State Appellate Court To Hear Buddhist Temple Appeal

By Andrew Gorosko

The Connecticut Appellate Court has agreed to hear an appeal from the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc, which seeks to overturn a recent lower court decision that upheld the Planning and Zoning Commission’s (P&Z) rejection of the society’s proposal to build a Buddhist temple/meeting hall in a residential area at 145 Boggs Hill Road.

Following a review of the Buddhist society’s legal brief explaining why an appeal should be a heard and a review of the P&Z’s rebuttal, the Appellate Court agreed to hear the case. Deciding the appeal could take more than a year.

Of the society’s appellate-level appeal, P&Z Chairman William O’Neil said March 1, “I think we’ll have to let the court decide.”

The society’s pending appeal seeks to overturn Danbury Superior Court Judge Deborah Kochiss Frankel’s November 2005 decision that upheld the P&Z’s February 2003 rejection of the temple/meeting hall.

The society wants to build a 7,600-square-foot temple/meeting hall at its ten-acre property in a residential area at 145 Boggs Hill Road. The society has a monastery at the site.

Following lengthy consideration, P&Z members in February 2003 unanimously rejected the temple/meeting hall proposal, noting that the Buddhists’ envisioned use of the property, involving increased traffic and noise, would be “far too intense for this particular site.”

P&Z members found that the sloping site holds a significant amount of wetlands. Such a constraint would limit the area available for the proposed temple/meeting hall, parking spaces for about 150 vehicles, and activities involving 450 or more people on weekends, according to the P&Z.

The temple/meeting hall proposal drew heavy opposition from nearby property owners, who listed traffic problems and noise among their main complaints. A group of eight nearby residents entered the Buddhist society’s Danbury Superior Court action as intervenors, siding with the P&Z in the case.

In March 2003, citing religious freedom, as protected by federal and state law, the society filed a Danbury Superior Court appeal in seeking to overturn the P&Z’s rejection of its application. Through the appeal, the Buddhist society had sought to have a judge order the P&Z to approve the temple/meeting hall.

The society contends that Judge Frankel erred in interpreting applicable law in rendering her decision. The federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act and the state’s Religious Freedom Act are the laws addressed in the Buddhist society’s Superior Court appeal.

Last November, in her 35-page legal decision, Judge Frankel wrote, “The society’s claim alleging a violation of the equal protection clause [of the law] is unavailing because the court finds no evidence of selective treatment. The court further finds the society has neither established a ‘substantial burden’ nor a ‘burden’ on religious exercise sufficient to meet its prerequisite burden for a claim under [applicable federal and state law]. ...The court finds insufficient evidence to determine that the [P&Z’s] denial of the special permit, pursuant to substantial evidence in the record, was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.”

Petition

In its petition to the Connecticut Appellate Court, attorney Michael Zizka, representing the Buddhist society, wrote that the P&Z denial of the temple/meeting hall application violated applicable law because it imposed a substantial burden on the society’s exercise of its religion.

Mr Zizka further contends that legal errors were made in Danbury Superior Court when certain claims that had been made by Pong Me, who is the Buddhist society president, were dismissed from consideration.

Mr Zizka contends that the society’s lack of approvals for a septic waste disposal system and for a drinking water supply at the site do not pose substantial evidence of a threat to public health and safety.

Mr Zizka writes, “Many of the society’s members, including Pong Me, escaped the ‘killing fields’ of Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge regime to seek refuge in this country, a safe haven where they could freely practice their religion and live out their lives in peace. After years of work and saving, the society’s members sought to build a permanent temple and meditation center at 145 Boggs Hill Road.”

In a statement that challenges the society’s petition for Appellate Court review of the case, attorney Robert Fuller, representing the P&Z, states that case law holds that a zoning commission is not required to grant a special permit for the construction of a religious structure in a residential area, adding that religious institutions may be subject to reasonable regulation concerning their location.

The P&Z properly rejected the temple/meeting hall application based on public health and safety reasons, Mr Fuller adds.

Mr Fuller writes that a significant reason for rejecting the temple/meeting hall application involved traffic safety problems posed by the site’s location on a narrow and winding road, the presence of a single driveway at the site, and inadequate parking. Other significant reasons for the rejection involved the lack of approvals for a septic system and a water supply system at the site, Mr Fuller wrote.

Mr Fuller added that the remedy for the society is “to try to cure the problems with the site and reapply” for P&Z approval.

Intervenors

Richard Coburn of Boggs Hill Road, head of the Newtown Residential Preservation Society, this week said that the group is disappointed to learn that the Buddhist society is appealing its case to the Connecticut Appellate Court.

The preservation society, comprised of people living near the Buddhist society property, mounted organized opposition to the temple/meeting hall application. Mr Coburn was an intervenor in the Buddhist society’s Danbury Superior Court appeal of the P&Z’s rejection of the temple/meeting hall application.

Mr Coburn said he expects that the intervenors will continue to participate in the case at the Appellate Court level.

“Time and effort after more than three years of litigation might be better spent by [the Buddhist society] in seeking a more suitable alternate location for their project, instead of continuing to undermine the decisions our community’s [P&Z] and now Judge Frankel,” Mr Coburn said in a statement.

The preservation society will continue to oppose the Buddhist society’s construction of a temple/meeting hall at 145 Boggs Hill Road, he said.

Mr O’Neil has said that rather than appealing the Superior Court decision, the Buddhist society would be better advised to seek some other, more practical location for a temple/meeting hall elsewhere in Newtown. The P&Z is willing to aid the society find a better location for its facilities, he has said.

After the Buddhists acquired the Boggs Hill Road property in early 1999, nearby residents complained to the P&Z that the Buddhists held large events there that created noise and traffic problems. Based on those complaints, the P&Z issued a cease-and-desist order against the Buddhist society not to hold such gatherings unless it received a special exception to do so. Through its August 2002 P&Z temple/meeting hall application, the society had sought that special exception.