Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2017

Home

February 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 3 Zoning Bulletin The Church sought to partner with —and provide space in its par- sonage for —Family Promise of the Capital District, Inc., a not -for - profit corporation, to establish a "home base" for up to 14 homeless individuals. In December 2014, the Church asked the City's Board of Zoning Appeals (the "Board") to interpret the Code and determine whether the planned use of its property to house homeless individuals was a permitted use within the applicable zoning district. The Board determined that the Church's proposed use was "consistent with. . .[the] mission and actions of a house of worship, which logically includes a structure or part of a structure used for worship or religious ceremonies." The Board further concluded that "[n]o additional zon- ing exemption(s) or permission(s) [were] necessary" for the church and Family Promise to begin using the parsonage for the proposed use. Joseph P. Sullivan ("Sullivan") owned property adjacent to the Church's property. In May 2015, Sullivan asked a court to annul the Board's determination. Finding, among other things, that the proposed use of the parsonage could not reasonably be interpreted as a "house of worship" as defined under the Code, the Supreme Court annulled the Board's determination. Church appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of Supreme Court reversed. Agreeing with the Board's interpretation of the City's zoning Code, the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York, held that the Church's proposed use of the parsonage as a "home base" for homeless individuals was consistent with the permitted "house of worship" use under the Code. Since "worship" was not defined under the Code, the court looked to its plain and ordinary meaning found in dictionaries. The court found that worship was broadly defined as "[a]ny form of religious devotion, ritual, or service showing reverence" —especially with re- spect to "a divine being or supernatural power" —and includes "an act of expressing such reverence." The court acknowledged that the term "house of worship" "often is synonymous with a building or other structure where formal, organized religious services take place." However, the court also emphasized that New York courts "have been very flexible in their interpretation of religious uses under local zon- ing ordinances" and have long recognized that "[a] church is more than merely an edifice affording people the opportunity to worship God." To that end, the court noted that "[s]ervices to the homeless have been judicially recognized as religious conduct" and that "the concept of acts of charity as an essential part of religious worship is a central tenet of all major religions." 8 ©2017 Thomson Reuters