3A Public Hearing 2008 0219 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Board of Zoning Adjustments Regular Meeting Minute No. 2007-23 December 6, 2007 Page 7 of 16 an Assembly Overlay. The church was asking for 3.5 acres. The economy was moving away from an industrial base and the industrial ground that the city was trying to desperately to preserve contributed to the empty buildings. Member Gilcrest understood that the church officials had come to the Chamber Governmental Affairs and had, basically, said that they were meeting rezoning resistance from the city and they had asked for assistance in obtaining approval for a rezoning before the option to purchase the property terminated. They went into the purchase of the property with their eyes open and had rolled the dice. What was his response? The church came to the city in May 2006 and filed the paperwork as advised by staff. When objectively looking at the calendar, delays occurred when making a timely decision. He believed that `:justice delayed was justice denied" and no answer was received from the City. If a decision had been made by the city, one way or the other, the church would not have had to put down 150,000 dollars on the property. Finally, the seller insisted the church decide whether it wanted to purchase the property and it was not fiscally prudent to walk away, because of the money that was already involved with the purchase of the property. Member Shields asked if the agent handling the property had advised the church that there was a problem with moving into this industrial area. He and the church officials knew that, which was why they had come to the City in May before they bought the property in January 2007. It never occurred to them that a "no brainer" decision would be so difficult. Member Shields suggested that the church should have held off purchasing the property rather than gambling that the CUP would be approved. The church would have lost the property by default. He had never believed the project would be stalled by staff for so long. The church did not have fair treatment from staff. There was no valid reason to keep the church at its current location. He added that the church "was in Federal Court on these issues. " Member Marr recalled a work session held last year. (City Attorney Stuart believed it was held in October 2006.) The Pastor was in attendance and he mentioned the possibility of losing the church's money. She had questioned at that time why the deposit was put down on the property when there was a risk of losing it. It the church was to stay in the city (as the Pastor and church members preferred), the church needed a site that was large enough to serve the congregation. He expected that they would eventually relocate to that site. However, it would be easier if the church had support instead of opposition. The church did what was asked of them, and then waited. He recalled an earlier meeting about the Assembly Overlay and the church was mentioned, but the church members were told later that the discussion had nothing to do with the church. Mr. MacDonald stated that the Building Code defined assembly use as places that had more than 50 people inside. Many of the buildings in the Industrial District had assembly uses, already. The city worried about the precedent of allowing anything other than an industrial use in the area. Most nonprofit organizations did not have the history of discrimination like the churches did, which was why congress passed RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutional Persons Act of 2000). Many cities discriminate against churches. When looking at this case, there was evidence of that discrimination. There