A majority of the Township Committee is ready to back restrictions on houses of worship in agricultural zones – a move that could block construction of an Indian temple on Cranbury Neck Road.
By: Brian Shappell
A majority of the Township Committee is ready to back restrictions on houses of worship in agricultural zones, a move that could block construction of an Indian temple on Cranbury Neck Road.
The Planning Board recommended an ordinance earlier this month that, if passed, would place restrictions on houses of worship in zones throughout the township, directly affecting a current application by the Chinmaya Mission, an Indian spiritual organization, to build a temple.
If the ordinance should pass, houses of worship, in all zones of the township, would have to adhere to the regulations of the specific zone the structure was being built in. Previously, houses of worship had a separate standards to meet during to application process. The new regulations include limiting the amount of developable acreage to 20 percent of the total property and increasing the buffer between a building and neighboring property lines.
The committee is expected to introduce the ordinance Monday.
Three committee members — Mayor Alan Danser and committeemen Art Hasselbach and Tom Gambino — support the restrictions saying they would help preserve the agricultural feel of the zone.
Committee members Michael Mayes and Greg Overstreet oppose the changes.
Currently, the temple proposal is in compliance with township zoning. That would change if the proposed changes are approved.
The Chinmaya Mission is proposing a 4,080-square-foot temple with 209 parking spaces on the Tantum farm on Cranbury Neck Road. The Mission, after negotiating the land purchase based on application approval, submitted their first, partial application for the project on July 13.
Bruce Samuels, the Chinmaya Mission’s attorney, said the temple plan is almost double the proposed 20 percent limit. He said the temple plan calls for 43 percent of the property to be developed with either building or parking.
Mr. Mayes and Mr. Overstreet said changing the zoning regulations would be unfair because the changes would be put in place after the application was filed.
Mr. Mayes said the reasons for making the change — preserving historic vistas and not mixing incompatible land uses in the zone — were good. But making changes because of a pending application was unacceptable.
“It’s unfair; we have an application that meets the current requirements,” Mr. Mayes said. “I don’t like to make a decision based on personal judgments.”
Mr. Overstreet said making the change now would mean the Mission will lose the money its used for the current application and would force it to spend more money to create a plan that complies with new regulations.
“We’ve had questions raised to the fact that the individuals involved made plans based on previous standards,” Mr. Overstreet said. “They have had extensive expenses involved. They seem to be out money.”
Members of the Planning Board said the use was incompatible with the predominant use of the zone, farming. Mr. Gambino agreed with the recommendations of the planning board members on that basis.
“The reasons we are doing it are valid,” Mr. Gambino said. “The location of a regional facility in the middle of farmland has two impacts. One is, the use is incompatible and inconsistent with farming. The other has to do with historic preservation. We’ve said we want to preserve agriculture and history in this township. This does both.”
The township never considered such an ordinance in the past, because officials didn’t foresee development as large as a house of worship, Mayor Danser said. The only uses the township expected in the A-100 Zone were single-family homes and farmland, much of which is protected under the state’s Farmland Preservation Program. Mayor Danser called it an “error of omission.”
Mr. Gambino said the township should have the right to make such changes, especially when dealing with an application that calls for such a high-volume use.
“It’s difficult to make a rule to fit into every circumstance, but it’s reasonable for a town to be allowed to react when faced with an application that is not expected,” Mr. Gambino said.