Temple Plans are Still Unclear

BY: CINDY FORREST

Aug 24, 2010 — PARSIPPANY, NEW JERSEY, USA (NORTHJERSEY.COM) — The latest Zoning Board of Adjustment hearing on the proposed construction of a Radha-Krishna Temple in Parsippany seems to have left the waters surrounding what the finished building will look like even muddier then before.

After more than a year and half of testimony, temple leaders last month announced a decision to scale back the project. The original plans were downsized after the size of the project, along with the distinctive and highly-ornamental façade of the building, drew criticism from the owners of neighboring properties and raised concerns from local historical groups.

"We don't want to be able to see the building [from the road]," said Randy Tortorello, president of the Parsippany Historical and Preservation Society.

Vision details hazy

Prior to the start of the hearing, Board member Michele Jennrich requested more detailed information.

"Unless you're going to pull a rabbit out of a hat, and I don't see one there," she said, "I'd like to ask for a model or a colored drawing. It has been two years of changes, changes, and changes."

Later in the evening, Joel Murphy, an attorney representing a business owner next door to the Radha-Krishna property, also asked for a model.

"We don't have a clue about what this is going to look like dimension-wise," he said. On the other side of the issue, Gary Hall, an attorney representing homeowners living across the street from the proposed temple, was concerned about the drawings that had been submitted to the Board. He asked to have "meaningless drawings" removed because they did not accurately represent the plans submitted.

But after two and a half hours of testimony, the visibility of the completed temple and the actual benefit of the downsizing remained vague. Leading the questioning at the hearing was local attorney Robert Garofalo, who is representing Iskcon of New Jersey, owner of the approximately three-acre lot at the intersection of Troy and Baldwin roads that is in pursuit of a variance for a site plan to construct a house of worship.

Subhas Mazumdar, the lead architect on the project, explained the revised plan. The April 2 drawing, he said, contained a two-phase plan in which the inner core (main prayer hall) and basement would be constructed first, then wings on either side of the center structure would be added in phase two. The amended plan eliminates the second phase of the project by eliminating the wings but keeps the central structure unchanged. "The footprint of the building hasn't changed," said Mazumdar, "except where the entrance has been moved to accommodate emergency vehicles."

The initial plan, including the wings, a mezzanine and a storage loft, put the building size at 55,043 square feet. The elimination of the wings, but still including the mezzanine and storage loft, cut the size down by 16,444 square feet to 38,599 square feet. Eliminated from the plan were some of the residential rooms, a museum and some classrooms.

The change was proposed to cut back the visual impact of the building. To demonstrate, Mazumdar compared the footprint of the temple with a 50,000-square-foot office building that he said the township would allow to be built there. The drawing showed that the office building's footprint would totally "envelope" the smaller temple.

However a number of holes were punched into the comparison under questioning by members of the Board, Hall and Murphy.

Board member George Kimmey pointed out it was not a good comparison because it likens a 35-foot-high office building to a 73-foot-high temple.

Alternate Board member Bernard Berkowitz added his observation that although the wings were eliminated, the basement, which would have run under the wings, is still the same size and its roof line still would be visible. Hall drove that point home.

"The comparison is not accurate because it doesn't show the basement roofline that would extend beyond the parameters of the ‘phantom' office building," he said.

Murphy seemed to be skeptical about whether the wings would be built later. The plan states "future wing" in the area designated as priest housing, he said. Murphy also noted, "The basement becomes housing, therefore the density of the project stays the same."

When Murphy asked what type of roof the basement would have, Mazumdar initially said that had yet to be determined. Then he said it would be a flat roof with railing around it but he said that no architectural drawing had been done. Murphy questioned whether the roof would be like a deck and whether eating, picnicking or any social gatherings would take place there.

Also called into question were the ornate design of the building, the number of levels to the structure and the height/necessity of the shikhars, or domes on the building.

For the complete article, please click here.