Now now, there's no reason that everyone can't be wrong. The Congregation should never have consented to only have services on certain days. And the town is out of its mind to think they can win a lawsuit that claims they can block prayer on certain days.

All in all, a loss for the tax-payers......again.

don't think it would of been an issue if they went about the "family room" addition legally and did not lie....just saying....

Just saying? Thanks for pointing that out Karin since we wouldn't have figured that out from what you just typed. At this point what the synagogue should have or could have done is not relevant. Who are these 70 residents? Some how I doubt that all these people live right next door to the synagogue and are effected by it. Not to mention that everyone who goes to the synagogue is also a resident. It is not as if they are traveling from a 100 miles away by car to get there. The noise complaint is vague what does that even mean. Are they never allowed to make noise. Was someone out there measuring the decibels comparing it to a sports stadium or airport. If you want to complain about noise try living by the high school, police station and fire department. Not to mention any major road in this town which the synagogue also happens to be by. Why aren't the neighbors of every other house of worship complaining about noise then. No matter where you live in this town you will hear noise form your neighbors and people outside. This is not the country.

Its a shame that a religious institution whose fundamental purpose in society is to promote moral values, peace and justice, and respect for the law.... completely forgot about all these principals when they tried to under-handedly establish themselves.
And now they want to use the Constitution to defend their cause. A little hypocritcal... no?

I agree. The history of this case is that the Congregation built the family room to hold services. AS the article states this led the town is order a cease an desits order. Also shimon.. are you seriously comparing this to living by a police station??? really silly. Lets not forget this is also a private home converted. I personally do not live around here but i understand the neighbor people's concerns.

I live near by and it as if I had bought my house next to a playground. No one who lives near by can sleep late if they are holding services. Maybe Shimon, some of the 70 people who signed the petition can not hear the noise themselves but they can empathize with the people who lived here before the Shul/family room established itself by stealth. I didn't buy a house to live next to a noisy synagogue and my guess is that you didn't either Shimon. Try walking a mile in someone else's shoes Shimon.

James not sure what I said that was so silly. My point is that no matter where you live there will be noise. There is no place that you are guaranteed silence. I realize that there is a level of noise that is unacceptable but I find it unlikely that this synagogue meets that criteria and if it does what would that be since no one has mentioned it. People are complaining they can't sleep in on Saturday? The horror! I love sleeping just like anyone else and if anyone woke me up in the middle of the night I would not be happy. But when exactly are people supposedly being woken up? I would say having been to the synagogue that it is at it's noisiest between 10:30 AM to 11:30AM. Hard to sympathize with someone being woken up then. And again pretty hard to prove. Should we not allow any planes to fly over these houses or any traffic on the roads for fear that some residents may not have their 10 hours of sleep. Area Resident you say that it is like living next door to a playground but you also admit that you don't live next door so how near by do you live? The house is on the corner and surrounded by trees in the back. Most of the congregants have young kids and they make noise. Other than put muzzles on the children what do you want them to do. Area Resident I have tried walking in other's shoes. The problem is when I have a criticism of Teaneck I get the same flippant response "you don't like it move". Funny how nobody says that now.

Shimon,

Nice straw man you set up there. The issue is not perfect silence vs. noise. The issue is the synagogue was set up subrosa and imposed on the neighbors. Why are the children outside? Because they are noisy and disruptive. So the synagogue lets them be noisy and disruptive outside. The synagogue's and your attitude is that their activities are important the neighbors are not. Peak noise may be at 10:30-11 but believe me it starts earlier.
Here is a radical suggestion, rather then put a muzzle on the kids keep them in the service. Disruptive you say? Hard to sympathize given your lack of sympathy for others.

Area resident 07666

Can we call a spade a spade. There are many synagogues and churches all up and down Queen Anne Road, from let's say West Englewood to Degraw. Some have no parking. Most are 5-10x plus the size of this congregation. Some have services from 6 AM - after 10 PM, seven days a week. There is CVS, restaurants, fruit stores and even liquor stores. There are multiple NJT bus lines that stop up and down this Avenue all day. There are medical buildings, realty offices and banks.

Yet, a small congregation has these restrictions and their rights are being violated. Which store front, bank or church have NO signs in front of them on Queen Anne Road? Which one is restricted to one day a week of usage?

As a person that enjoys membership and participation with the wonderful people that make up this congregation, let's call a spade a spade. The congregation assists the elderly, home bound and ill of our community, regardless of race, religion or beliefs. They provide educational, enriching and productive programming for youth through adult. In 2012, it is kind of embarrassing that our township would even think to ask our congregation not to have a sign outside or use it more than one day a week, when dozens of religious and corporate members of Queen Anne Avenue are not given ANY of these restrictions.

Yes, Mr. Flynn let us call a spade a spade. This wonderful congregation, which I am sure has some wonderful people in it, Tried to finesse their way around the law by stating they were putting up a family room when all along the intention was to start a synagogue. So they twist the meaning of words and call it a prayer group at the same time as internally they set up membership dues and structure.
They then go in front of the Board figuring we can say and agree to what ever they want and do what we please. They then discover that when you agree to things in court you are held to that (welcome to adulthood). Now they scream, wait we didn't mean that ! No, no when we said we will abide by the boards decision that means only if we get all we want. Wait you can't be serious. No, we are too clever there has to be a way out of this. We are being discriminated against. Who can we sue? No,no, no consequences. You can't do this to us!

Anybody who has kids can probably identify with this scenario.

I agree with the Board of Adjustment. If Etz Chaim had wanted to invoke RLUIPA and assert that they ought not to be subject to zoning rules, why didn't they do so in the first place? And subsequently, what kind of duress could have been imposed on Etz Chaim? Did the BoA kidnap Mr. Erlich and tell him to sign if he wanted to be released? Duress is a pretty strong claim, and if, as I suspect, the duress was merely the possibility that Etz Chaim might not have gotten all of its requested variances, isn't that what everybody who goes before the Board of Adjustment faces? And finally, as others have pointed out, the fact that Etz Chaim went about its creation of a synagogue sub rosa instead of in the open appears to me to be prima facie evidence that they knew they were doing something wrong. (It was surely not a sense of modesty that caused them to hide the creation of an entity that makes it easier for them to do the good deeds that Mr. Flynn praises.)

When evaluating comments on the worthiness of EtzChaim/Or Saadya please refer to their sworn testimony. In their first parking scheme promising 50 or greater spots they gave evidence of spots in driveways that didn't exist then or now (266 Johnson ave), listed spaces for 4 cars in driveways that could not fit more then 2 and claimed no knowledge about whether their member actually lived in the house next door. Sworn to under oath and then the parking plan was withdrawn at the next Board of Adjustment meeting.

Check the transcript of the December 16 2009 meeting

The temple's lawyer must be spinning when he says he is confident that the jury will be on his side. You have to be kidding. It was the temple that made the motion to get the case dismissed and lost. So now a jury in Hackensack is going to decide whether Teaneck discriminates against Orthodox Jews even though there are many temples in Teaneck. I wouldn't be too confident Mr. lawyer about the jury agreeing with you

Many thanks to Mr. Flynn who inspired me to look at the testimony up at http://554queenanne.info/ again.
Here is Mr. Ehrlich (the witness) responding when a neighbor who lives eight feet away complains about the noise. I have edited out the neighbors name.
THE WITNESS: So, my architect is better capable to deal with that, but we have in
our plans, to put up more privacy walls, shrubbery, et cetera, which would reduce the noise that you
would hear, and I believe of late we've tried to keep activities indoors and I don't believe that
lately the children have been playing outside, and if, please be in touch with me if that's an issue,
and I'll do my best to resolve it. I take your concern have seriously, and –

LATER TESTIMONY

MR. CAMPEAS: Okay. Okay. Let's look at the -- you said that your architect was going
to put up privacy walls and shrubbery to cut down on noise?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I said that.
MR. CAMPEAS: Okay. Why was that not done while you were still a private prayer group?
THE WITNESS: Honestly -- I'm sorry, I forget your name.
MR. A: XXXXXXX.
THE WITNESS: If Mr. XXXX came to me and had spoken to me, I would have seen to it
that -- that noise level would have been taken care of while we were a private prayer group, if that
was his complaints, and I'm sorry, again, that we didn't have the opportunity to take care of that
earlier, but it will be taken care of.

Continued next comment

Continuation

(Another excerpt)
MR. CAMPEAS: And the children stay in the family room the entire time?
THE WITNESS: Like I stated earlier in my testimony, maybe you weren't here for it, I said
that the children are either praying with their families or they're inside the residence with
adults.
MR. CAMPEAS: Where?
THE WITNESS: In the living room, and/or the basement.

Of course when asked about providing a means of communication with the temple Mr. Ehrlich said the congregation has not appointed a community liaison because it is taking the BOA's requirements as a whole and is working through them. Privacy walls, shrubbery hasn’t happened. December 16, 2009 till June 2012 hasn’t happened. But had the neighbor communicated this to Mr. Robert Ehrlich while it was a prayer group it would have been taken care of post haste. Really? Really Mr. Robert Ehrlich?

I keep getting emails telling me that my imposter is continuing to post in my name. Give it up. You are just causing Etz Chaim more damage.

The real blog:
http://macdmusings.blogspot.com/2012/08/challenge-rescinded.html?m=1

Don't accept any substitutions. If you'd like to email me directly
Macdmusings@mac.hush.com

Shluffenheimer

Personal attacks and insults are against our terms of service. Please keep the dialog here civil. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Cohen.

Hi all EC OS guys. Let's just all get along.

Hi all, have you heard from my pal the fake Macdougal lately? He seems to be hiding. Why won't he come out and play? Do not forget to cast a vote on my Mcdood blog regarding the Etz Chaim lawsuit.