Opposition To Hindu Temples In The West

[G.Subramaniam]

http://www.akron.com/akron-ohio-communit...p?aID=2517

Richfield PZC gives Hindu temple final blessing

5/29/2008 -
permalink bookmark
By Mike D’Agruma

Residents plan legal challenge

RICHFIELD VILLAGE — Sree Venkateswara Temple of Cleveland worshippers now have an officially approved facility in Richfield Village to practice their traditions — at least on blueprint paper.

The Richfield Village Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) voted 3-2 to approve the final plan for the religious facility during its May 27 meeting. Board members Dr. Charles Boester, Pete Schueler and Brenda Schult voted for approval, with Mark Kearney and Village Council member and PZC representative John Ciolkevich dissenting.

But despite the narrow margin of victory, there could be another long battle for the temple group before a single shovel is thrust in the ground. A group of residents that neighbor three sides of the temple site who have organized under the group “Concerned Richfield Homeowners” plan to appeal the PZC’s decision in the Summit County Court of Common Pleas. The residents who live near the site have said they are concerned about an increase in traffic and noise and the influx of strangers into the residential neighborhood.

“If you make this decision tonight, [the residents] are going to have to take that back to court,” said the group’s attorney Leland Cole. “We don’t want to go to court. We never did want to go to court. That seemed to be our only option. No one seemed to be listening.”

Village Mayor Mike Lyons said the resident group would probably file a similar administrative appeal with the court as it did following the PZC’s approval of the temple’s preliminary plan Nov. 27, 2007. The temple group’s attorney, Jay Porter, said after the hearing an agreed-upon order was filed as “pending litigation” on April 18 as a result of that appeal. He said the order, issued by Court of Common Pleas Judge Patricia Cosgrove, allowed the final approval plan vote to take place but also allows the neighbors to appeal, which requires the temple to be named as a party to the appeal, and limits the issues on appeal to one (the PZC’s decision). In exchange, Porter said temple officials agree not to start construction until the appeal is resolved and a conditional zoning certificate is issued.

“As a matter of fiscal responsibility, the temple would not start incurring construction expenses until the neighbors abandoned their opposition efforts anyhow,” Porter said. “As they say, ‘it’s never over till it’s over.’”

If legal obstacles are successfully cleared, the 3,772-square-foot temple would be built on 7 acres at 4406 Brecksville Road. Since the approval of the preliminary plan, a number of changes were made to accommodate requests by commission members and residents. Even during discussion, Schult chose to introduce a number of conditions on the property (which would also be carried on to any future owners), given its residential designation and a sentiment toward preserving greenspace. The temple group agreed to the following conditions:

* no expansion of the physical structure and its surrounding parking area other than what was already proposed and with the exception of a possible addition to the priest’s house;
* no use of outdoor loudspeaker systems for worship or music at any time;
* certain parking areas are not to be graded until installation; and
* the undisturbed forested area be maintained in a sustainable forest condition.

Before the vote, Cole voiced a new concern to add to a number of previously voiced ones regarding zoning code requirements on behalf of the resident group. He spoke on a piece of legislation before Village Council that would allow it to review conditionally permitted uses approved by the PZC within 30 days of passage.

Ciolkevich asked Lyons if the legislation could apply to the PZC’s vote on the temple plan through a grandfather clause, thereby allowing Council to review the permitted use, despite the law not being in place at the time of PZC approval. Lyons said he didn’t think that was appropriate, saying it “was a bit of changing the rules in the middle of the game.”

“The concern that I think a lot of us feel is that the technical requirements are being very closely adhered to,” Cole said. “However, the fundamental basis of the zoning use — is it harmonious in the area — seems to be ignored. It’s not an engineering project. It’s a determination of whether this particular building, this temple, located in this area, in a residential area, is really harmonious.”

“I kind of grappled with harmony and kind of decided that harmony is beauty — it’s in the eye of the beholder,” Schueler said. “The fact that we conditionally permit public and parochial schools, churches and buildings of religious worship, governmentally owned and operated parks and playgrounds and so forth — we allow all these in residential areas. We’re sitting in one, an R-2 area, right now. We have determined through our zoning, whether it was right or wrong, that this is basically in harmony with an R-2 district.”

The next PZC meeting will take place June 10 at 8 p.m. at Richfield Town Hall, 4410 W. Streetsboro Road.