Buddhists Challenge Town Order

By Andrew Gorosko

The long-contentious issue of the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc’s, use of its 145 Boggs Hill Road property reemerged this week, as the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) held a sometimes emotional public hearing on the society’s appeal of an April town order to halt any “religious services and festivals” at the ten-acre site.

The cease-and-desist order issued by Zoning Enforcement Officer Gary Frenette had come in response to complaints from nearby residents who informed him that there had been about 23 vehicles parked at the Buddhist property on March 22, and about 60 vehicles parked there on April 13.

In his April 16 order to the society, Mr Frenette tells the group to stop such events or face the prospect of court action by the town. There have been no recent complaints about the property’s intensity of use.

The society maintains that the gatherings on both spring days were not religious services, but were simply cases of society members visiting the Buddhist monks, who live in the house/monastery on the property, to bring them food and gifts.

Through its appeal to the ZBA, the society seeks to have the agency nullify the cease-and-desist order.

The society’s intensity of use of its property has been an issue for almost a decade, with its past staging of religious festivals there drawing the ire of nearby residents and also resulting in zoning enforcement actions by the town.

In January, after almost five years of court appeals, the Connecticut Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) was justified in February 2003, when it rejected the Buddhist society’s controversial request for a special zoning permit that would be required to build a proposed 7,600-square-foot Buddhist temple/meeting hall at the property. That Supreme Court decision upheld a November 2005 Danbury Superior Court decision in which a judge upheld the P&Z’s rejection of the temple/meeting hall proposal.

In February 2003, 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, is a land use that is too intensive for the site.

P&Z decided that the proposed use of the site was inconsistent with a quiet single-family residential neighborhood with a rural setting, and thus does not meet applicable zoning regulations which require that a land use be in harmony with the general character of a neighborhood.

Nearby residents had complained that the intensive use of the site would result in hazardous traffic conditions on the sinuous Boggs Hill Road, and would result in noisy and crowded conditions at the site.

 

Public Hearing

At the July 16 ZBA public hearing, Attorney Michael Zizka, representing the society, told ZBA members that Mr Frenette was unjustified in concluding that the society had held religious services at the property last spring. Society members simply came to the house/monastery to present gifts to the monks, the lawyer said.

Mr Zizka said the results of the Supreme Court case do not have any bearing on activities conducted at the Boggs Hill Road property. The Supreme Court did not find that traffic and parking stemming from the Buddhists’ use of the property were valid reasons to deny the application to construct a temple/meeting hall on the property, he said.

“There were no organized religious activities going on [last spring]…This [house/monastery] will not be used as a temple,” Mr Zizka said. Religious services for the group will be held elsewhere, he said.

“We will not accept any order saying that people cannot visit the monks at their home,” Mr Zizka told ZBA members.

Mr Frenette said he had received complaints from nearby residents that religious services and activities were being held at the property, so he investigated. The zoning regulations require that a group holding religious services have a special permit from the P&Z, and the Buddhist society does not have such a permit, he said.

Special permits specify the terms and conditions of a property’s use for specific purposes.

ZBA member Ross Carley asked Mr Frenette whether he has proof that the activities conducted by the society on two days last spring constituted “festivals.”

 Mr Frenette responded that due to the number of vehicles parked at the property and the phase of the moon at the time, he concluded that the Buddhists were conducting religious services at the site.

Mr Carley pointed out that Mr Zizka claims that the Buddhists held a religious festival during that period in New Britain, instead of in Newtown.

“Basically it’s your word against his,” Mr Carley said.

“Yes,” Mr Frenette responded.

The conflict over the Buddhists’ intensity of use of the property dates back about nine years, Mr Frenette said.

 After they acquired the land in 1999, the Buddhists held festivals there, which resulted in neighbors’ complaints and the issuance of town orders to halt the activities. The Buddhists later sought a special zoning permit to build a temple, but were denied that permit by the P&Z in 2003.

Mr Zizka asked Mr Frenette whether he would take enforcement against residents who held a Super Bowl party or held a New Year’s Eve party.

Mr Frenette said he would not, adding, however, that the Buddhists received the April cease-and-desist order because they were conducting religious services without a special zoning permit.

Society spokesman Pinith Mar stressed that the society’s springtime religious event was held in New Britain, not Newtown.

Society members visiting the monks at Boggs Hill Road is both cultural and religious in nature, he said.

Town Land Use Agency Director George Benson said that the town considers the history of what has happened at a given site in enforcing the zoning rules. Zoning enforcement is not taken lightly, he added.

Conducting religious activities in a residential zone requires a special zoning permit, he said. The site is in a R-2  (Residential) zone. The Supreme Court upheld the P&Z’s requirement that such a special permit is required, he said.

Attorney Thomas Beecher, representing some residents who live near the site, said that the presence of 60 vehicles parked at the site one day last spring is clear evidence of religious activity at the property. “What occurred coincided with a religious holiday,” he said.

“When is this going to end?” he asked. “The neighbors have spent a lot of time and money to protect their neighborhood,” he said.

The Buddhists say they acquired the Boggs Hill Road property in 1999 for its peace and tranquility, Mr Beecher said.

Nearby property owners acquired their properties for the same reasons, he added. The gatherings conducted by the Buddhists vanquish that tranquility, he said.

Janis Opdahl of 143 Boggs Hill Road said she lives next door to the society’s property. “It’s a dangerous curve,” she said of the hazards posed by a sharp curve in the road there.

Jeanette Coburn of 141 Boggs Hill Road said she witnessed the springtime activity at the Buddhist property and then complained to the town. “Something has to be done to stop these activities,” she said.

Richard Coburn, of the same address, said, “The [ZBA] appeal is ludicrous and should be dismissed.”

Whether the activities at the site are religious or social in nature, they are too intensive for the residential area, he said.

The society should find a more suitable location for its activities, he said.

ZBA members are expected to act on the Buddhist society’s appeal at upcoming session.