Court Got It Right On The Buddhist Temple

To the Editor:

In response to Amanda Bloom’s letter last week citing Newtown’s lack of diversity: Thank heavens the Connecticut Superior Court judges have above-average intelligence and an acute sense of right and wrong. I was so relieved that the court upheld the Newtown Planning and Zoning’s decision to deny the building of the monstrosity of a 7,400-square-foot temple on a narrow, dark, winding, dangerous residential road. The main reason they cited is that they (the court) could find no substantial evidence that the monks’ religious freedom was hampered in any form. Simply put, the monks should have looked for a different piece of property from the beginning or asked “does zoning allow for a large temple, parking lot, lights and lots of traffic at this location?” The monks are creating the commotion and calling everyone else unfair!

 The farmhouse where they now reside does not require a huge paved parking lot with tall industrial lights beaming in someone’s living room or bedroom. And hello — Saint Rose is on a public state road, also known as Route 6. That was a poor example. If you can’t tell the difference between Bogg’s Hill and Church Hill, there is no need for further comment. It just underlines the fact that places of worship should be on a well-traveled, lighted thoroughfare where police monitoring is routine. Maybe meditation is a quiet activity but 450 cars means accidents and pollution and the need of a huge septic system. The number of expected worshipers is expected to grow because this temple was planned not only for Newtown and Danbury followers, but for the state of Connecticut and beyond. Getting stuck behind a school bus will be the least of your worries if you live so close.

Diversity is very important. Period and end of sentence. That has nothing to do with this dialogue. I would have been just as opposed to a Home Depot or any other Big Box store moving into a residential neighborhood. Why have zoning laws at all if anyone can request a change and then demand it to happen as they see fit for their own purposes? There are plenty of more appropriate pieces of property in Newtown or Danbury that would be fitting for a temple and an immense parking lot. It seems spiteful and inconsiderate for the “peaceful” monks to want to disturb the quiet refuge of home for so many residents of Boggs Hill Road. They seem to care less that they would be creating a dangerous situation as far as traffic problems, especially during bad weather. Many out-of-town people who are not familiar with the narrow, dark road would be adding to the possibility of car accidents. It simply makes sense that construction of this magnitude be reevaluated. No one is saying they don’t want the monks to meditate or congregate! This issue is not about denying religious freedom. That fact seems to be flying right over your head. Perhaps you have room next door to your house for a temple with a parking lot, lights, Port-O-Potties, and 450-plus quiet people. Who knows? If this temple is allowed, diversity in the form of some other huge landmark might just be in your backyard.

JoAnne Barnhart

Brushy Hill Road, Newtown                                   December 5, 2005