explicit.

The hearing is scheduled to continue Oct. 16, 2012; the board asked parties to supply engineering and acoustical evidence before that session.