There has been much discussion about the Dwarakadhish Temple’s application before the Sayreville Zoning Board of Adjustment, and that’s a good thing. People should be concerned about things such as traffic, taxes, the need for new schools and quality of life issues. But it’s important to understand the law under which land use boards must operate.
Since 1993, religious groups have enjoyed additional protections under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Since that time, aggrieved religious institutions of many faiths have sued local governments, gotten the approvals they sought and collected large cash settlements. In 2014, Bridgewater Township paid $7.5 million to settle a lawsuit because it refused to allow a banquet hall to be converted into the Al Falah Islamic community center. In May, $3.5 million was awarded to an Islamic group when it, and the federal Justice Department, sued Bernards Township for denying approval for a mosque. The group won its approvals and the town is required to school its officials in diversity and religious freedom. Among the issues the board cited in its denial was the size of the mosque’s parking lot. Neighbors argued they were not opposed to the use but there were more appropriate places for the mosque. Sound familiar?
Lawsuits will surely ensue if the temple application is denied. To protect the borough, the board must negotiate reasonable conditions that will lessen the impact on the community.
The temple was originally before the Planning Board in 1993 and I chaired the board then. Traffic was a very legitimate concern. During the approval process we negotiated a plan for congregants to park at the Route 9 Park and Ride and be bused to the temple for major events. The temple willingly agreed. Why wouldn’t they? It would have eliminated a traffic problem for them and the town. But when the application was denied and the temple sued, a federal judge granted their approvals without conditions. When an application is denied by a board then approved by a judge, the town loses the right to impose important conditions.
It appears two primary concerns now are traffic and additional school kids that could come from the 12 apartments for the temple’s clergy. Both of these can be addressed if the Board of Adjustment negotiates appropriate conditions:
During major holidays and events, congregants should park at the Route 9 Park and Ride and a facility such as the Faith Fellowship parking lot and be bused to the temple. One is on a major highway and the other has its own Parkway exit. The number of temple parking spaces could then be reduced, saving acres of trees from being destroyed and minimizing surface water runoff. It would reduce traffic and help the environment.
The temple should agree that their 12 parsonage units could be counted as affordable housing and structure the arrangement accordingly. If counted in the borough’s affordable housing stock, it would reduce the number of market rate apartment units that need to be built by 84. That would more than offset any possible school cost impact.
I understand that many want the town to just say no, but that irresponsible denial of rights would invite more lawsuits, cost the town and ultimately lead to an approval without conditions.
Jim Robinson
Parlin section of Sayreville
