Zoning Board of Adjustment — February 19, 2026

What was decided

Eight members were present: Cheryl Bethea, Richard Procanik, Vaseem Firdaus, Alan Rich, Gary Rosenthal, Michael Dougherty, Kunal Lakhia and Chairman Thomas. Robert Shepherd was listed absent. Michael Dougherty and Kunal Lakhia took the oath of office. The draft minutes record:

• Minutes of November 20, 2025, approved (motion Rosenthal, second Bethea). The vote lists Bethea, Procanik, Rich, Rosenthal, Vice Chair Shepherd, Dougherty and Thomas for, none against; Shepherd is also listed as absent that night.
• Resolution for Ramkumar Venkataraman, ZBA-25-00023, approved 5-0 (motion Rosenthal, second Firdaus; for: Procanik, Firdaus, Rosenthal, Dougherty and Thomas).
• Tawheed Dahwah Center, ZBA-24-00017: testimony continued; the hearing was carried to April 16, 2026, with no further notice required.

The Tawheed Dahwah Center hearing

Process. The Board Attorney, Mr. Brian Hak, said the Board had received that day a letter from Ms. Bailey, counsel for the Snyders, with a stormwater report from her stormwater engineer, marked Exhibits 01 and 02. The applicant would finish its case, with questions after each witness from Ms. Bailey and the public, and the objectors would then present theirs. Chairman Thomas said the public’s questions were to help the Board find facts, not to say what they did or did not want.

Relief sought. The applicant’s attorney (named in these minutes as Mr. Ed Schwartz) said the earlier owner had preliminary site plan approval with a detailed resolution of conditions. The applicant now sought final site plan approval and relief from two conditions:

• the hours and days of operation, to be replaced by the schedule in its Statement of Proposed Use;
• parking: the building is smaller in footprint and floor area, but its worship area is larger, which changes the parking variance granted before. He said fewer people would be on site at any time than under the earlier resolution.

He said the applicant’s website had described a broader use because it was posted before the applicant had the earlier resolution and knew its limits; the applicant had decided to comply as strictly as possible with that resolution.

Site engineer (Mr. F. Mitchell Ardman). He walked the Board through the conditions of the earlier resolution and how the plans meet them, including landscaping and a planted berm, a building 134.9 ft from the rear line (130 ft required), 110 ft from the two neighboring homes (100 ft required), a deer fence along the farm, the driveway shifted to about 310 ft from the neighbor, limited driveway and 15-ft parking-lot lighting on timers, and 30 banked spaces facing the neighbors. He said only the parking and the hours of operation did not comply. Mr. Healey said a third modification was needed: one more driveway light than the resolution allows.

On stormwater, Mr. Ardman cited a Delaware & Raritan Canal Commission letter, dated March 17, 2025 in the minutes, finding the project compliant with its stormwater quantity, quality, groundwater recharge and non-structural standards; final D&R approval waits on the Board’s. He said the objectors’ engineer had missed several points of the applicant’s stormwater report. Impervious coverage would be 18.08%, against 18.47% in the earlier approval. He had applied to the County and had no final review letter.

Parking standard. Ms. Bailey asked about the larger worship area, which Mr. Ardman agreed triggers a requirement of 532 spaces. Mr. Healey said the code requires one space per three seats with fixed seating, or one space per 15 sq ft of open worship area.

Objectors’ questions. Ms. Bailey asked about the septic design (2,000 gallons, which Mr. Ardman said limits daily occupancy and must return to the Board of Health); whether the applicant relied on outdated stormwater rules (he said they used the current D&R rules, which include the 2023 Inland Flood regulations); runoff from the new paved driveway and where water would go if the basin overflowed (he said the impervious area was balanced and water would flow as it always had); and the building’s size. He agreed to a 3-to-1 berm slope.

Architect (Mr. Yogesh Mistry). The building would be 19,350 sq ft, against 21,083 sq ft before, with a 2,890 sq ft basement for storage and utilities and no second floor or kitchen. The worship area is 7,981 sq ft, with room for 458 occupants at 15 sq ft each. The main roof is 32 ft 9 in above average grade and two spires 49 ft; the free-standing sign is 67.5 sq ft where 25 sq ft is allowed, as previously approved. Mr. Procanik asked why the worship area held three times the 150 people the Statement of Proposed Use allows; Mr. Mistry said the plan was a capacity drawing. Mr. Lakhia asked how attendance would be controlled; Mr. Healey said the Township could not enforce it and questioned building more space than the stated attendance. Ms. Bailey objected that use questions should be answered by the applicant, who was not present.

Public questions. Charles Hamilton (48 South Middlebush Road), Dr. Anant V. Jooshi, Chinten Dupar, Ms. Shampa Chaji, Basit Kari, Steve Callahan, Harvey Sirotta and Sean Akmawala asked about the worship area’s size, loudspeakers (none, the attorney said), whether the earlier approval applied to a different user, future expansion, the sign, enforcement of occupancy, and the two small rooms labeled classrooms. Mr. Healey said a classroom is not a school, and that accessory uses customarily incidental to the main use are allowed. Mr. Healey read from the September 2025 Technical Review Committee report the figures of 70 to 80 people at busier times and up to 150 at special events.

Records

• Agenda · Draft minutes · Packet
• Video on Granicus (2:27). Granicus publishes no captions for Franklin meetings; this page follows the board’s draft minutes.