By Anonymous on February 10, 2010 1:52 PM
Mosques should not be in busy locations especially where traffic is already a mess on rte 59. ****** Permits should not be approved in a quiet residential localities.

-------------------------------

So, not in busy urban locations and not in quiet residential locations. So, where are you going to put houses of worship? [You have to treat them all the same, you know.] The same arguments were used against the expansion of Our Saviour's Lutheran Church and you see what the courts did with that.

Mosques should not be in busy locations especially where traffic is already a mess on rte 59. Noise, parking and late nights are a burden to commuters and residents as well. It all starts of quietly but degeneration and detiroration of all the mentioned above is all gradaul and peaks after a few years. That has been a complaint against all mosques. Having a madrassa around will invariably affect Property values around the areas.
It is not a 1 or 2 day affair to be inconvenienced with but something that will have a lasting effect. Permits should not be approved in a quiet residential localities.

Fair Play,

It probably isn't to wise to accuse someone else of ignorance and then proceed to demonstrate your own level of ignorance in the same post.

Not infringing upon neighbors isn't anything unique to a church. The same can be said of any kind of neighboring occupancies. And the knife cuts both ways... residential neighbors can not infringe on the rights of non-residential neighbors either. The law does not grant residential property some kind of special rights or upper hand in these situations.

An insurance company has no legal authority to enforce an occupancy limit nor is an insurance company likely to be present in a church during services or in a home during a party. Even if they were present and didn't like what they were seeing the most an insurance company could do is try to void the insurance policy.

In Naperville the legal authority falls to the Fire Department. Many Christian churches routinely violate occupancy limits on just about any given Sunday of the year. On certain Christian holidays like Christmas and Easter it is way beyond a simple violation and from what I have witnessed in many churches clearly crosses the line into criminally unsafe activity. If a fire or other emergency broke out many people would either be trapped inside and needlessly perish or be trampled in an ensuing panic. The Naperville Fire Department has never once done an inspection during a Sunday service or during a holiday mass nor has the Naperville Fire Department ever once issued a citation to a Christian church for unlawful overcrowding.

Well guess what? Now it is out of the bag and this dirty little secret is here for anyone to read and remember that the Naperville Fire Department is guilty of years of nonfeasance. When or if something should ever happen in the future and if someone is injured or worse in a church in Naperville as a result of illegal overcrowding the Naperville Fire Department will have no defense that they didn't know about it unless they start doing something immediately to protect themselves to lawfully enforce the occupancy limits to which they have been turning a blind eye for decades.

As far as a group getting a special use permit to hold regular services in a home you really have no clue as to what you are talking about. Small groups have met for years holding regular services in a home as they work to organize a church, raise funds, etc. and the vast majority are flying under the radar and don't get any kind of special use permit. If anyone asks they are just a "bible study group", wink, wink.

Lets go around and look at all of the churches that are allowed to use "gang style" parking because they don't have enough parking to service their congregation. If "gang style" parking is permitted for Christian churches then why should it not also be permitted for a Muslim church?

Another mental midget posted earlier about not being able to park on 75th Street which is clearly false... at least at the present time. Maybe not the greatest place in the world to park your car, but it is not posed No Parking. As far as those who worry about parking on some of the other side streets that is so foolhardy it is almost absurd. Parkers that would try to do that from the west would have to walk thru at least four different adjoining properties of which a couple are pretty run down properties and it really wouldn't be worth the trouble, especially whenever it is raining, snowing, or the ground is anything other than dry and firm. Same for the houses to the north due to the depth of both lots. There might be a more direct possibility from the area to the east but with that being a condo association they probably don't have a good handle on who are legitimate visitors/guests anyway... most condo's don't.

As far as how many people can fit into a private home for a party is anyone's best guess and to a certain extend depends upon the size of the house. Regardless of the size of the house though anytime there are more than 50 people gathered in one place the fire code rules it is a place of assembly. That means the occupancy now needs to have two exits equipped with panic hardware (homes do not have exits they have means of escape), fire alarm systems, pull stations, exit signs, etc. The fire codes require at least 15 square feet per person in areas that are considered a less concentrated use and where people will be standing or approximately 750 square feet. The vast majority of Naperville homes are over 2,000 square feet and some are even over 10,000 square feet so it does vary. Bottom line though even a one bedroom apartment could easily hold 50 people and as past tragedies have proven your theory wrong they don't always leave, especially when it is a young crowd.

If you want to talk fire codes you better bring more than just your personal opinion to the table.

The last poster annonymous is really showing ignorance.

A church, under Illinois law, is a special use that cannot infringe upon neighbors. All churches have to comply with such laws. And yes, the fire marshall does enforce capacilty limits. If not them, then the insurance companies.

And churches have to comply with laws like everyone else.

As for people holding large parties, the fire marshall could also enforce capacity limites on a house. More realistically, the house has to have the space for the people, otherwise, people leave. A weak comparison.

Lastly, as to the church group, if the people have the people over for a social meeting (say a bible study), then no issue. But if a regular service would be held, then they would have to get a special use permit as well.

And yes, at some point, these laws can be over bearing and compromise one's freedom. While I support smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, I think that building permits that require these detectors to be hard wired into houses if you need any other building permit is overreaching as well. Just another example of big brother. The battery versions are just fine.

So what if the property is zoned for single family? The current zoning isn't necessarily carved in stone. Zoning can and is changed based upon a lot of factors.

Right now this land falls under the county because it is unincorporated. The property owner could petition to be annexed into the city and along with annexation could also file for a change of zoning. Having a church property exactly next door to a residential property whether it is single family, duplex, multifamily condo or multifamily apartments happens all over Naperville and there is nothing exceptional or unusual about that.

My next door neighbor hosts a "small church group gathering" every week at her house with includes quite a few families and all of their children. Sure the kids run around for half the day making a bunch of noise having fun in the yard, but if it helping them grow in their faith who am I to complain?

For what it matters there isn't anything that limits how often someone can host a group like that in their own house. In this country there have been hundreds and hundreds of churches formed around people first meeting in private homes over the last two hundred years of our history and there surely are more to come. The fact that this property is zoned single family is hardly unusual in forming the basis of the creation of a new church. Instead of embracing people who respect religion there are some who would use religion against them. Our agnostic government agents unfortunately only makes it easier for such people to further their agenda.

I've been to many, many a party at single family locations all over Naperville where there have been well over 100 people present and not a single person complained. If we are going to start separating out the Muslim church because of how many people are gathering at a property zoned for single family then maybe the Naperville Fire Department better get prepared with lots of inspectors to start enforcing all of the occupancy limits in just about every other church in this city with the major Christian holidays just ahead of us. And if maintaining strict occupancy limits is that important then maybe we need to start phoning in complaints on each and every one of our neighbors when a gathering in a single family home exceeds 50 people because that is the fire code threshold for a place of assembly.

If we want to start nit picking what one faith is doing and use it for ammunition against them then we better be darn well prepared for the fire storm that can be unleashed back upon us and what we take for granted in our own pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness in terms of use of our property.

The sword when used unfairly does cut both ways.

I just read the article JQP posted. There are a lot of ignorant comments left on the article. I'm really disappointed.

I am the property owner directly adjacent to the proposed Irshad Learning Center Mosque. The property the petitioner purchased is zoned as a single family residence. The previous owners had an exception use for a school that the Du Page County Board limited to 8AM to 12 Noon and to 65 person maximum capacity due to dangerous traffic patterns on 75th Street and undue stress to the neighborhood. This is FACT, not fiction. Why should the Muslims be allowed anything different than the former owners? The rules should be the same no matter race, color, or creed. I am a Christian and President of one of the largest Greek Orthodox Churches in the greater Chicagoland area. I know what kind of infrastructure is needed for a religious institution and this facility is not capable to fit the stated use. Further more, the ILC have not provided any storm water or waste water plans for their parking lot or septic field. The ILC chose to move the septic field,not the neighbors. There is a 5.5' down grade to my property. Where do you think the run off water will go? Anyone who still thinks I am a bigot, can come and visit my property and will be happy to show them my concerns. Until that time, I would appreciate anyone stating racism to kindly "shut up" and learn the facts.

JQP keeps up with the news.

I think the terms of the developent agreement should specifically prohibit IED production and no aircraft simulators!!!

It seems there's a new twist on this story.

Anonymous - You crack me up.

You say "I actually know several of the residents personally and my opinion of them is mine alone and none of your business." Really? Seems to me that you made it my business and everyone else's when you published it on the Internet. The next time you have an opinion that you think is no one's business but your own, you might consider keeping it to yourself.

You say "If the neighbors want a fence then they should foot the bill." Wrong. This isn't a question of one party paying for an improvement to another party's property. It's a question of someone being asked to make improvements to their own property so they won't bother their neighbors. This happens all the time. Like I said before, someone else posted the names of four churches that were required to build berms around their parking areas. And I'll say this again because you obviously didn't get it the first time. . .it's the law.

I can't figure out why you brought up the railroad thing. If you buy a house that backs up to a train track, of course you don't have a right to get upset when trains go by. Completely different from this situation and completely irrelevant.

So I want you to try this - Imagine that a Pentecostal group has bought the house next door to you and has asked the city for a permit to use it as a church. They have the right to do that - remember, most churches are in areas that are zoned residential. So you do a little checking and discover that the Pentecostals in general, and this group in particular, really know how to raise the roof - lots of music from what amounts to a rock band - electric guitars, drums, etc., lots of singing, lots of speaking in tongues. You go sit outside the place where they meet now and discover that you can hear them plain as day. The room where they'll be making all that noise is right across from your bedroom, and it turns out that they often meet when you're trying to sleep. Do you seriously expect anyone to believe that you'd have no problem with that, and that if it was too noisy it would be up to you to soundproof your bedroom? Get a grip.

As for seeing things from both sides, if I regularly engaged in some activity that disturbed my neighbors, mosque or otherwise, I would consider it my responsibility to do something to protect my neighbors from being disturbed. Wouldn't you?

Dear Reason,

I actually know several of the residents personally and my opinion of them is mine alone and none of your business.

If the neighbors need or want a fence then they should foot the bill. If the mosque feels they need to fence their property for whatever reason they should foot the bill. Asking or expecting another property owner to pay for improvements to another property is just plain wrong. Unfortunately a lot of corporations caved in on basic principles long ago and set precedent for any loudmouth landowner to start extorting whatever they think they can get.

All this squawking is reminiscent of those who backed-up to the railroad tracks a year ago. Same wrong logic argument, just a different location. If these people are so smart that they can afford such expensive homes why in the world did they purchase in this location? Sour grapes, buyers remorse is all and nothing more. Just because the homeowners were there first means absolutely nothing and doesn't give them a single advantage.

How would the homeowners like special restrictions on their property in terms of when they might have parties or gatherings in their backyard if it disturbed the services at the mosque? If one is truly being open minded and fair one has to look at every issue from both sides. Something you clearly have failed to do.

Dear Anonymous -

Please get at least a bit of a clue before opening your digital mouth. I am going to restrain myself from adding the phrase "you idiot" to the end of every sentence, but you are welcome to read it in wherever you like.

No, people can't expect the property next to theirs to remain unchanged, but they absolutely have rights. Dupage County, like pretty much every other jurisdiction in the US, has very specific laws governing the granting of conditional or special use permits (most churches and schools are in residential zones and operate under these permits). You can go to the County website and look it up. Two requirements of the Dupage County law are that the use of the property not create a nuisance for the neighbors and that it not lower their property values. The neighbors have every right to ask the County to enforce those laws.

The person or group applying for the special use permit is obligated to prove that he/she/they will meet ALL of the requirements in the zoning law. That's a concept known as "the burden of proof," which was covered in the high school Government class you apparently slept through. If they don't demonstrate that they will meet all of the requirements, the County is SUPPOSED to reject the permit. That the law. Applicants make modifications to properties and are subjected to restrictions all the time in order to meet these requirements. An earlier comment lists a bunch of churches that have done this.

If you think that people only object when Muslims ask for a special use permit, it might interest you to know that a couple of months ago Dupage County turned down the expansion of a Christian church because of traffic and noise problems. If you think that these matters get decided just on politics, it might interest you to know that Congressman Peter Roskam is a member of that church.

You might also look what happened to the people who live next to the Evangelical Free Church at Hobson and Wehrli. The neighborhood to the north of the church opposed its expansion. Let me say that again since you seem to need a couple of tries before you get it - the neighbors opposed the expansion of a Christian church. The City of Naperville approved it anyway, and a couple of homeowners got crushed on their property values. One house that used to look out on a nice, small church and some trees now looks out on a big concrete wall and a bunch of HVAC equipment.

One last point - you seem certain that the neighbors of the property owned by this Islamic group are bigots. How do you know? Have you ever met any of them? I doubt it. So let me ask - if you don't know them, haven't met any of them, and are convinced that without meeting any of them you still know what they all believe, who's the bigot? Sounds like you are.

Annonymous must be the wizzard behind the curtain. I am amazed at your arrogance. I will respond to the two comments and not stoop to such depths of disrespect (I would rather be civil and have a small mind than deal with people with such low regard).

You make it sound like I wanted police to ticket people legally walking on the public right of way to the facility. TOTALLY NOT FACTUAL. I clearly noted that the police should ticket people who violate the law and cut through private property.

As to cutting through yards, it happens all the time. People by schools and other public places that do not have full access have to contend with rudeness and ultimately are forced to put up a fence. Look at the apartments by Naperville North. Will it happen with the Muslims? Don't know. If I were the adjacent neighbors, a six foot fence would be installed. In fact, this should be a conidtion to the project.

But the access to the site is terrible. One access point and parking for 29 cars. The alternative when 29 cars fill up the lot would be to park at Meadow Glens school (the closest public parking lot), walk east to Wehrli or west to Naper, north to 75th, and then to the site. Probably a three mile distance. Or park on the closest public side street and cut through peoples yards for less than a block.

I am glad you are an expert on the police department's response to enforcing "No Tresspassing Laws". First, I think that if people were an obvious nuisance, police would write the ticket if a resident complained. Second, we have a private neighborhood with gated access. The police have used criminal tresspass as a way of arresting people who were either disturbing the peace or refused to leave when asked if the intruders could not prove they had authorized access from the neighborhood guard (who records all visitors--car and foot to the neighborhood). Don't know whre you got your "facts" about police not enforcing criminal tresspass.

Also, go back to my original post. The City could amend its ordinances to make it clear of the intent that people who use properties with poor access cannot compenstate for their poor property by violating other peoples property rights. It would apply at this site, St. Margaret Mary's church by Turnbridge, Naperville North, etc.

For people who defend the Muslims property rights, its amazing that they would tramp on others right to enjoy THEIR private property.

The two mosques in town already have caused problems and their are special enforcement to minimize the impact on neighbors. But they are not alone. There are parking restrictions around churches that have grown to big for their surroundings as well. Go to Our Saviours Lutheran, Knox Presbytyrian, Grace Methodist. Evangelical Free has enormous lots, but they do not impact their surrounding neighbors. Instead, they made arrangements for remote parking at Benet and shuttle the overflow. I think these other churches have made alternative arrangements as well. AND THESE CHURCHES ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE PEOPLE COULD PARK ON PUBLIC STREETS AND WALK A BLOCK OR TWO TO THE CHURCH WITHOUT CUTTING THROUGH ANYONE'S YARD.

I think you should sit down with the City planners (they have no say in this matter since it is outside the corporate boundaries of the City and get YOUR FACTS straight!!

Fair Play,

Sorry what i posted wasn't rude, just factual. If you took offense to having the smallest mind in Naperville then maybe you can take this as an opportunity to expand the scope of your thinking. Work on it and maybe you won't come across as petty and acute.

For your information there are already trespass laws in the law books; both criminal and civil. Police Officers only enforce criminal trespass and this definitley would not be a case of criminal trespass.

If a landowner didn't want someone to walk through their yard it would be entirely up to them to initiate a civil proceeding. The likelihood of a judgement in a case such as you suggest is pretty much next to zero if all someone does is walk on some grass and if the landowner didn't have a fence, a NO Trespassing sign, or at least verbally tell them to stay off their property. Believe it or not the courts are actually quite busy as it is without adding petty nonsense like this to their docket.

Besides there is nothing other than wild speculation to support an argument that people headed to the mosque actually would do something like what you have accused them.

Possibly your speculation is premised upon what you are likely to do in the same situation and you would like to equate your own bad manners with others?

To Annonymous 11/11/09 4:34 PM

Since you acoused me of the having a "smallest mind", I ask that you reread my comment particularly in the ocntext of this proposed site. The ONLY access to this site is one driveway off westbound 75th STreet. If there are more than 29 cars (the facility holds 100, Muslims attend prayers seperately from their spouses, if you did not know that), there is no parking on 75th. The "natural" alternative would be to park in the neighborhoods to the north or the east and TRESSPASS through somebody's yard to get to the church.

IF THAT HAPPENED (BREAKING A LAW--TRESSPASSING), then the police should act. In fact, the way this is set up, this is a VERY LIKELY occurrance. Also, the proposed mosque is NOT in Naperville, it is in unincorporaed Lisle Township.

As to the zoning, my previous post addresses why their is a problem.

But again, your rude comments on this post were totally unnecessary.

Do the residents have any rights? No, not really. It isn't their property. Do we see the Muslims trying to tell the homeowners what to do with their property? Not likely.

Yet, because a bunch of homeowners band together and complain and gripe, in a manner that at best comes off as a bunch of NIMBY's and at worst as a bunch of veiled bigots, they are somehow entitled to special consideration? Not likely.

Political pandering is the worst form of politics. Political correctness rarely is. When people stop welcoming houses of worship into the community and into the neighborhood it speaks poorly for all of us. Thank goodness I don't live in a neighborhood with a bunch of jerks like this. One would actually wonder how many of these neighbors, if any, attend church?

The earlier post from the person with the smallest mind in Naperville really stands out as epic in that he/she would have the Naperville Police standing by writing tickets to people attempting to attend church. How sick is that? Maybe they would prefer hookers or dope dealers hanging around street corners instead of god fearing people who attend church regularly?

The property was zoned for some kind of use. The proposed use either meets the current zoning or it doesn't. If it doesn't meet the current zoning then the neighbors have a right to voice their concerns in terms of a change of zoning and any impact. Short of that they bought their property and should have known what they were buying next to. If they failed to do their own due diligence the fault is theirs and not a legitimate reason to demand the Muslims make any concessions for them or any of the smoke screen issues that the county is bluffing with either. Sometimes it is just simpler and more expedient to get a lawyer and let the courts decide rather than attempt to negotiate, especially when those doing the negotiating don't necessarily represent the true will of everyone in Naperville.

The squeaky wheel doesn't always deserve to be greased and this is one of them.

To Anonymous

I think your comment is an overreaction. A planner for a North Shore community gave me some insight. Historically, churches and synagogues were small facilities that only created traffic conjestion on their high holidays (in fact, this person noted that most major Jewish synagogues hold their high holidays at hotels and other spaces to accomodate the larger numbers worshipers). In fact, many walked to these churches as neighborhoods were very segregated based on religions.

The relevancy of the prior comment. A religious use within a residential community was determined to be a compatiable use. On the other hand, a strip mall is not a compatiable use.

You ask, what is the difference. Simple. A commercial use needs to establish greater buffer when they are adjacent to a residential use. Parking lots cannot be built to a lot lines, they need to be set back (at least 20 feet). He noted that the trend to more mega churches should force them to comply with commercial standards rather than residential standards. And many do. EHS is close. Calvary Temple is the same as a shopping center.

If the proposed parcel was forced to complye with commercial standards, then there would not be issues with parking near residents' back yards. In fact, I doubt that the building could operate under a commercial zoning standard.

I would not move west of Mill and North of Benton since there are still carryover zoning deficiencies (a concrete plant in your back yard). These zoning matters are grandfathered from the time that area was outside of town. People buying houses should have the protection of uses and churches (and not just this Muslime project) might need to be shifted from residential standards to commercial standards.

It's a sick world when everyone thinks that an objection to building a church in a residential area could ONLY be based on some type of discrimination. Grow up! Maybe residents just don't want the noise, traffic and CHANGE in their neighborhood. Is that evil and sinister? What about their rights to object? Do they have any?

I am not CIJ. I don't have that much time on my hands.

That being said, I don't have a vested interest. I was just looking at it from a us vs. them mentaility. Like I said, I'm sure a lot of people would like to vent but won't. And not necssarily on the Muslim center persay. But just in general.

People oppose anything that goes into open land that the neighboring people have enjoyed being open in the past; as if they somehow feel entitled that it will always be an open space even though they themselves do not own it. That's just how it always plays out. Jump through the hoops and start building. That, after all, is the goal.

"These same neighborhoods have fought against expansion of the Evangelical church (that had plenty of land), a new strip mall, and others that have wanted to change what the surrounding residential property is used for."

It appears that this is more a case of NIMBY rather than bigotism. It's unrealistic for the homeowners in the surrounding area to expect that nothing will be developed there. It's a prime piece of real estate in a prime location. They're lucky they won the battle against the "dreaded strip mall", many of which are located in neighborhoods all over Naperville, but apparently not "appropriate" for this site according to these NIMBY's. What has been proposed seems pretty reasonable. I have a feeling that no matter what is proposed there, the neighbors will find it objectionable.

Churches are subject to special use in Illinois zoning. Previous posters were absolutely correct, other main stream churches had to endure significant restrictions to expand their facilities. And yes, they do park on public side streets with direct access.

A look at the two other Muslim churches might give us guidance. First, they must not have seating for their services since they pack buildings. The facility on Oleson never had a parking problem under its prevous religious ownership. Now there are traffic jams.

The same for the old St. James Lutheran Church on Ogden near Route 59. They "pack" the parking lots.

This former Peter Pan Preschool that used to house 20 children now will hold 100 people? I would propose just four restrictions.

1. Enforce property setbacks as would be done for a similar facility such as the Evangelical Free Church that Higgins cited. I would prefer commercial/residential setbacks (they are larger so you don't have a parking space within five feet of a property line), but that standard has not been enforced and to do so now would be discriminitory.

2. Rate the capacity of the building for public gathering (ever notice those fire signs) and have the police and fire district (Lisle Woodridge) enforce.

3. No parking along 75th Street.

4. Naperville should pass a law that anyone cutting through provate property where a sign is posted is subject to a $500 fine. With this poor location, people will park in the City of Naperville areas and cut through these peoples yards to get to the facility even though there is no public access. While the mosque is not in the City, the City can pass a law to protect their citizens.

The site is not suited for what they want to do. Same as the other Muslim sites in Naperville.

By the way, there are no parking on Sunday morning signs around several Christian Churches in Naperville, so these congregations have to work out solutions. Take the Evangelical Free Church. Instead of imposing on their neighbors, they rent parking from Benet Academy and bus overflow to their church. This mosque should rent parking at the Evangelical Free Church and bus the inevitable overflow on Friday morning prayers. Better yet, they should buy the lot next to the Evangelical Free Church that is for sale and buill an new facility their with a shared parking agreement withg EFC.

Historically, churchese have had minimal impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. Let's keep it that way.

Clearly the applicants have no knowledge of the neighborhood they wish to move into. First of all, the connecting properties and subdivisions have a highly diverse group of people living there, including Muslims.

These same neighborhoods have fought against expansion of the Evangelical church (that had plenty of land), a new strip mall, and others that have wanted to change what the surrounding residential property is used for. They have worked hard to protect their property values and the peacefulness of their neighborhoods.

From what I understand this structure will have only 25 parking spots. It is on 75th Street. Where will the other cars park? These are valid concerns.

I'm surprised that the county is willing to give up land that was bringing in tax money (it was a small, private preschool). They must have money to spare.

To Anonymous who stated "The bigots who live in the area adjacent to the Muslim center..." Have you ever been to the neighborhood? Do you know that the previous place was a day care center only operating during the week and during the day? Occupied by children who obviously don't leave their cars in a parking lot? Do you know the county laws regarding conditional use?

This has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with the neighbors wanting to maintain the quality of life they currently have. The proposed center operations are during the evening and weekends which is completely different and more intrusive then the day care center was.

Before you rant and rave about bigotry and religious freedom, get your facts straight.

In the late 1980's, Our Saviour's Lutheran Church wanted to expand including tearing down 2 residences on the corner of Robin Hill Dr and Washington. The neighbors were up in arms because of the same reason expressed for the Islamic Center primarily increased traffic coming onto Robin Hill. The Council caved to the neighbors. The Church sued and won under the Freedom to Practice Religion Law which was then Federal but is now a state law.

Get off your high horse Anonymous on November 6, 2009 10:04 PM. Here are four churches that had to build berms without even thinking about it or driving around with the old eyes open:

Trinity Church of the Nazarene- Raymond Dr.

Christ Church - Book and Sanctuary

Evangelical Free Church- Hobson and Wherli

St. Margaret Mary- Naper and Green Trails

As for the parking issue, they don't have access to on street parking. Should they be allowed to park on 75th- hardly!

The bigots you are referring to do not want a driveway against their back property, nor do they need a septic field moved over to their lot line and it has nothing to do with the Muslim faith. This property use is changing from a low density use to something much more. Nobody wants that in their backyard.

I haven't paid attention to the details on this, and therefore have no opinion, but I will say that it is not uncommon for there to be neighborhood opposition to church expansion. When the Evangelical Free Church of Naperville at the corner of Hobson and College wanted to expand some years ago there was stiff resistance from the residents to the North, regarding the additional traffic generated, additional parking lots proposed, and the size of the structure. As I remember it, the congregation made a number of concessions to placate them. Cities aren't all that keen sometimes as well, as it takes property off the tax rolls.

Anonymous,

You could be right about Irshad being better off taking their chances in court, but I wouldn't be so quick to think that Christian churches never encounter community opposition: Boulder County ordered to allow church expansion.

-JQP

From reading the article, it is my understanding that the neighbors surrounding the property are not protesting the fact that it's a Muslim Center. Instead, they are concerned about the changes the Center wants to make to the property, and how those changes will effect their own properties. They have valid concerns.

It seems like their concerns are being labeled as religious discrimination in order to have them minimized and forced through. If the property is too small for what the Muslim Center organizers are planning, perhaps they should reconsider moving to a larger site that would better accomodate their vision for the Center.

CIJ (I mean anonymous 5678), I knew you would be weighing in on this one- vested interest?

Here is the thing about this situation. Perhaps it is not all that different than the controversy created by your old Spring Green project, with usage exceeding the previously zoned use. Would it be so controversial if the applicants were not Muslim? Would the same size group of Baptists claim discrimination when the neighbors did not want a septic field or a driveway moved closer to their homes?

This property does not have access through the median for EB traffic, so it will be interesting to see how they will handle the issue of emergency responders.

Who is kidding who? This is blatant religious discrimination of the worst kind.

Hours of operation? What Christian church anywhere in this county has any kind of restrictions on the hours it can operate or conduct services? Let''s go tell all of the Christian churches there can't be any more midnight services for Christmas and see what kind of reaction occurs.

Number of parking spots? How many Christian churches have no where near enough parking and resort to either "gang style" parking during Sunday services and or have overflow parking that spills all over the local neighborhood? Yet the muslims are somehow expected to handle all of their parking in their own lots?

How about fire and zoning officials who turn a blind eye to occupancy code violations? Enter just about any Christian church on an average weekend and how many fire exits are blocked by people standing in the foyer and aisles during services? If that isn't bad enough lets talk about the serious overcrowding that goes on at Christmas and Easter services.

Berms to shield the view? That is just preposterous. Name one other church in this entire county that has been required to install a berm.

One can only imagine why a septic field would need to be moved. Unless it is for sound engineering reasons related to the funtion and operation of the septic field then the request has to be questioned. If the original design was developed by an engineer and architect with expertise in such matters then there isn't a whole lot left other than nitpicking a whole bunch of reasons hoping one or more will stick and that maybe enough reasons would cause the Muslim center members to just walk from this site.

The Muslim center members would be better off telling these jerks from the county to go pound sand and just file a suit against Du Page and let the courts settle it for them. The Muslim center has 150 years of existing churches in this county that more than adequately defines what is and what is not acceptable to community norms. There simply are not any special or new conditions that are needed or required. There simply are not any new or special conditions that should be considered. And the Muslim center members certainly shouldn't themselves become the precedent upon which future religious discrimination might be based.

Those members of our county government who have participated in this farce should be ashamed of themselves and their conduct. The bigots who live in the area adjacent to the Muslim center who have caused this fiasco should similarly be ashamed of themselves and their lack of religious tolerance. Personally I'm ashamed to see something as intolerant as this ever happen in America much less in our own community.

Have our neighbors and elected officials forgotten the very principles under which our great nation was founded?

Very curious to see how many responses you will get on this one. I have a feeling a lot of people would like to vent on this one but very few will and keep their opinions to themselves.

Pretty convroversial topic there Mr. Moderator.

Nobody seems to be saying that Irshad should not be allowed there at all. It seems the neighbors are more concerned about the amount of activity that might take place there. At worst, I think this is run-of-the-mill NIMBYism rather than discrimination.

-JQP