Hindu temple closer to building in Richfield
By Jeff Gorman
RICHFIELD VILLAGE — After months of contentious hearings, the Richfield Village Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) approved the preliminary plan for the construction of Sree Venkateswara Temple Nov. 27.
The decision concluded the Hindu temple group’s search for a home in Richfield after two previous failed attempts. Pending final approval from the PZC, the group will build a 4,609-square-foot structure on almost 7 acres of residentially zoned property near the corner of Brecksville and Townsend roads.
According to Zoning Inspector Roger Swan, preliminary plan approval is a step in obtaining a conditional-use permit needed to construct the temple. Swan said the next opportunity the temple group could appear before the PZC with final plans is Jan. 22. The deadline to be placed on the agenda for that meeting — which will take place at 8 p.m. at the Town Hall, 4410 W. Streetsboro Road — is Jan. 8, said Swan.
The group previously tried to
build the temple at the
corner of Black and Boston Mills roads in Richfield
Township, but that request was denied by the township’s
Board of Zoning Appeals. The group then was interested
in property on Hawkins Road in the village. The village’s
PZC denied that proposal because the site offered
no sewer and water availability and was not located
on a main thoroughfare, according to Swan.
Residents attended four hearings
to voice their opposition to the temple plan, but ultimately
the PZC voted 4-1 to approve it. Members George Strongosky,
Brenda Schult, Charles Boester and Peter Schueler voted
for the approval, while Mark Kearney voted against it.
“I can’t vote in
favor of this,” said Kearney before the vote.
“I can’t be assured that the temple would
be harmonious and appropriate in appearance. We can’t
control the size of the operation.”
At the previous hearing Sept.
25, the PZC asked the temple group to conduct a tree
survey and make a grading plan for the parking lot.
Village Engineer Chuck Hauber
and Swan both said the group had met all of the requirements
for preliminary plan approval.
Schult proposed placing conditions
on the approval to ensure the site would be harmonious
with its surroundings. However, Schueler said the PZC
shouldn’t be dealing with future developments.
Schult replied that she wanted
the temple group to know what elements the PZC would
expect before granting final approval.
Another condition Schult suggested
was the addition of at least 65 trees to provide landscape
screening for the west side of the property. She added
the lights shouldn’t be too overwhelming, but
they should be enough to provide safety.
Strongosky said the conditions
should be noted but not required for the preliminary
plan. The plan was ultimately approved without conditions.
Attorneys on behalf of
both sides spoke at the hearing.
“All legal and zoning requirements
have been met,” said Jay Porter, the temple group’s
attorney. “We believe we have done everything
the commission has asked us to do.”
“We are saving 22 of the
trees in the area,” said Bill Berger, the temple
group’s architect. “That represents 24 percent
of the trees in our tree survey.”
Attorney Lee Cole spoke on behalf
of the neighbors who opposed the construction of the
Hindu temple on that site. 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. Residents also are concerned
the glare of parking lot lights would devalue homes
in the neighborhood.
“You need to follow your
own ruling on the Hawkins Road property,” Cole
said. “A property like this is supposed to be
adjacent to a park or school so they can share parking
space.”
Members of the Primosch family,
who own significant property in the area, traveled from
all over the country to attend the hearing.
“I don’t dislike
Indian people or their culture,” said Larry Primosch,
who traveled from California to attend the hearing.
“This is just the wrong place for it. The application
doesn’t meet four of the seven standards for a
conditional use nor one of the five standards for a
church.”
Boester responded the PZC already
had discussed those issues.
“This is a residential
area,” said Beth Primosch-Malone, who lives in
Arizona. “This is our second home, and there is
nothing like the solitude
and serenity of our place.”
Other residents spoke on both
sides of the issue.
“I was there in 1974 when
the Monroeville [Pa.] temple opened,” said Surinder
Bhardwaj, a Kent State University professor. “It
is an important cultural center for children and for
numerous universities in the United States.”
“I’m disappointed
that we would be adding another building and more traffic,”
said Susie Scott, a Charlton Road resident. “It’s
just too much.”
“Over 500 people signed
a petition opposing this project,” said Beth Newcomb,
a Brush Road resident. “That should count for
something.”
Village Mayor Mike Lyons said
he was concerned about the impact of the temple on the
Hutton property to the south.
“This would put the Huttons
in an untenable position,” he said. “Also,
there would be no physical relationship between the
temple and the nearby nursing home and doctor’s
office.”
Village Council Vice President
Bobbie Beshara also gave her opinion.
“I don’t think it’s
harmonious with the area,” she said. “It’s
a building nobody will want to look at when buying property.”
Rosemary Lassiter, a Brush Road
resident, mentioned the PZC’s previous denial
of the approval on Hawkins Road.
“You voted ‘no’
on this temple before on flat, clear land,” she
said. “Now, you are trying to squeeze it into
the back yards of residential property. We’re
going to keep [attorney] Lee Cole, and this will end
up wherever it has to end up.”
|
