Town Orders Cambodian Buddhist Society To Halt Events

By Andrew Gorosko

In response to complaints from nearby residents, the town has issued a cease-and-desist order against the Cambodian Buddhist Society of Connecticut, Inc, because the organization has held gatherings of society members at its 145 Boggs Hill Road property without having the special zoning permit which is required for such activities.

In the order dated April 16, town Zoning Enforcement Officer Gary Frenette states, “If these activities should continue, a court injunction will be issued to stop these activities.”

“I must emphasize that the monks may continue to reside there as they have in the past,” Mr Frenette added.

In 1999, the society purchased the ten-acre property, which includes a house that is used as a monastery by four monks, 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 Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) through issuance of a special zoning permit.

In the cease-and-desist order, Mr Frenette states that the complaints he received describe the recent activities at the property as “religious services and/or festivals.”

Attorney Michael Zizka, who represents the Buddhist society, could not be reached for comment.

Pinith Mar, a spokesman for the Buddhist society, said on April 23 that the gatherings held recently at the property were not religious services, but were simply instances of society members socially visiting the property to pay their regards to the monks, bringing them food and gifts.

Mr Mar noted that April 13 through 15 was the Cambodian New Year, adding that the society rented a hall in New Britain on April 20 to conduct a festival for that event.

Unfortunately, the society does not a have a temple where it can hold such events, he said.

In January, after almost five years of court appeals, the state Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the P&Z commission was legally justified in February 2003 when it rejected the Buddhist society’s controversial proposal to build a 7,600-square-foot Buddhist temple/meeting hall at 145 Boggs Hill Road. 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 which 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.

The society then filed the court appeals in seeking to build a temple/meeting hall at the property, but lost both cases.

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 in the Supreme Court case, siding with P&Z in its rejection of the construction proposal.

Those Boggs Hill Road residents had lodged complaints with the town over the heavily-attended festivals which the Buddhists had held at the property before they applied for a special zoning permit in the summer of 2002.

Possible Appeal

“We realize that we cannot hold any religious services at the site,” Mr Mar said.

 Mr Mar said he will be conferring with the society’s lawyer on whether the society should appeal the town’s cease-and-desist order.

The recent gatherings at the site did not constitute religious ceremonies, but were social activities, Mr Mar stressed.

Following the recent Supreme Court decision, Mr Mar said he contacted the town about its longstanding offer to help the Buddhists find a suitable local site where they could construct a temple/meeting hall. Mr Mar suggested Fairfield Hills as a possible site.

Elizabeth Stocker, town director of planning and community development, said on April 23 that she would be doing some limited research in terms of finding possible locations for a Buddhist temple.

The Buddhists are seeking a site that is quiet and tranquil, but P&Z would want that site to be on a road large enough to physically handle the traffic that the site would generate, she noted.

Ms Stocker said she plans to contact Mr Mar on the matter.

In a letter of complaint to Mr Frenette about recent gatherings at the Buddhist property, 11 concerned residents stated that on March 22 approximately 23 vehicles were parked at the property, and on April 13 at least 60 vehicles were parked there.

Richard Coburn of 141 Boggs Hills Road, the president of Newtown Residential Preservation Society, heads the list of signers. That ad hoc society has led neighborhood opposition to the temple/meeting hall construction proposal.

“There have been up to a dozen cars on many Sundays at that site, and the recent large gatherings, which may have taken place on the Buddhist festivals, have been disturbing to us and have been presenting dangerous parking and traffic problems,” the letter of complaint added.

Police, who inspected the parking situation at the complainants’ request, said it was a zoning issue, according to the letter.

Mr Frenette said that an intensive use of the property puts a strain on the property’s septic system’s ability to properly dispose of wastewater.

If more large gatherings occur at the Buddhist property, the town would seek a court order to prevent such events from occurring, based on the advice of P&Z attorney Robert Fuller, Mr Frenette said.

Land Use Agency Director George Benson said the town needs to obtain legal clarification about the size of society activities which are permissible at the Buddhist property.

P&Z members have maintained that the amount of usable land at the site was inadequate for the proposed temple/meeting hall use. Issues including septic waste disposal, water supply, vehicle parking, and driveway access all were aspects of the P&Z’s decision to reject the construction proposal.