White Plains council hears presentation on proposed Buddhist temple at 1 Sycamore Lane

The Common Council of White Plains heard a detailed presentation Jan. 27 on a proposal to convert a four‑acre property at 1 Sycamore Lane into a Tibetan Buddhist temple, but took no formal vote to advance or approve the project.

Why it matters: The site sits adjacent to a meandering stream and mapped wetlands and the proposal would trigger coordinated environmental review and multiple land‑use approvals. How the council defines wetland buffers and whether it becomes lead agency under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) will determine whether the Zoning Board of Appeals can act on requested variances and whether the site plan returns to the council for a supermajority vote.

Planning Commissioner Christopher Gomez briefed the council on why the Common Council has jurisdiction over the site plan: because the code calculates that the proposed use requires 50 or more parking spaces, the council — not the planning board — must approve the site plan. Gomez also explained the SEQRA coordination process, noting the council could declare its intent to be lead agency and then confirm lead agency status after the required notice period.

Attorney David Steinmetz, representing the applicant and the group he identified as the Duo Gah Sang Foundation, said the team asks the council to indicate intent to be lead agency at the council's next regular meeting and to accept an applicant‑funded escrow so the city can hire an independent wetlands/ecology consultant. "We ask that you designate your intent to be lead agency at your February meeting," Steinmetz told the council.

Steinmetz and project architect Paulette Domofsky described the proposal as a 6,800‑square‑foot temple building, adaptive reuse of an existing roughly 4,500‑square‑foot residence as a rectory, a 1,600‑square‑foot artifacts/gallery building, and a smaller pagoda structure. He said the team is proposing 47 parking spaces although the building department's mathematical calculation produced a 55‑space requirement; the applicant will seek a variance for the difference from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

The applicant team said it has been working with city staff and the Zoning Board of Appeals for about a year, and that the site has substantial prior disturbance (a pool, tennis and paddle courts) and several neighbors' properties already encroach on or alter the stream corridor. Steinmetz said wetlands consultant Paul Janik concluded in his report that the two on‑site wetland areas are already disturbed and that proposed landscaping and buffer work could improve wetland function; Janik and other specialists were not asked to present in depth at this meeting.

Commissioner Gomez emphasized the procedural steps: coordination of environmental review between the council and the Zoning Board of Appeals; referral of the application to the Westchester County planning board because of proximity to county roads; possible hiring of a city‑selected independent consultant paid from an applicant escrow; and that any site plan approval for an environmentally sensitive site requires a five‑member supermajority of the council. Gomez said the zoning board cannot grant variances until a lead agency has completed an environmental finding statement.

Mayor (recused) left the council chamber for the presentation, saying he would recuse himself because a firm retained by opponents employs his wife. Council President Presser chaired while the mayor was outside the room. Council members asked procedural and technical questions about parking, buffer delineation, stormwater management and sequencing of Zoning Board and council actions.

The applicant repeatedly stressed it had changed the design in response to neighbor concerns: the temple building was moved away from the stream, the main vehicular access was shifted from Sycamore Lane to Rosedale, previously proposed pavilions and a bridge were removed, building footprints and impervious coverage were reduced, and the number of proposed monks and other program elements were scaled back.

No formal decision: The council did not vote to name a lead agency or approve any variances or site plan. Steinmetz asked the council to take up the lead‑agency designation at its next meeting and said the applicant will fund an escrow for wetlands and other consultant review.

Next steps: The project will proceed through coordinated SEQRA review if the council declares intent to be lead agency, referrals to city boards and to the county planning board, and, depending on the zoning board's determinations about the building department's interpretation of parking calculations, one or more variance requests. Any site plan approval on an environmentally sensitive site would subsequently require a supermajority vote of the council.