The Bee Cave Bee

There was and is no POA in this neighborhood. The lot owner never resolved the fact that they were in clear violation of the deed restrictions and have not been able to amend them, because the majority of the lot owners are apparently against the commercial building being built in a residential neighborhood, in violation of the deed restrictions. There is a good deal of misinformation being put out, including in the lot owner's press release.

If this were the only violation by property owners of the 34 year old deed restrictions in the Bee Cave West neighborhood, this situation might not be as unfortunate as it is. The fact is, the BCW deed restrictions have been repeatedly violated without consequence. Now, ONLY because of the Bollier\'s insistence has this temple become an issue. No other neighbor felt the need to file an injunction. The Sikh temple has been here since 2003... where were the \"majority of lot owners\" who supposedly opposed the temple then? The City of Bee Cave, the LCRA and LTFR approved and permitted this building and the lower court denied Ms. Bollier\'s suit last year. Of what exactly are the neighbors AFRAID ?
I hope the Sikh Temple will appeal and win.

clearly driven by racism. How can one sleep at night knowning they want God's house torn down?

i live in this neighborhood and have not been offended at all by the sikhs progress. bolliers a nutjob.

Bollier tout for filing law suit against Sikh worship place. There are Churches around and City of Bee Cave zoning permits this. The deed restriction are violated around her house. One house hold was selling dogs for profit. There are wood worskshops. The attached garage requirement is violated and house based registered businesses are common there. This
person sees and knows that but denies.

I live in the area too, and I have found the Sikhs to be very courteous and helpful. I'm not sure i understand Bolliers' true motive. Nonetheless, I hope the Sikh temple stays.

What a bunch of idiots. Do you not all remember the resistance to Star Hill Ranch? What about when the county wanted to process road kill nearby? The Amor family had to get the deed restrictions amended to finance their house when it was built due to set back rules. Wood shops are not a violation of the deed restrictions. A home based business is not either. Those lots still have single family residences on them. And lastly in response to hiss10 many others did want not want the temple from the very beginning but another idiot at city hall over stepped their bounds and told people there was nothing they could do about it. They did not understand the difference between deed restrictions and zoning by a government entity. If everyone else wanted the Temple then why were they not able to get a majority to change the restrictions? It is nice to have opinions but you might want to get all of the facts before you open you collective mouths.