Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/1997

Home

Z.B. May 25, 1997 - Page 3 5~ The land was located in a low-density residential zone. Churches were permitted uses in low-density residential zones. The township's ordinance listed 12 accessory uses that were permitted. Daycare centers were not included in the list. The church applied to the Washington Township Planning Board for site- plan approval and various bulk variances and design waivers. As part of its plan, the church proposed an entranceway onto a major boulevard directly across from a shopping center. The shopping center contained a liquor store. The board held a hearing, which focused primarily on whether the proposed church's activity would generate increased traffic hazards on the boulevard. In particular, the board was concerned the church's entranceway would create a "folJr-way intersection" with the shopping entrance across the street. The board examined the potential traffic patterns on Saturday mornings and afternoons, when the church held services, and during weekday rush hours, when children would be dropped off and picked up from the daycare center. The church's traffic expert testified the entranceway would present a safe means of access to and from the boulevard. In addition, the township's planning officials considered alternative locations for the entranceway. After a number of additional studies, the officials concluded the church's proposed entranceway was safer than the alternatives. The board voted to approve the church's site plan application. As a condition of approval, the board required the church to pay for traffic-safety measures if they were needed. The liquor store sued the board and the church. It said the day care center was not an accessory use but a variant one, which required the church to submit separate site plan and variance applications. It also claimed daycare centers were not allowed as permitted or conditional uses in the zone, nor were they on the list of 12 permitted accessory uses. According to the liquor store, the board's approval was arbitrary and capricious because it failed to consider the full extent of the area's potential traffic congestion. In response, the church's pastor testified the daycare center was part of its overall mission and just one of the church's many services. The court affirmed the board's decision. It agreed the church did not have to submit separate site plan and variance applications for the child care center because it considered the center an ancillary use to the church; according to the court, daycare centers were typical services provided by c4urches. As for the possible traffic congestion, the court found the board's examination of the issue was adequate. The court said the daycare center would house at most 60 children, and that was not enough to warrant consideration of a separate site plan. The liquor store appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The liquor store was correct in arguing daycare centers were not allowed in the zone either as permitted or conditional uses, and were not included in the list of acceptable accessory uses. However, an accessory use did not need to be detailed explicitly in an ordinance; it was implied as a right that accompanied " [ . t.