The South Middlebush Road Application: Parking, Traffic and Stormwater Before the Zoning Board

What the application asks for

The Zoning Board of Adjustment agenda describes the application, ZBA-24-00017, as an “Amended Preliminary and Final Site Plan plus Relief of Condition in which the applicant is proposing construction of a 19,350sqft place of worship at 630 South Middlebush Road, Somerset; Block 37.02 Lot 46.03 in zone A.” Zone A is the Agricultural zone.

The site already has an approval. As the minutes record it, the applicant’s attorney, Mr. Schwartz, told the Board that the organization from which the applicant bought the property had obtained preliminary site plan approval, through hearings in 2019–2021, “with a very comprehensive Resolution that included a lot of conditions.” The applicant now asks for final site plan approval and for relief from two of those conditions:

Hours and days of operation. The earlier resolution set specific hours and days; the applicant proposes its own schedule, set out in a “Statement of Proposed Use of Property” (Exhibit A-1), and said it expects to be bound by it.
Parking. The new building is smaller in footprint and floor area than the approved one, but its worship area is larger, which raises the parking the ordinance requires. The applicant asks to modify the parking variance granted before.

The Planning Director, Mr. Healey, later identified one more modification: a third light along the driveway, where the earlier resolution allowed two.

How the Board is handling it

The legal frame, as stated on the record. At the first hearing a resident asked why the Board was amending the earlier approval rather than hearing a new application. The minutes record that Board member Procanik explained that the Board “still had the right to deny the amendments, but the original applications would still hold true,” and that the Board Attorney, Mr. Hak, said “it was an application to seek relief from the conditions that were already placed by way of the previous approval, so there was no need to reopen it from scratch.”
The planner’s task. The applicant’s planner, Kevin O’Brien, is to address “the negative criteria for the two (2) parking variances,” as Mr. Schwartz described his testimony in November 2025. He had not testified in the posted minutes.
Order of the hearing. On February 19, 2026 Mr. Hak said the applicant would present its witnesses first, members of the public could question each witness after his or her testimony, and the objectors would present their own case after the applicant finished. The Chairman said public questioning “was not a time to tell the Board that they did not want something or did not like this,” but to help the Board “fact find.”
Intensity of use. On April 16, 2026, as the minutes record it, Chairman Thomas said the earlier facility was proposed to be used five days a month, while the current proposal is daily use five times a day, “a big difference in intensity of use.” He said he wanted “some independent objective verification” of the attendance figures. Mr. Schwartz answered that the applicant had committed to the numbers in writing and under oath, that “there was no basis for the Board to say that they believed other applicants, but they did not believe this applicant,” and that neighbors who see more cars than promised could complain to the Zoning Department.
Limits the Board said apply. Mr. Healey said the septic approval limits the site to 458 people over an entire day, and “the Board would not be able to approve any more than that”; that enlarging the worship area, even inside the same footprint, would raise the parking requirement and bring the applicant back to the Board; and that building occupancy and exits are set at the building-permit stage.

Attendance, as testified

The parking and traffic testimony rests on attendance figures given by the applicant:

November 20, 2025. Anjum Razi, a trustee of the applicant, testified to five daily services of about 30 minutes, typically attended by 25–30 people each and about 75 on Fridays. Larger events would need a special event permit and paid off-duty police officers. Asked whether the building was sized for future expansion, he said it was not; Mr. Schwartz said any expansion would need to come back to the Board.
April 16, 2026. The engineer restated the figures as typically 60 people per service, a larger group of 70–80 possible, and up to 150 on special days.

Board member Lakhia questioned how a figure of 150 per service on special days fit within the 458-a-day septic limit; Mr. Schwartz said those days would require a special event permit.

Parking

	Earlier approval	Proposal, April 16, 2026
Building	21,083 sq ft	19,350 sq ft, plus a 2,890 sq ft basement for storage and utilities
Worship area	about 1,000 sq ft smaller (testimony)	7,981 sq ft
Spaces built	127	92 plus 5 ADA spaces = 97
Spaces banked (designed, not built)	30	60
Total on the plan	157	157

The standard. Mr. Healey said the ordinance requires one space per three seats with fixed seating, or one space per 15 square feet of open worship area. For 7,981 square feet that is 532 spaces, a figure the objectors’ attorney and a resident put to the engineer and he agreed with. The objectors’ attorney, Martina Bailey, called the relief “an over 80% variance from the required parking,” as the minutes record it.

The applicant’s case. The site engineer, F. Mitchell Ardman, said that at one car for every three people 150 attendees need 50 spaces, and at one for every two, 75. Banking 30 more spaces, those closest to neighbors, leaves 97 built, “over the minimum of 75” he considered appropriate. Banked spaces stay unpaved, which reduces impervious cover and saves some trees.

Conditions discussed. Mr. Healey recommended reconfiguring the banked area so it would not leave “a big dead-end parking lot.” The Board’s engineer, Mr. Mazzei, suggested a full-face curb to keep cars off the grass; Mr. Ardman agreed. Mr. Healey said the Zoning Officer could require banked spaces to be built if parking proved short. Ms. Bailey asked for a condition that the applicant come back to the Board for approval before building them.

Traffic

The applicant’s traffic engineer, Douglas Polyniak of Dolan & Dean Consulting Engineers, testified on April 16, 2026 from a Traffic Impact Study dated August 11, 2025:

Counts. An automatic recorder on South Middlebush Road, a county road, Monday through Friday, October 7–11, 2024. The busiest hour was 5:00–6:00 p.m., with 1,550 vehicles in both directions (about 850 southbound and 700 northbound). He applied a 1% annual growth factor.
Trips. With 60 attendees he projected 20 cars in and 20 out at three people per car, and used 30 in and 30 out (two per car) as a conservative case. He said ITE and NJDOT treat 100 new hourly trips as the level that may call for off-site analysis.
Delay. At the 5:00 p.m. peak, cars leaving the site would operate at level of service “D,” about a 30-second delay per vehicle; cars entering at level “A.” With 50 cars at once, on a special day, the exit would fall to level “E”; for larger events the applicant committed to an off-duty officer directing traffic.
Turn lanes and signals. The Chairman asked about a left-turn lane out of the driveway, or barring left turns out. Mr. Polyniak said he preferred a single-lane exit at an unsignalized driveway and did not consider a left-turn lane into the site necessary. Signal warrants are for Somerset County to decide; he said the site would not reach them. The County’s review had not been received as of April 16; the Board had asked in November for a statement from the County on any intersection improvements.

Questions from the Board. Board member Lakhia said he drives South Middlebush Road daily and did not believe the delay figures matched conditions there, saying a turn out takes one to three minutes. Board member Dougherty asked about weekends; Mr. Polyniak said weekdays have the highest peak. Asked about other nearby uses, Mr. Healey noted another house of worship approved across the street; Mr. Polyniak said its larger crowds come after the evening rush hour, so he did not add them.

Questions from residents (as named in the minutes):

Joti Manini said the 2024 study was outdated and she waits about 10 minutes to enter the road.
Shampa Bacharaji asked for a model with one person per car and for the road’s capacity at each service time.
Davil Uri asked about school-bus traffic between 2:00 and 3:00 p.m.
Greg Foster asked about separate trips after services.
Jim Johnston asked whether traffic from the planned Catalpa Park was included.
Harvey Seray said traffic moves at 30–35 mph against the 45 mph limit.
Rajesh Simway asked whether the study would be updated.

At the first hearing, Shaak Mamawala said South Middlebush Road was already a high-traffic area, Mega Sangui asked how the number of daily trips would affect it, and Rajesh Sangui asked whether traffic would come from the local area; Mr. Razi said it would.

Stormwater, septic and site design

The objectors’ stormwater report. On February 19, 2026 the Board received a letter from Ms. Bailey with a stormwater report from her stormwater engineer, marked as exhibits 01 and 02, as the minutes record it. Mr. Ardman said he thought the report “missed several of the points” in the applicant’s stormwater report, which the Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission (DRCC) had reviewed.

The applicant’s case. Mr. Ardman said DRCC staff found the project compliant with the state’s stormwater quantity, quality and groundwater recharge standards, and that the Commission’s approval awaits the Board’s decision. Impervious coverage drops from 18.47% under the earlier approval to 18.08%. A detention basin sits in the southern corner; wetlands in the southeast corner are under a permanent conservation easement and will not be disturbed.

The objectors’ questions. Ms. Bailey asked whether the design relied on outdated stormwater rules (Mr. Ardman said it follows the DRCC’s current rules, including New Jersey’s 2023 inland flood rules), whether the new driveway would be paved (it always was to be), where runoff from it would go, and where water would go if the basin overflowed (in the same direction the land has always drained). Mr. Ardman agreed to flatten the berm to a 3-to-1 slope.

Septic. The septic system, which the Board of Health tentatively approved for the earlier application and must review again, limits the site to 458 people a day.

Site design, from the engineer’s and architect’s testimony:

The new driveway is at the north end of the frontage, shifted just over 310 feet against the 300-foot minimum in the earlier resolution; the old driveway may not be used for construction.
The building is 134.9 feet from the rear line (130 required) and 110 feet from two neighboring homes (100 required), with evergreen buffers, a planted berm and a deer fence requested by the farm owners.
Height is 32 feet 9 inches to the main roof line; two spires reach 49 feet from average grade. Colors are earth tones, which Mr. Healey said the Scenic Corridor rules require.
Parking-lot lights are 15 feet high, on timers. The front sign is 67.5 square feet against 25 allowed; the architect said the earlier approval allowed it.
On April 16 Alex Strauss asked about the 88 trees proposed for removal; the discussion covered bonding for 238 replacement trees.
Two rooms at the rear labeled classrooms on the plans could be relabeled discussion rooms, the architect said; Mr. Healey said the worship area, not those rooms, sets the parking requirement.

The objectors

Martina Bailey, of Mueller & Bailey, represents Ray and John Snyder, who own and operate the Snyder Farm next to the site. At the first hearing she told the Board her clients had helped shape the earlier approval’s conditions and wanted them “preserved and respected to the extent possible,” and that the application “quite significantly intensified the use on the property.” Her letter of November 19, 2025 raised traffic chiefly, saying the traffic report did not account for two neighboring uses that also hold public events. She reserved the right to present witnesses. Her stormwater report followed in February 2026.

The hearings

Date	What the record shows
November 20, 2025	First hearing: the applicant’s representative; questions from the Board, the objectors and five residents. Carried to February 19, 2026
February 19, 2026	Site engineer and architect; objectors’ letter and stormwater report received. Carried to April 16
April 16, 2026	Revised banked-parking plan and floor layout; traffic engineer. Carried to July 2, 2026
September 24, 2026	On the agenda with a revised Technical Review Committee report (September 10, 2026) and a Somerset County Planning Board letter (September 8, 2026). Carried to October 1
October 1, 2026	Carried to October 15; moved to 6:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 475 DeMott Lane
October 15, 2026	Carried to October 22
October 22, 2026	The only hearing on the agenda. Outcome not posted

Minutes for September 24 and later have not been posted, so this page does not describe those sessions. The video is on Granicus, which publishes no captions.

Dates and documents that differ in the record:

Item	One record	Another record
First two hearings	November 20, 2025 and February 19, 2026 (agendas and minutes)	“November 19, 2025” and “February 18, 2026” (applicant’s attorney, April 16 minutes)
DRCC letter	”dated March 17, 2025” (February 19 minutes)	Filed as “D&R 03.17.26” (April 16 and September 24 agendas) and “D&R 03.17.25” (October agendas)

What is not known

What the Board decided on October 22, 2026, or whether it carried the hearing again.
What the revised Technical Review Committee report and the Somerset County Planning Board letter say.
What testimony the planner and the objectors’ witnesses gave, and whether the Board has imposed conditions on parking, traffic or stormwater.

What residents can do

Attend and question witnesses. Zoning Board hearings are public; after each witness, members of the public not represented by an objector’s attorney may ask questions about that testimony.
Read the record. Plans, reports and exhibits are on the township’s application page; agendas, posted minutes and video are on Granicus.
Watch for the resolution. A Board decision is memorialized in a written resolution at a later meeting and listed on that meeting’s agenda.