Posted on 08/18/2010 4:45:30 PM PDT by SJackson
HOUSTON: A newly-built Sikh temple in Austin may soon be razed or moved following a Texas appellate-court ruling that it violated zoning laws, resulting in an outcry from members of the community.
The temple was completed in April to replace a mobile home that the congregation of about 60 families in central Texas had been using as a place of worship since 2003.
But, the congregation says it was unaware of the subdivision's restricting covenants stating that only single-family dwellings can be built on the lot and that they must be used as housing.
The group purchased the 2.75-acre property where the new temple sits in 2003 in a subdivision of the Austin suburb of Bee Cave and set up the makeshift temple in the 1,200- square-foot mobile home, which was already on the property.
Two years later, the congregation started plans to build a temple on the property and obtained all necessary permits from the city, said Harnek Bains, president of the Austin congregation.
Sikh organisation Austin Gurdwara Sahib said it cost $350,000 to build the temple, and it paid $100,000 for the land.
The court ruling has resulted in an outcry from members of the religious group, some of whom claim discrimination is at the heart of the case.
"There is a great amount of grief that a religious house of worship is being destroyed," said Amardeep Singh, director of programmes at the National Sikh Coalition, a civil-rights organisation.
Bains said the congregation faced no opposition until 2008, when the Bolliers moved into the neighbourhood and filed suit while the temple was under construction.
"We were shocked and stunned," Bains said. The Bolliers said in a statement: "We did not bring this suit until AGS violated the single-family dwelling restriction by beginning construction of a large, pre-fabricated aluminum commercial building on its lot".
The dispute began when a couple, John and Leslie Bollier, living in the neighbourhood filed a lawsuit on the grounds that the temple violated the subdivision's rules restricting construction to single-family dwellings.
"It isn't about religion, but rather the construction of a building that could bring down property values in a residential neighbourhood".
The trial-court judge sided with the Sikh group in March 2009, saying while it was in violation of the subdivision's covenants, the Bolliers were barred from seeking court action on use of the property in large part due to the expiration of a statute of limitations that requires citizens to file suit within four years of an alleged violation.
Guess they don’t have a sugar daddy in City Hall.
If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
I'd suggest the Sikhs get together with the Greek Orthodox and call the President, but these things are only national issues when you're building a Mosque to catcall allah akbar 5 times a day at the site where 5 Muslims per plane got lost over the Hudson River. Decision Not to Rebuild Church Destroyed on 9/11 Surprises Greek Orthodox Leaders
You can bet your sweet bippy this would never happen if it was a mosque.
“Sikh organisation Austin Gurdwara Sahib said it cost $350,000 to build the temple, and it paid $100,000 for the land.”
How do you build a freaking temple in a residential zone area and finish it without the code enforcement officer stopping by?
If all the necessary permits were acquired, that's a good question. I suspect there's a lot we don't know, but it's interesting it can be reported without charges of anti-Sikh bigotry.
Imagine the outcry had it been a mosque that was destroyed. I am 100% certain, legal or not, a mosque would not have suffered the same fate, had it been there instead of the Sikh temple.
Having said that, I’m for the rule of law, here. Did they violate the zoning laws or not? Who is to blame? The state inspectors, the construction company, the architects or the ones responsible for paying for the construction? How do these entities ensure that laws have not been violated? I wouldn’t like to excuse transgressions of the law, had it been a church or a synagogue, either. If you want to complain about the law itself, there are proper channels available to address these concerns. Use them.
Rules,I owed a commercial property that you could not add onto.Former owner built an addition and township tore it down.When we bought all I saw was the bottom frame.They tore it down.Rules.
>>But, the congregation says it was unaware of the subdivision’s restricting covenants stating that only single-family dwellings can be built on the lot and that they must be used as housing. <<
Pretty straightforward and a good rule. I have heard about many neighborhoods ruined by having a church, temple, etc. built in the middle of it. You get traffic, parking and noise issues that are never-ending.
They should sue their lawyers and/or contractors. This is Law/Vetting 101.
Well yes. And didn’t they have to get a building permit to start?
Maybe I can help as to how this could happen. I live a few miles from where this is happening and I’m not sure of the specifics, but I have a little knowledge of the entities.
Seven years ago, I almost bought a house about a half mile from the place in question. It needed a lot of work and I wanted to know what would be involved, permit-and- inspection-wise to complete the work. I called the Bee Cave city hall and was told I would need multiple inspections by their inspectors as well as multiple permits, again, from them.
The owner, a lawyer, when told this, said “BS!”, made a few phone calls and soon I got another call from Bee Cave, saying they had “been mistaken”, and that I’d only need a Travis County permit. The Travis County permit required (then) only a plot plan and simple drawing of the floorplan, and no inspections, except electrical. There was no checking of by-laws, etc.
I bet the Sikhs got a Travis County permit, actually never knew about the by-laws, or ignored, or figured no one would make a case of it, and built their temple. Then the plaintiffs moved in, saw the rules in their closing documents, and raised hell.
One of the restrictions is that you can only have 1 out door shed per lot, and your house must be at least 1400 sq feet.
We have had people in the past come around and ask for signatures that they could have an extra shed now and then, and I always say sign it-it is better than seeing the junk laying around (no restriction that you have to hide your junk).LOL.
It says they got all the necessary permits from the City before they started construction.
Sounds to me like the city owes them a new building somewhere else.
I’d want to see the original app and how the building was described. ‘Dwelling’? ‘Temple of Worship’? Even if they only got a county or city permit, there is generally language in local codes regarding zoning area.
THe fellow who rebuilt a home isn’t the same. In my Maryland county, IIRC, areas are subzoned, thus not all commercial areas are ok for any commercial building.
No matter what happened, it’s pretty irresponsible to spend around a half-million dollars on a building without making absolutely sure you can legally build it.
If they asked and were given bad information, I agree with you. If they didn’t, well,.. I bet they will next time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.