• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

Churches and living space?

stroskey

stroskey

Cyburbian
Messages
1,212
Points
17
Many years ago church received approval to build on a piece of commercial property. When approval was granted the topic of a parsonage, or living space for the pastor, did not come up. Our ordinance does not allow living quarters in this zone and it is not something you can get a variance for but it allows for uses "incidental to churches". Now they are getting closer to building the church, they want living space for the pastor and visiting speakers to be in a separate house on the property. (2 units). The question comes down to one of interpretation and religious experience.

I am Catholic and every Catholic church I have been to has a Rectory where the priests live and have their offices connected to the church via a hallway/skyway, etc. The Rectory is a commonplace use and if you ask any Catholic they will tell you the Rectory is an integral part of the facility, period.

Protestant churches in my town generally allow a living stipend for their pastors but the pastor does not typically live on the same site as the church. A few have houses on the same lot but many are in a houses owned by the parish but on a separate lot. As such, the living space is not the same "integral part" as it is for Catholic churches.

So, the question is if this churches' living space is considered "incidental". My supervisor says because most churches do not have living space attached it should not be allowed (remember they can't apply to waive that) but my experience as a Catholic is that living space is very much an integral part of the project. This church is for a Protestant denomination so we probably won't allow it but what if a Catholic church wants to build in this district?

How would you approach the subject?
 
I assume that there is a good reason not to allow a residence on the property (ie. that it is not compatible with surrounding uses). If so, you should stick to the ordinance and not allow it. If they have money to build a separate residence, they could easily throw an equivalent amount toward a living stipend so the Pastor can live close by (or even buy an existing residence).

As for the Catholic issue, it sounds to me like the real problem here is that the question of living on-site did not come up during the initial review. So long as it comes up in subsequent reviews, all parties will be clear on what they can and cannot do on a particular parcel. If a Catholic church wants to locate in the town, they would have to build it on another parcel that would allow a residence, or build without a rectory. I think so long as everyone knows the rules up front and before any massive investments are made (land purchases, building loans, etc.), no one should have any grounds for complaint.

Assuming the reason not to allow a residence is about protecting the health, safety and welfare of the public, I don't see that there is any legitimate claim to be made about picking on religious institutions. This question should have been brought up in review, but it didn't. Still, someone on the property owners' development team (architect, whoever) should have looked at the zoning before developing any plans. An experienced developer should know that even with a variance, you can't do whatever you want and many commercial areas (depending on the kind of commercial zoning ) do not allow residential use. That shouldn't come as a huge surprise IMHO...
 
Boy talk about RLUIPA fodder!


My instinctive reaction is to consider a rectory an accessory use. Any church proposing to construct adjacent church-owned residences for the use of its' clergy should be permitted to do so as an accessory use. That a particular denomination or sect may not have those traditions should not be a relevant factor. This may, of course, complicate matters years later when the church moves/puts the property up for sale and some newlyweds decide to make it their new nest.....
 
mike gurnee said:
You already approached the subject; and you apparently got an answer.
Click to expand...

To me it is more of a "what is incidental" to various faiths question than anything else. It's attune to: If you don't allow alcohol in a town can you still have a mass with wine?
 
Last edited:
stroskey said:
Our ordinance does not allow living quarters but it allows for uses "incidental to churches".

So, the question is if this churches' living space is considered "incidental".
Click to expand...

I guess I would investigate what other uses are incidental to permitted uses within that district. Is a dwelling unit at a self-storage facility for the live-in manager incidental to the operation of that kind of business? If that is allowed in this district, can they claim that a 24-hour on site live-in staff person is required just the same for a church? Any examples of other uses that have been declared incidental to a church? Day care centers? Gymnasiums? Can they claim that a living quarters would have the same or less impact than them?
 
Joe Iliff said:
I guess I would investigate what other uses are incidental to permitted uses within that district. Is a dwelling unit at a self-storage facility for the live-in manager incidental to the operation of that kind of business?
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, the Commission recently said no to living units for storage security.
 
I would consider the living quarters an incidental use. It sounds like if it was a Catholic Church, you would have no problem with a rectory as part of the development. I don't think you should worry about differentiating by denomination. If it is justifiable for one, it is justifiable for all.

However, I would recommend requiring them to file an amended site plan, etc. showing the living quarters appropriately on the site. This is reasonable since they apparently did not include this aspect of the site during the original approval process.
 
stroskey said:
Interestingly enough, the Commission recently said no to living units for storage security.
Click to expand...

Well, that would seem to demonstrate a consistency, and an serve as a argument against a claim that the decision about the church is arbitrary and capricious. That isn't an argument on the merits of the decision, but may help frame this decision as part of a larger context.
 
I would opine that the residential use is ancillary or accessory to the principal use of the property provided the residential component is occupied by clergy.
 
I would agree with Maister on the RLUIPA issue. Besides a home for clergy, what if they wanted to build a convent? Retirement community? Homeless shelter? I have seen some places address these as conditional uses in institutional districts. The church would have first been required to rezone to institutional from commercial. Another question, though, is why not allow residential uses? Mixed use is the trend, even along typical commercial strips. We'll need to do something with the vacant space and over-abundance of commercially zoned land in most cities.
 
In this case they want two units - one for clergy, the other for visiting speakers, etc. My opinion is that the unit for the clergy is accessory, the other would not be.
 
Back
Top