Objector’s planner says additions will create
traffic, zoning issues
By jane waterhouse
Staff Writer
RUMSON — Whoever said religion and politics don’t mix should have been at the Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on July 9. More than 160 people packed into a steamy, sweltering room to hear the latest installment in Holy Cross’s application to expand its school and religious facilities at the corner of Rumson Road and Ward Avenue.
The additions the church is seeking to build would more than double the size of the two buildings now on the site. The plan calls for 9,500-square-foot additions on both the school and church buildings, increasing the total square footage by 19,000. The work is expected to cost $7 million.
By the time the attorney for Holy Cross, Bennett M. Stern, arrived, the atmosphere for the hearing on what was slated to be final testimony in the matter was expectant, almost carnival-like.
For the first hour of the meeting Stern cross-examined Richard Lapinski, a professional planner and engineer hired by the Sea Bright Lawn Tennis and Croquet Clubs and a number of other neighbors objecting to the plan.
Stern’s line of questioning centered on the state Supreme Court case Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Township of Wall (1992), which states in part, "No government … shall impose or implement a land use regulation … in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on … a religious assembly or institution."
He also noted that denying the application would run counter to the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.
Sica was adjudicated under the state’s land use law, which specifically defines developing a property for church and educational purposes as an "inherently beneficial use."
When dealing with an inherently beneficial use, the board is compelled to approve the application unless it can prove that it adversely affects public safety.
Stern asked Lapinski why he considered expansion on the Holy Cross site to be unworkable.
"You can’t ignore the arithmetic," Lapinski responded. "Six hundred people at a Mass, along with the elimination of parking spaces and buffers, will trigger more zoning problems and have a physical impact on the community."
Lapinski went on to say that he had concerns about on-street parking in residential areas. "If a family parks two blocks away and the church is full and they’re turned away, then it’s going to be a problem," he said.
Stern noted that at the nearby Episcopal church, St. George’s by the River, "They have no on-site parking at all," and asked Lapinski, "Does that bother you?"
"It’s a smaller church," said Lapinski. "It’s an apples-and-oranges comparison."
In addition to the traffic and zoning concerns, Lapinski cited the detrimental effect that the proposed plan would have on the nearby historic harbor.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," said Stern.
The attorney reiterated that the church wanted to build this addition so that families could pray together.
Lapinski testified that he was troubled by the size of the add-on, saying, "The scale of the church will be dramatically increased."
Stern asked, "If it’s smaller, would it be workable?"
"Perhaps," Lapinski said. "If other things were equal."
The attorney indicated that the religious land use law shifted the burden to the board "to figure out if there are bad results … and how to make them work."
"I believe that board has a right to identify a compelling government reason when it negates the local zoning authority," Lapinski said.