Rosedale Neighborhood Fights Proposed Buddhist Temple in WP

Neighbors nearby a site for a proposed Buddhist temple are scrutinizing the project and doing all they can to ensure modifications are made to the plans.

The residents are not against the concept of a new religious institution at 1 Sycamore Lane. But they are arguing the proposal, which includes a small campus of buildings, is too large for the four-acre site currently occupied by a single-family home and are taking issue with it being built well within the buffer protecting the already disturbed wetlands.

Close to 100 residents of the Rosedale Neighborhood flocked to City Hall Sept. 4 at a Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, the first of what will be many on the application of Dro Gah Sang Foundation.

“Nothing needs to be rushed through. We welcome the temple into our neighborhood and into our community,” said Barbara Murray, one of approximately a half dozen residents to address the board. “We just ask that it’s built to fit into the integrity of the community, and we preserve the delicate balance of our wetlands.”

The panel determines whether to provide relief from zoning requirements deemed to be causing “unnecessary hardship” for people looking to build on their property.  In this case, Dro Gah Sang is asking the Zoning Board of Appeals to approve deviations from what’s permitted in the city’s Zoning Code in the R1-30 District.

The Building Department identified different variances necessary because the planned structures — the 12,000 square-foot, two-story temple with an outdoor courtyard incorporated within its walls, as well as an artifacts building, pagoda, parking lot and other accessory structures – are “non-conforming.

Cecilia Bikkal, chair of the board, shut down the tense standing-room-only meeting after a little more than two hours of mostly testimony from the applicant’s lawyer, engineers and architects. Board members asked some questions and less than 10 attendees were allowed to comment.

The board took no vote. The hearing will continue at next month’s meeting, which is when the negative feedback is anticipated to continue to rain down. The outburst shouldn’t be a surprise to local officials though.

Neighbors had been making the Common Council aware of their discontent for months.

They’re worried about the potential environmental disturbance, but also a possible increase in flooding and traffic.

Some wore buttons at last week’s meeting with an image of the Rosedale Avenue and Sycamore Lane street signs, and phrases “Save Our Wetlands” and “No Variances” to the first hearing. Others have put up lawn signs with similar messaging around their neighborhood.

Dro Gah Sang and its president Angela Tang have occupied the home and surrounding property at 1 Sycamore Lane since purchasing them back in 2018 for $2.1 million, according to property records.

The organization formed that same year without a singular place to practice its religion.

Leadership now hopes to establish that home base, choosing it largely because of its natural beauty. No more than 15 people– with the exception of one large religious holiday event – would be on the campus at one time, said David Steinmetz, lawyer representing the Droh Gah Sang.

The traffic is a concern, but the primary challenge will be the wetlands and will require a variance related to the stream cutting through the property and the encroachment on the buffer protecting what experts described during the hearing as a natural area long disturbed by man.

“I’m not dealing with a pristine untouched wetland area,” said Steinmetz.

The focus of the hearing was on zoning variances for the number and location of parking spots. The environmental impact is one of the factors being weighed by the board when considering approving them.

“This project gives us an opportunity to restore a site back to its natural state after decades of neglect,” said Edward Figura, landscape architect with the application.

And in the pipeline is an appeal letter from a lawyer representing approximately 10 of the homes near the property in question.

Attorney Rhea Mallett is arguing the city’s building department should have identified more variances needing approval and may bring more attention to the wetlands earlier in the land use process.

“The zoning ordinance says that there needs to be a 50-foot protective buffer strip and buffer around the water course,” said Mallett. “It then says ‘and’ another 50-foot protective or restrictive buffer, making it 100 feet. The zoning code by the city of White Plains is so clear in what the statutory construction should be.”

The Planning Board will weigh in eventually on the wetlands encroachment variance. The Common Council would ultimately have to approve the site plan.