Buddhist Temple Wetlands Appeal Dismissed By Judge

By Andrew Gorosko

A judge has dismissed an administrative appeal brought by five Boggs Hill Road area residents against the Conservation Commission, over its November 2002 issuance of a wetlands permit to the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut for the society’s controversial proposal to build a 7,600-square-foot Buddhist temple and meeting hall at 145 Boggs Hill Road.

Through the December 2002 court appeal, plaintiffs Richard Coburn and Jeanette Coburn of 141 Boggs Hill Road, Janis Opdahl of 143 Boggs Hill Road, and William Leibold and Pam Ashbahian of 4 Palestine Road had sought to nullify the Conservation Commission’s permit for wetlands-related construction work on the ten-acre Buddhist site. The plaintiffs’ properties abut the Buddhist society’s property.

Danbury Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis dismissed the five residents’ court appeal on February 9.

The Conservation Commission lawsuit is separate from another court appeal, which the Buddhist society later filed against the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) over the P&Z’s February 2003 rejection of the Buddhist temple zoning application.

In that appeal, which was filed in March 2003, the society cited religious freedom, as protected by state and federal law, in seeking to overturn the P&Z’s rejection of the temple project. That lawsuit is still pending in court.

The Buddhist society’s proposal to build the temple/meeting hall on its site, where it has a monastery, attracted heavy opposition from many Boggs Hill Road area residents. Those residents have charged that the Buddhists’ proposal to hold five major festivals at the site each year would draw heavy traffic to a quiet neighborhood, posing traffic hazards on the winding residential street.

The Buddhist temple application was the subject of heavily-attended meetings conducted by five town agencies between August 2002 and February 2003. Besides the Conservation Commission and the P&Z, the temple topic was debated at sessions held by the Zoning Board of Appeals, the Board of Selectmen, and the Police Commission, serving as the town’s traffic authority.

Court Decision

In her decision on the five residents’ court appeal against the Conservation Commission, Judge Bellis wrote, “The agency did not act illegally, arbitrarily or in abuse of discretion when it granted the (society’s) application for a wetlands permit.”

The judge’s 30-page decision describes in detail the technical reasons why the Conservation Commission was justified in its actions.

Named as co-defendants in the Conservation Commission lawsuit were former Conservation Commission chairman Sandra Michaud; the Buddhist society; landscape architect Robert C. Schechinger, Jr, who is the society’s agent; and state Department of Environmental Protection Commissioner Arthur J. Rocque.

Before the Conservation Commission approved a wetlands permit for the Buddhist temple application, opponents had argued that such development held the potential for the contamination of domestic water wells on adjacent properties.

The wetlands permit, which was approved by the Conservation Commission, concerns the design and construction of a 4,000-square-foot storm water retention basin on the property to regulate the flow of storm water runoff, in order to limit sedimentation and erosion problems. The permit addresses the placement of a fire hydrant near a pond, which would be used for firefighting. The wetlands permit also concerns vehicle parking on the site.

In their appeal, the five residents charged that, “The applicant failed to demonstrate that the application was consistent with the purposes and policies of the inland wetlands regulations of the Town of Newtown and applicable state law.” The plaintiffs further charged that the Conservation Commission approved the application although the applicant had provided insufficient information and did not meet the wetland regulations.

In ruling on the appeal, Judge Bellis found, “the record contains substantial evidence that the (conservation) commission sufficiently considered all the matters within its jurisdiction…The court finds that because the commission addressed the proper issues and its determinations were supported by substantial evidence in the record, the commission fully satisfied its duties under (state law)…and therefore the plaintiffs’ appeal should not be sustained on this ground.”

Richard Coburn is the spokesman for opponents of the Buddhist temple proposal. Mr Coburn said February 18 that the plaintiffs in the Conservation Commission lawsuit will not pursue their appeal any further. The plaintiffs, however, disagree with the judge’s decision, he stressed.

The plaintiffs will raise money to aid the P&Z in defending itself against the Buddhist society’s court appeal of the P&Z’s zoning rejection of the temple application, Mr Coburn said.