State Supreme Court Upholds P&Z’s Buddhist Temple Rejection

By Andrew Gorosko

The state Supreme Court this week unanimously upheld the Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) February 2003 rejection of the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc’s, controversial proposal to build a 7,600-square-foot temple/meeting hall at its ten-acre property at 145 Boggs Hill Road, where the society now has a monastery.

In its action on Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld a November 2005 decision by Danbury Superior Court Judge Deborah Kochiss Frankel, which had upheld the P&Z’s rejection of the temple/meeting hall proposal.

Last March, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case through which the society had sought to overturn Judge Frankel’s court ruling. The Buddhists’ appeal, which had been pending in the state Appellate Court, was taken over by the Supreme Court to expedite a decision in the conflict.

Nearby Boggs Hill Road area property owners had strongly opposed the temple/meeting hall proposal, charging that the use of the site would be far too intensive in the residential neighborhood, posing traffic hazards due to increased traffic volume.

Some of those property owners became legal intervenors in the Superior Court case and later the Supreme Court case, siding with the P&Z in its rejection of the construction proposal.

In response to the Supreme Court decision, P&Z Chairman Lilla Dean said, “I’m gratified…We [P&Z] felt we had more than a strong argument.”

The size of the site and the amount of usable land at the site was inadequate for the proposed use, she said. Issues including septic waste disposal, water supply, vehicle parking, and driveway access all figured into the P&Z’s decision to reject the proposal, she said.

“The [P&Z] is very pleased that the Supreme Court upheld our refusal to allow such an intensive use of a small piece of property,” Ms Dean said.

In 1999, the society purchased the ten-acre property, which contains two acres of wetlands and a three-acre pond. The property is located in a Farming/Residential zone in which houses of religious worship are allowed by the P&Z through issuance of a special permit.

Ms Dean said the P&Z is willing to aid the society in finding a more suitable location in Newtown for a Buddhist temple/meeting hall.

Richard Coburn, president of the Newtown Residential Preservation Society, is one of the six intervenors in Supreme Court case.

Mr Coburn of 141 Boggs Hill Road said Wednesday, “We are delighted to hear the Connecticut Supreme Court’s decision.” Mr Coburn added that he had not yet read the 45-page decision.

“The site…is definitely not a suitable one,” he said. Mr Coburn said he hopes the Buddhist society will seek another location to build a temple/meeting hall. He added that the P&Z should be commended for its handling of the temple/meeting hall application for 145 Boggs Hill Road.

Attorney Michael Zizka, who represents the Buddhist society, said, “Obviously, I’m very disappointed by this decision.”

The November 2005 Danbury Superior Court decision would have allowed the society to return to the P&Z in seeking some modified version of the project, Mr Zizka said.

But the Supreme Court’s decision would eliminate that possibility because it is broader in scope than the Superior Court decision, he said. The Supreme Court found that the P&Z was within its jurisdiction in turning down the temple/meeting hall proposal because the proposed land use would not be in harmony with the neighborhood’s character, he said.

It is unclear why the Supreme Court, in effect, broadened the permissible reasons for rejecting the temple/meeting hall proposal, Mr Zizka said.

As is stands, the Supreme Court’s decision would make it “virtually impossible” for the society to get approval for temple/meeting hall construction at 145 Boggs Hill Road, he said.

“I’m astonished at what the Supreme Court has done,” he said.

Mr Zizka said he will file a legal motion to have the Supreme Court narrow its decision to make it possible for the society to again be able seek P&Z approval for a temple/meeting hall at the site.

Mr Zizka said it is unclear whether the society would pursue an appeal with the US Supreme Court.

Pinith Mar, a spokesman for the Buddhist society, said Thursday, “I haven’t seen the [court] document about the denial. I’m truly disappointed with the decision.”

Mr Mar said he will be talking with the society’s board members about what course the group should take in light of the court decision.

Mr Mar said that the society might now want to take up the P&Z on its standing offer to help find the society a suitable alternate location for a temple in Newtown. Mr Mar suggested that Fairfield Hills might be a possible location for a temple.

“Time is running out for us,” Mr Mar said, noting that the older members of the society who embody the religious and cultural aspects of Cambodian life are aging

 

Legal Issues

The primary legal issues in the case involved whether the P&Z’s denial of a special permit, which is required to build the temple, violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) and also violated the state’s Religious Freedom Act. The Buddhist society charged that the P&Z’s rejection of the temple/meeting hall proposal had put an undue burden on the society members’ free exercise of their religion.

Also at issue before the Supreme Court was whether Pong Me, who is the Buddhist society’s president, has legal standing in the appeal. The lower court had dismissed Pong Me’s appeal because he did not personally own an interest in the Boggs Hill Road property.

The Buddhists charged that their right to freely practice their religion had been compromised by the P&Z’s rejection of their application, while the P&Z maintained that the site proposed for the temple/meeting hall is an unsuitable one for the planned high intensity of use, including its traffic and noise aspects.

The P&Z denied the temple application for a variety of reasons, including health and safety concerns, focusing on the site’s water supply and septic waste disposal.

The Buddhist society did receive a wetlands permit for the project from the town’s wetlands agency in November 2002.

In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that: the Superior Court properly dismissed Pong Me’s claims due to his lack of legal standing; neither RLUIPA, nor the state Religious Freedom Act, is applicable in the case, and the P&Z’s decision to deny the society’s application for a special permit was supported by substantial evidence.

In February 2003, the P&Z turned down the Buddhist society’s request for a special permit because the application did not comply with applicable standards and criteria listed in the zoning regulations.

The P&Z had decided that the temple/meeting hall proposal, which would require a 148-space parking lot to accommodate 450 society members at five major Buddhist festivals annually, was inconsistent with a quiet single-family residential neighborhood with a rural setting, and thus did not meet applicable zoning regulations that require that a given land use shall be in harmony with the general character of a neighborhood.

In its decision, the Supreme Court found that “the record contained substantial evidence to support the [P&Z’s] denial of the society’s application on the grounds that the level of activity at the proposed temple would not be in harmony with the general character of the neighborhood, that the temple would substantially impair neighboring property values, and that the proposed septic wastewater and water supply systems would create a health or safety hazard.”