Opinion: Church parking lot should be rejected
On Sept. 17, the Haddonfield Zoning Board will consider a “hardship” request from the First Church of Christ, Scientist, to create a parking lot next door to the church. This request should be rejected, for several reasons:
1. The church and its lawyer repeatedly claimed that the lot will be kept in its “existing condition,” or “as it is.”
Neither church members nor their attorney acknowledge that they created these “existing conditions” by tearing down the residence that stood there until they had it removed, half a decade ago.
They did this without any warning to neighbors. (So much for a church member’s Aug. 6 claim to the Planning Board, “We want to serve the community any way we can.”)
The church’s attorney pretended that this was irrelevant. It’s not. Housing is important to Haddonfield, for many reasons, and they cannot simply wave away the fact that this is, after all, a house lot. That’s why it’s zoned as “residential.”
2. In hearings before the Planning Board and Historical Preservation Commission, church representatives have repeatedly demeaned — trashed — this charming neighborhood and have, astoundingly, presented a parking lot as a step toward beautification.
Since when, in all the history of the car, have parking lots been seen as beautiful? (More than 50 years ago, David Riesman assailed “the roadside dreck, the highways which eat space as railroad yards even in St. Louis or Chicago never did.” Parking lots are part of the dreck.)
3. Then, there’s the “out-of-towner” syndrome. The overwhelming majority of church members come here from out of town. This is a wonderful town, and people should feel welcome here.
But, as their high-handed demolition of the house next door illustrates, the first interest of out-of-towners is not the neighborhood. One church member said he drove here from Ewing. That’s terrific, even if he did exaggerate the length of Roberts Avenue to the Historic Preservation Commission. But … Ewing? Decisions about Haddonfield’s Historic District should not be made by people from 40 miles — two counties — away.
4. The church has 40 members and claims it needs a parking lot to serve members with disabilities: a “hardship” variance. If the hardship were truly hard, the church could have served its members by seeking on-street disabled parking, like the Historical Society next door. Before the Planning Board, the church stated that it has not even tried to assist its members in this way.
The church’s lawyer hinted at possible religious discrimination, since other churches have lots. He named none, and ignored examples that undercut his claim, like the Lutheran church on Wood Lane (950 members), and Haddonfield Bible Church on Belmont Avenue. No church has sought such a variance since the Historic District was established.
At times, Haddonfield ordinances have inconvenienced other local religious groups in town, but they have accepted this, and the associated costs, as part of life in a community with high standards.
There is no discrimination at work here, and it’s odd, or demeaning, that the attorney should even suggest it.
The claimed hardship can be relieved without changing the residential character of a neighborhood, in the face of massive neighborhood opposition. This application should be denied.
Dan Tompkins
