Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006

Home

Page $ --December I0, 2005 Churches -- Church claims that expansion plan can be denied only if it affects health, safety, morals, or welfare Town allows everything but secondary driveway Citation: Pine Knolls Alliance Church v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Moreau, Court of A~peals of New York, No. 167 (2005) NEW YORK ([0/20/05) -- Pine Kaolls Alliance Church purchased an adjoining parcel to expand its facilities. Because of anticipated increased traffic, part of the plan called for a secondary driveway that would be aligned directly oppo- site from a residential cross street. When the church applied for the necessary permits, neighboring residen- tial property owners opposed it. Specifically, they opposed the secondary drive- way. During hearings, they presented a traffic study that showed the potentiaI for increased cut-through traffic and turning conflicts that could result in acci- dents. The study proposed simply expanding the existing driveway to cut down on traffic problems. The county planning board supported the traffic study opposing the secondary driveway. The zoning board approved every aspect of the church's plan except the secondary driveway. The church sued, arguing the board illegally had required it to justify its "need" to expand when denying the secondary driveway. The court ruled in the church's f,~vor, finding the church's "need" to expand had no bearing on the public's health, safety, or morals. Historically, churches were denied permits only in residential areas based on these concerns. The board appealed, arguing that while the church could expand, it was still not entitled to a new secondary driveway. DECISION: Reversed- The board's decision was neither improper nor irrational. The board found that the expansion could be accomplished in a manner that was less intrusive to neighboring properties. This determination was sup- ported by substantial evidence in the record, particularly by the traffic study and the county planning board's recommendation. The board determined that there was a means for the church to address the congregation's traffic concerns without constructing a secondary roadway that would have significant negative impacts on the surrounding residential community. Instead of constructing a new roadway, the church was allowed to increase the capacity of the existing driveway. This was the functional equivalent of imposing mitigating circumstances on the grant of an application. The require- ment that the church widen its existing driveway was neither so costly nor so extreme that it undermined the efficacy of the expansion plan, nor did it prohibit the church's religious use of the newly acquired parcel. ~', .... ~ U]m..:,,~'.';it?' v. Sagtm~#. 507. N.£.2d 509 (I986). © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is proi~tbited. For more information ptease call (6173 542-0048. 130