Krishna Temple's Size, Parking Raise Concerns

The Parsippany Zoning Board of Adjustment approved this week the use variance, subject to seeing the revised preliminary site plan for an application for a proposed temple on office-zoned land at the intersection of Baldwin and Troy roads.

During the meeting, the major concerns dealt with the size of the property and its height. In an earlier article on this meeting, Patch summed up the board’s thoughts on the application being "inherently beneficial."

The application calls for a Hare Krishna temple designed by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) and has waited more than four years for this approval. However, there was much back and forth about the site plan. The applicant will return with the revised site plan, and which will need another hearing to vote to finalize the site plan, which will include all the offerings the applicant has made throughout years.

With eight board members present, the second alternate, Amil Shah, did not vote but did participate in the discussions. Voting in favor was Board President Robert Iracane, George Kimmey, Bernard Berkowitz, Steve Cappadonna, Loretta Gragnan, Steve Dickens and Brian Kelley. All members did not find a problem with the use of the property and agreed it was inherently beneficial.

The applicant was represented by Joseph O’Neill, of law firm Garofalo and O'Neill, at the meeting.

Opponents of the temple cited the temple’s size, height and sufficient parking as the major issues. One of the opponents to the temple was resident Dudley Kimball, who owns the nearest historic house with his sister, Jane, and Kimball is represented by attorney Gary Hall.

Height/Visual

“It’ll be very visible from Baldwin Road,” said Murphy.  “When (my clients) walk out of their front door and into the parking lot, they’re going to turn to the left and look at this building that is 50 feet high … there’s at least four stories in this building.”

To address the visual concerns with the temple, the “client has provided ample landscaping,” said O’Neill.

As for the appearance of the building, Dickens said that the building height “does meet our zoning requirements. You can’t judge an application on appearances … If the expert say that it is not four stories, then it meets the requirements of our zoning.”

Shah said that it’s difficult to judge whether or not the temple is “visually impactful” because that’s subjective. “This being a temple would look out of the ordinary, it’s going to be different … I think approving this application will attest to the diversity that Parsippany has. I don’t think it will be visually impactful in a negative way.”

Front Parking

O’Neill said the applicant “complies with all bulk standards. The only bulk standard that is in question is parking in the front of the building.”

“There’s parking in the front yard, which the ordinance does not allow,” Hall said, adding that it’s better to have parking in the back of the building as well and “I think realistically, (the applicant) they’ve never considered that.”

Hall said that “they (the Kimballs) have a house there that we all acknowledge is historic and they’re legitimately concerned that the proposed temple would be overdevelopment of this particular site. It’s not because it’s going to be a religious facility. It’s because it won’t fit.”

He added that there were concerns with adequate parking when and if the temple grows in the future. He said the fact that number of parking spaces is calculated on the square footage of the building “after you factor out the aisles and the deity areas,” but experts said in the past “that may be true, but they (the experts) were very skeptical of all that extra space not affecting the parking demand,” said Hall.

Opposing lawyer Joel Murphy, representing nearby business Baldwin Ventures, said “the temple is going to prosper. They’re going to have more people at this location than it did in Montville.”

“As a board … you’re bound by the ordinance; you’re also bound to interpret the ordinance and apply it in a common sense way,” said Hall. “If your ordinance isn’t clear on the parking demands for a given use, then you should determine what parking is required.”

Murphy added that with a large temple“on a small piece of property, how many parishioners do you think we would have?” He said that it wouldn’t be in the “low hundreds as been mentioned many times … the number 200-250 was talked about by traffic experts.”

He added that in a June 10, 2009 transcript, “the witness indicates that during the holidays, there could be 500-800 at any given time. We didn’t talk about this ever again.”

Murphy also brought up the PAL for comparison, that when it’s in full operation, “there’s parking all over, in our lot, … everyone experiences the overflow” and with the PAL along with the temple, “you’ve already compounded an already difficult situation … This is not a little chapel. This is a mega church with 40,000-60,000 square feet.

“They withdrew the wings to cut back on the square footage to 40,000” sq. ft. “but if they build (the temple) and come back” to ask to build the wings “and put another 10-20,000 sq. ft. in there, there’s not enough parking. At some point in time, a couple of years ago, they alluded to buses coming in” said Murphy. “If you put temple along with the PAL, that neighborhood can not sustain that type of expanded use.”

O’Neill said there are “parking problems because the PAL is conducting uses that are beyond its original approval.”

“Parking provided on this site is ample and in excess of what is required,” said O’Neill. “There’s no proof of any of these negative” criteria.

This property more than fits on this property according to the town’s ordinance,” said Robert Garofalo, on behalf of the applicant.

Board Comments on Parking

“In my opinion I have no problem with the use … I still have questions about the site plan with whether it’s too big for its size. Parking seems to comply with the ordinance. There were discussions about times when they would have their high holy days … It won’t be too different from Christmas or Easter for a Catholic church,” said Berkowitz, adding that he believed those that opposed the temple “don’t seem too opposed to the use, just the intensity of the use.”

Kelley agreed with Berkowitz. He was content with the use but had questions about the site plan.

“The height hasn’t been addressed property … it hasn’t been made clear … how many stories this building actually is and as far as the parking goes, the front-yard parking … I don’t think it’s going to be a good image for the neighborhood, said Kelley. “I’m not 100 percent convinced that this is not too big for the property.”

Cappadona echoed the statements from Berkowitz and Kelley, saying he’s OK with the use, but needs more clarification on the site plan.

Kimmey said he “was happy to see (the temple’s size) was brought down in height and size.” He said that 143 parking spots was adequate but “would like to see a comprehensive plan to take care of those four high holy days.”

Kimmey also stressed the importance of landscaping because it helps with buffering.

 “I think it mitigated the number of parking spot issue by being willing to provide off-site parking and busing on those days and holidays when they’re going to exceed their normal capacity,” said Dickens. “There’s plenty of screening and buffering. They’ll be providing hundreds of bushes and trees into this design. My big concern is the overall bulk size of the building and how it presents itself on the property … the building is large, but I also think that the applicant has adequately presented its need for this case.”

“There is ample parking,” said Shah. “I think the calculation should be calculated by just the prayer hall. The entire building will not be used at once. The prayer hall will be used and then the dining hall will be used,” neither will be used at the same time. “They want a multi-purpose temple … it should incorporate all aspects, a prayer hall, dining hall, a place where they can just get together.” Shah said he doesn’t believe the building is too large for the location.

“For those 4 or 5 holy days, … you can look at any use, they will have days that will have more people than they can fit,” said Shah, giving the example of Black Friday at the mall.

“I do object to the size,” Gragnan said, adding that she is “concerned with the wings, nothing will be built on them now, but in the future it’s a possibility … I go by Baldwin Road every Sunday (at different times throughout the day). On certain Sundays, you cannot trespass that road.”

Iracane had “no problem with granting use variances but think the site plan needs some work … We know the building is not going to be any smaller because it does meet the maximum requirement for that property.”

“Any non-residential use (as well as building something not permitted in this zone) is bound to produce some adverse effects,” said George Johnson, board attorney, adding that what the board needs to consider is, “is the impact significant?” in regards to the size of the building and the site plan. “But if the applicant can “make that effect minimal, you’re compelled to approve it.”

Related Patch Posts:

• Krishna Temple's 'Long Road' Ends With Approval After Years of Debate
  
• Krishna Temple's Use Variance Finally Gets Approval 
• Public Comments on Krishna Temple Plan Ahead of Final Vote 
• Hare Krishna Temple Hearing Nears Completion Before Zoning… 
• Zoning Board to Discuss Controversial Hare Krishna Temple in… 
• Krishna Temple Plan Returns to ZBA Agenda 
• ISKCON Temple: Too Big for the Site, Says Opponent 
• Temple Application Remains Unresolved 
• Potential Conflict of Interest Claim Made in Temple Case 
• Controversial Temple Plan Back Before Zoning Board 
• Temple Plan Controversy Erupts Again Before Zoning Board 
• Emotions High Over Controversial Temple Zoning Issue