ISKCON Temple: Too Big for the Site, Says Opponent

The Zoning Board of Adjustment continued its long consideration of a proposal to build an International Society of Krishna Consciousness temple at Baldwin and Troy roads Wednesday at Town Hall. It was hoped that perhaps the case could move to final summations or perhaps a ZBA vote, but neither occurred. Instead, the case was carried to the board's June 5 session.

The case has been deliberated for more than three years. A host of opponents have fought the project, among them owners of historic homes in the area and businesses such as Baldwin Ventures. They say the ISKCON plan would erode their quality of life and bring noise and traffic to an already congested area.

But the primary complaint was the focus of Wednesday's proceedings: According to the testimony of Peter G. Steck, a professional planner representing the temple's opponents, the proposed new building is simply too big for the site. 

The meeting began, however, with the pro-temple side. Attorney Robert Garofalo of law firm Garofalo and O'Neill questioned engineer Adman Khan, on of its witnesses, about a question that came up in previous meetings regarding the proposed parking lot for the house of worship. In the original plan, the parking would be located around and in front of the building, which would violate local ordinances for the office-zoned land. But Khan showed a plan in which the proposed temple building was rotated about 90 degrees counterclockwise to face Baldwin Road rather than Troy Road and moved parking to the building's rear.

Khan noted that there is no intent to use the plan—he was presenting it as a sort of academic exercise to show that "the applicant can comply with the existing ordinance" if ultimately forced to keep parking away from the front of the proposed temple site.

"There are no negative impacts," Khan said, adding that he likes "the new plan and the old one. Both plans can work on the site."

Additionally, he said that while setbacks in the concept plan are a little smaller than those in the original plan, but they remain "more than 50 feet."

Opposing lawyer Joel Murphy, represeting nearby business Baldwin Ventures, objected that his side wasn't given 10 days to see the "new" plan.

"What they're demonstrating is that they could comply" with the parking ordinance, said ZBA attorney George Johnson.

Garofalo agreed.

"We intend to show that we can comply if we must," he said. "We are not proposing this plan. There's been a question of whether we need a variance from the requirement that we don't park in the front yard."

Khan added that the "new" plan was merely "conceptual" and that no engineering studies were completed on this plan regarding soil movement and heights.

Opposing attorney Gary Hall, representing the Kimball family, which residens in a nearby historic home, objected to discussing the "new" plan.

"You made this in december and April 3 is the first time we're seeing it?" he asked.

As Garofalo answered back, board President Robert Iracane made a comment to move on in the discussion, which turned to the issue of the proposed temple's height.

Khan testified that under the "new" plan, the building, despite a change in average grade, would remain "pretty close" to a 35-foot calculated height.

"We're talking maybe six, seven inches difference," he said.

Murphy asked for leave to address the plan and cross-examine Khn after the opposing side experts have had a chance to go over the materials.

"I guess he could subpoena Mr. Khan to have him come back, but it may not be necessary," Johnson replied.

John McDonough, planner for the temple's side, was the next witness called.

He too defended the applicant's handling of parking for the proposed site, noting that "I find this application substantially passes that test."

His justification consisted of the constitutional right of religious freedom and that the temple would serve a local need.

"The census shows the Asian Indian population in Parsippany is significant, number 5 in the state," according to McDonough. "Forty-five percent of the membership in ISKCON live in Parsippany. It serves a paramount public interest."

He also noted the house of worship's accessibility to major roadways and its location is a "relatively secluded area, somewhat off the mainstream of Route 46" make the project an attractive one.

The planner also pointed out that while the proposed temple and its parking would be concealed from view in most instances thanks to landscaping and buffering, there are other Baldwin Road entities, including the Parsippany Police Athletic League building, which have visible parking. He added that 14 out of 22 buildings in other Par-Troy office-zoned sections have parking in the front yard.

"This is not an anomaly," said McDonough, referring to the original plan, which he stated was preferable to the concept Khan showed earlier. "We are in fact on par with the paramount layouts we see in the O-1 zone. There is very little detriment on negative side.... Balancing pros and cons, I find no negative impact from a visual, functional standpoint."

Under attorney Gary Hall's cross-examination, the applicant's planner defended his stated view that the project requires only one variance. He also dealt with questions regarding his statements on the 14 out of 22 buildings.

Hall asked about variances and site plan approvals regarding the 14 buildings that according to McDonough violate the parking ordinance.

"All I'm saying is that there are a majority of commercial-related properties with parking in front," he said.

"Is that a rationale to permit more parking to deviate?" asked Hall.

In his cross-examination of the planner, lawyer Joel Murphy asked whether the proposed temple might be better suited on a land mass two or three times the size of the Baldwin-Troy roads cornoer lot eyed by ISKCON.

"It would be wasteful, seeing as we're seeking no variances related to coverage and setbacks," McDonough answered.

"You used the word 'isolated.' From what is it isolated?," asked Murphy. "It's [close to] resideces on the Kimball House side and offices on [the Baldwin Ventures] side. And you're aware that while you indicated parking on the temple lot may be hidden from the street, it's absolutely obvious and impacting on our property if you stand in the parking lot."

"I said the concept would be worse," McDonough explained. "You would have a lesser impact. The volume of the building conforms to the ordinance."

After Garofalo rested his case, the lawyers representing the project opponents called their first witness, professional planner Peter G. Steck.

Steck reminded those listening that the plan Khan presented was purely conceptual and does not offer enough information to judge its worthiness. In the original plan, the one actually being considered by the ZBA concept plan has only partial information, he went after the proposed temple room, described as the primary worship space for the building.

"The ancillary space is much greater than what has been the focus of the applicant," Steck said. "The multipurpose hall, though not [site of] the main religious function, iit does have platforms. I'm not an expert on the religion, but deities, from an architectural standpoint, they are equivalent. And the multipurpose room has much greater capacity."

The planner argued that no matter what the applicant says to insist the structure has only three floors, it is a four-story structure.

"There is a maximum height of two stories and 35 feet. That's the standard," Steck insisted. "The applicant, by switching the name of rooms and putting in storage, he made a story disappear, but it didn't disappear. The back-end for stories [stands 40 feet high]; at the very top, it's 55 feet tall—two variances are needed."

Steck also pointed out that the PAL building, owned by the municipality, is under different parking restrictions than a temple would be. He said the situation for the historic Beecher and Kimball houses on Baldwin Road would be impacted negatively by front-yard parking on the temple site.

"In my opinion, that's offensive to the nature of this zone, but especially harmful because of the residences across the street and their historic nature. The land use plan says the area should be a residential zone" even though it's in an area technically zoned for offices.

"There are other zones that permit places of worship," said Steck, noting that he believes ISKCON's developer is going to great lengths to wriggle around zoning regulations and place a building on land too small to support it. "There are a lot of potential other areas that could serve as locations."