The Oro Valley Town Council will decide whether to uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission's January decision denying the Oro Valley Church of the Nazarene (OVCN) permission to build a new sanctuary with a height of 40 feet. The current allowable height on the property is 24 feet, but the town has the authority to grant a higher limit.
OVCN claims unfair standards and disregard for evidence
OVCN is appealing the decision, arguing that it is unjust and unfair. They claim the Commission disregarded substantial evidence supporting their proposal, applied inconsistent standards, and failed to consider the broader community benefits. As an example, they argue that the Commission unfairly scrutinized the volume of activities and attendance at their facility compared to similar projects.
Town staff responded to some of these assertions. In their meeting notice to the council, they state that the proposed sanctuary height increase is directly tied to accommodating auditorium-style seating for over 1,500 people. They cite International Building Code requirements, which mandate specific roof heights for safety and sightlines. Staff also note that increased seating capacity affects parking and traffic considerations.
Significant Community opposition
Community members oppose the height request. In just one week, more than 600 residents have signed a petition urging the town to deny the appeal.
Three resolution options...but there could be more
Town staff has proposed three resolution options for the council’s consideration:
• Uphold the Planning and Zoning Commission’s denial of OVCN’s height increase request.
• Overrule the denial with conditions, allowing a maximum height of 29 feet plus an additional 5 feet for parapet screening, but only in areas necessary to fully screen mechanical equipment, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator.
• Overrule the denial and fully approve the height increase request, subject to conditions outlined in the staff report, including landscape buffers and positioning requirements to minimize visual impact.
Uncertainty over the 29-foot option
The inclusion of the 29-foot option is unclear, as OVCN withdrew it from consideration. Initially, OVCN proposed a 29-foot height, assuming part of the sanctuary would be built underground, but they rescinded this request a week later. It is unknown whether the council will discuss this or other height options at tonight’s meeting. The council has the authority to modify these options or propose its own. For example, they may consider continuing the item for further discussion or negotiation.
Next steps for OVCN
If the council does not approve the 40-foot height, OVCN has two alternatives. They can either build the sanctuary within the existing 24-foot height limit or pursue legal action, potentially including a federal court challenge, if they believe their rights under federal law, such as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA-See Below), have been violated.
Stay tuned for updates on this decision.
- - -
RLUIPA protects religious institutions from discriminatory land use regulations by requiring governments to apply the same standards as they do for non-religious entities and to justify any substantial burden with a compelling interest pursued in the least restrictive way. Protecting the character and livability of a neighborhood, particularly regarding noise, traffic, public safety, or environmental impact, is a compelling government interest, as long as the government can demonstrate that the restriction is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest and is applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
RLUIPA protects religious institutions from discriminatory land use regulations by requiring governments to apply the same standards as they do for non-religious entities and to justify any substantial burden with a compelling interest pursued in the least restrictive way. Protecting the character and livability of a neighborhood, particularly regarding noise, traffic, public safety, or environmental impact, is a compelling government interest, as long as the government can demonstrate that the restriction is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest and is applied in a non-discriminatory manner.
No comments:
Post a Comment