The URL can be used to link to this page

Ord. No. 05-94-1554ORDINANCE NO.5-94-1554 AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA;AMENDING SECTION 20-2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR "CHURCH,MOSQUE, SYNAGOGUE,OR TEMPLE";PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS,the City of South Miamihas heretofore enacted a Land Development Code,which in Section 20-3.3 (D)provides for both zoning districts and the special conditions in such districts fora "church,temple,or synagogue";and WHEREAS,there presently isno definition ofa "church, temple,or synagogue"in the Code,such that there isno certainty as what is the nature ofa "church,temple,or synagogue"use;and WHEREAS,the Mayor and City Commission find that "church, mosque,synagogue,or temple"isa building and/or other structure ora group of buildings and structures which by design and construction are intended for organized worship and commonly related services,such as educational,recreational,and social services,including day care; NOW,THEREFORE^BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OFTHE CITY OF*SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA: Section 1.ThatSection20-2.3oftheLandDevelopmentCodeof theCityofSouth Miami,Florida be,andhereby is,amended toadd the following definition; CHURCH,MOSQUE,SYNAGOGUE,OR TEMPLE.Shall mean a building,a building and other structures,or a group or buildings and structures which by design and construction are intended for organized worship and commonly related services,such as educational,recreational,and social services,includingday care. Section 2.If any section,clause,sentence,or phrase of this Ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction,then said holding shall in no way affect the validity ofthe remaining portions of this Ordinance. 3ection 3.All Ordinances orpartsof Ordinances in conflict herewith be,and the same hereby are,repealed. Section 4.This Ordinance shali rake effect immediately arthe time ofits passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st th day of yMarch f 199^ APPROVED: MAYOR ATTBSTT: READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY To: From CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM Mayor and Cjjty—Commissi> 'Wi 11 lam AT.ywampton City Man; Date:February 23,1994 Re:3/1/94 Commission Agenda - Item #6 Day Care Churches,Mosques Synagogues and Temples Recommendation 1.Advantage to City:Passage of this Ordinance would permit child day care services for existing and future churches, mosques,s.ynagogues,and temples.The Ordinance also permits existing churches,mosques,synagogues and temples that are currently non-conforming uses to have day care. 2.Disadvantages to City:There is no disadvantage to the City.Passage of the Ordinance will provide needed day care programs for our community. 3.Staff recommends adoption of the Ordinance if our new City Attorney sees no legal problems. 4.This Ordinance amends Section 20-2.3(A)of the Land Development Code. Attachments: a)Addresses of churches,mosques,synagogues and temples in the City. b)Original Ordinance considered c)Excerpted City Commission minutes through Dec.21,1993 d)City Attorney memorandum -Jan.21,1994 e)Excerpted City Commission minutes -Nov.16,1993 f)Robert Swarthout letter -Dec.1,1993 PB-94-001 Applicant:City Commission **•^'v***«""••a '' ".':>.'£>t »-v*«" Request:AN ORDINANCE OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA;AMENDING SECTION 20-2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE OF THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI TO PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR "CHURCH,MOSQUE,SYNAGOGUE,OR TEMPLE";PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;PROVIDING FOR ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT;AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Mr.ParraskedifStaff had any comment regarding PB-94-001.There beingnocomment,Mr.Parrasked Ms.Thornertoreadtherequest fortherecord;Ms.Thorner did so.Again,Mr.Parr asked Staff forany comment regarding therequest.Planner Mackey responded thatastaffreportisincluded,which provides summary information anda recommendation.Mr.Mackey stated that Staff does support this ordinance.Mr.Parrthenopenedthepublic hearing.Mr. David Tucker,Sr.addressed theBoard regarding theordinance.In closing andfor clarification,Mr.Parr asked Mr.Tucker his position regarding the ordinance.Mr.Tucker stated that hewas infavoroftherequest.Mr.Parr then closedthepublichearing and convened the executive session.Mr.Eisenhart stated that he wouldbeinfavoroftheordinance.Mr.Lefley proceededtoask Staff about standards for Elder Care and limits on recreation at religiousinstitutions,andhow these mightbe incorporated into Section 1,Paragraph 2.Mr.Lefley questioned Stafffor clarificationonenforcementofHRSstandardsforsafety.Planner Mackey responded that though HRS handles its own inspections and enforcement,the City requires acopyofHRS certificate beforeit issuesan occupational license for the premises.Mr.Mackey stated thatinregardtoCityliabilityforstandards,positionis unknown.Mr.Lefley then directed Staff to the list of churches onhand.Mr.Mackey stated that Numbers 3,4&5 on the list are not in residential districts;the rest are either in RS 3 or RS4 districts.Ms.Thorner movedto approve theordinance.Mr. Eisenhart seconded. Vote:Approved:5 Opposed:0 Mr.Lefley proposed recommendation to the Board to research Elder Care.Mr.Eisenhart seconded the recommendation. Vote:Approved:5 Opposed:0 PB Minutes 2/22/94 -o: CITY -lF SOI.TK MIAMI INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDA' Daze:rebruary 13,1994 .-rom: Dean Minims,AICP Director of Building,Zoning * CommunityDevelopmentDept Bill Mackey Planner Re:Church DayCare Proposed Ordinance On November 16,1993,the City Commission reviewed a proposed ordinance for first reading in order to permit dav care centers in existing area churches.The Commission expressed concerns regarding the -status of existing churches that are non-conforming uses and concerns regarding constitutional issues that could arise over permitting uses in religious buildings that are not permitted for other types of buildings.The Citv Commission requested an opinion from Robert K.Swarthout,inr".,the Citv's planning consultant at chat time.The item was deferred. On December 21,1993,the City Commission addressed a revised proposed ordinance which would amend the definition of "church mosque,synagogue,or temple"to include dav care as part of the definition of what this use could include.The Citv Commission again expressed concerns over constitutionalitv and did request an opinion from Martin D.Berg,the City Attornev at that time. The item passed first reading and was sent to fne Planning Board. The revised,proposed ordinance which passed first reading at the December 21,1993 Meeting of the City Commission reflects the input of planning consultant Robert K.Swarthout,Inc.i-pon consideration of the material submitted bv Citv attorney Berg especially the cases cited,it would appear that'the inclusion of day care along with educational,recreational =nd social service* as part of the definition of "church,moscue,svnagogue,o- temple"is supported by the literature and would allow local ar^i cnurcnes to providea service to the citizens of South Miami. Churches are permitted as a Special Use in the RM-18,RM-24, LO,MO,I and PI districts.Churches that are non-conforming uses are .ocated inthe RS-3 andthe RS-J zoning di<=rri^ts Staff recommends support of the revised,proposed erainance 'he following documents are H nee 'ma on: RO, _ist of churches,mosques,synagogues and temoles in the Cirv Proposed ordinance passed for first reading on lecember 21,i~9 Excerpted City Commission Minutes from December "1,1994 Memorandum dated January 21,1994,from Citv Attornev Berg Proposed Ordinance deferred on November 16,199 3 txcerpted City Commission Minutes from November 16,1993 Letter dated December 1,1993,from Robert K.iwarthout,Inc. CHURCHES,MOSQUES,SYNAGOGUES AND TEMPLES IN THE CITY OF SOUTH MIAMI MOUNT OLIVE BAPTIST CHURCH REV,WASHINGTON VIRGIL ST.JOHN'S AME CHURCH REV.CHARLES STANDIFER FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF S.MIAMI REV.JOSEPH W.PRESTON UNIVERSITY CHRISTIAN CHURCH REV.DR.MILTON L.MIKELSELL HOPE LUTHERAN CHURCH ALC REV.STEPHEN KUMMERNUSS FAITH TABERNACLE CHURCH REV.LEE H.JONES 238-8029, MT.NEBO BAPTIST CHURCH REV,PEMARK BELL CHURCHOFGODINCHRIST REV.ORJUNA CHURCH OFGODOF PROPHECY UNIFICATION CHURCH 6316 S.W.59 PLACE 667-7791 6461 S.W.59 PLACE 667-9985 6767 SUNSET DRIVE 661-4289 6750 SUNSET DRIVE 661-6666 6330 BIRD ROAD 661-5151 6141S.W.64 STREET 691-9573,665-5640 6075 S.W.64 STREET 667-3696 5990 S.W.66 STREET 284-0414 6610 S.W,59 PLACE 284-9787 5625 S.W.62 AVENUE 665-0559 CRDIN'ANCZ NO an :hdinancz :fthemayorandcity commission ofthe city of south miami,florida;amending section 2c-2 ~- cftheland 22vel0pmbnt code gf thecitycfsouth miami to ?rovice a cefinition for 'church,mosque, 2ynagogue,?r temple";providing for severability; providing for ordinances in conflict;and providing hi SF-SCTIVE CATE. WHEREAS,t.-.e city of South Miami has neretofore enacted a Land Development Code,wnich in 3ectlon 20-3.3 (D)provides for both toning districts and the special conditions i.-.such districts for a "church,temple,or synagogue";and WHEREAS,ifreze presently is no definition of a "church, temple,or synagogue"in the Code,such that there is no certainty as what is the nature of a "church,temple,or synagogue"use;and WHEREAS,the Mayor and City Commission.-find that "church, mosque,synagogue,ortemple"is abuildingand/or other structure or a group of buildings and structures which by design and construction are intended for organized worship and commonly related services,such as educational,recreational,and social services,including day care; NOW,THEREFORE,3E IT ORDAINED BYTHE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OFTHECITYCF SOUTH MIAMI,FLORIDA: Section 1-"nat Section 2C-2.3 of the Land Development Code of the City of South Miami,Florida be,and hereby is,amended to add the following definition: CHURCH,MOSQUE,SYNAGOGUE,OR TEMPLE.Shall mean a building,a ouildir.g and ether structures,or a group or buildings and structures vhlch =y design and construction are intended for organized worship and coamoniy related services,such as educational,:ec:ea:::nai(and socialservices,Including daycare. Section :.If any section,clause,sentence,cr pnrase •::this irsinance is heic -z ce i-valid nr unconstitutional oy any court =f competent jurisdiction,-hen said holding snail in no way affect tna a 5-idity or tr.e remaining portions ci :r.:s .rcinance. Section 2.All Ordinances cr parts cf Ordinances :r.ccr.z'.ict •.erevith be,and the same nerebv are,repealed. Sectizr.4 .This Ordinance sr.ail ca<e effect immediately at tr.e rime of its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED this th day cf ,1993. APPROVED: MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK READ AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY #14 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 20-2.3 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODEOF THE CITYTO PROVIDE A DEFINITION FOR"CHURCH,MOSQUE, SYNAGOGUE,OR TEMPLE";PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY,ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MovedbyMayorMcCann,seconded by Vice-Mayor Cooperand Commissioner Banks,that this be considered the first reading of the ordinance in its entirety and it be placed on second reading in andpublichearingafterconsiderationbythePlanning Board. Mayor McCann noted that thishasbeenrewordedtogivethe definitionandto clarify functions. Commissioner Carver stated that this does not solve constitutional concerns and it appearstogivenan advantage to religiousinstitutions.PerhapstheCitywill have to nmond tho codetopermit church,mosques,templesand synagogues in all singlefamily residential areas.Itishispreferencetoholda charretteintheareawherethereare churches whoneedtohaveday careandcreate neighborhood zoningratherthantopermitall religious institutions inallzoningareastohaveday care.He willvoteinfavoratfirst reading,buthewouldlikeanopinion fromtheCityAttorneyregardingtheconstitutionalityofthe ordinance. Vice-MayorCoopersaid neighborhoods are different,butitis hisopinionthattheproposedordinancejustgivesa definition which is necessary for the code. Motiontopassonfirstreadingandsendtoplanningboard passed 5/0:Mayor McCann,yea;Vice-Mayor Cooper,yea; Commissioner Banks,yea;Commissioner Carver,yea;Commissioner Bass,yea. 0 Vic 2lt /W DATE TO PROM RE HfiMORANDUH January 1,1994 Mayor and commissloners Martin David Berg,City Attorney Proposed Ordinance siloving valid non-conforming churches to have day cata centers Agenda item H at the December 21 meeting was a proposed ordinance to allow valid non-conforming churchesi to have day care centers.¥he Commiesion requested an opinion of the City Attorney ss totvo qusations. First,since no other entity (person or corporation)could have a :!?.£*"center in the areas where the non-conforming churches exisc,are the churches bslng given a preference and is the Ordinance thus in violation of the United States Constitution'a First Amendment?Ths U.S.Supreme Court has ruled that tha elau««requires any law (zoning or otherwise)must meet three requisites?a secular purpose neither advancing nor inhibiting T u!2i2?'a dir*et and i»»*diate effect neither advancing nor *!!?«~lnS r2ii9-?n;and avoid»*c*°*excessive entanglement withreligion.2 The Pirst Amendment religion clause has been the subject of volumes.Of necessity,the specific question ™?££*!I ,?"•ls th*1-9*luy °***Y «ra as a part of apermittedreligioususeinaresidentialneighborhood.We turn to the treatises and cases dealing with the specific question.3 Related to ths specific question Is whether the proposed Ordinance would not be an expansion of a non-conforming use, *?!!•*?*nillorl ia not P««ltted under the Land Development Code •~*£yu»V°Uth Hi*ml <"SMLDC«K When a term in ths Codef^U "church"is not defined,the "common,ordinary meanings" til Zl*T S t^e context clearly requires otherwise",4 The fact the Ordinance would commence a definition Is not per «*an fcxtenslun of the use.5 It remains a question of fact as to what c ..u1 Zhi*M*»or*nd«»usss the word "church"as shortsnsd tornoethephrase"church,mosque,synagogue,or temple". 2 Lemon yf KUrtZMan 403 U.8.602 (1971). <«.w m J*t Exhiblt "A""efforts to answer the specific question with U.S.Supreme Court cases and the computer response. 4 SMLDC Sec*20-2-1 (B). im-iJin!!^k?™%?*f*.b"?ll!ae£ined P*io*to this Ordinance as not' n2ni^5L^i^f,ctlvi^viday"care^lt *ou"be an expansion of a<non-conf ormi mr use-and-thus^nor nemtlse ihi a. the common,ordinary meanings of the use was. Moat,if not all,churches conduct activities for and with their congregations beyond the fornal service e.g.!Bible or other study or discussion groups;counseling.6 Host of the treatises cite a New York case7 from in which a church Bought to establish a day care center in its facilities.The Court concluded "[Tine aay care center la nonetheleas an operation or the church which, IL\*!k pC°P?r r*li«lo,16 activity,way not normally be f?^T!!\Z*zoning provisions."it recognised the difficulty infindingtheendofprotectedreligiousactivity,indicating that while a country club might be an extreme use not permitted,a day care center was "well within the ambit of religious activity."84 Rather than exhaustively researching,I preferred to get you a part of ny materials and give an idea of the dlnensione of the use.If anyone feels I have not captured the subject matter or gone on a tangent,please speak to ae before the next meeting, and 1 vill continue to investigate.*' treatue^sS;;;1,^!:;£a^ed\s*oti<>n8 f»*l^ix.9specificallyh*dimension,of religious use, focusing ondaycare centers. 314 HYa^^^gSToT^""11^™"Tr*v r"""hl"'"M1"*"8, 8 See Bxhibit »c--a portion of the case. •/ 1994-01-21 16:33 CALL US BEFORE SIDING A FAX 005 F06 ^-Sk^"""™-"""RESIDENCE"••WM-raioi.r mom,*,,.»kinder™ ^0^K^«i»»»x-. >l«o documents satisfy yollr quteye lt^lll\iZ^rTlT,Sr^gBi^f1-S""^"«<-«"the—.—your eXl8ting qil8ry b8fora typing .^^froa thig ^ ™.>THESA0RU8 >sqopE >hblp ,natoral ^^ Exhibit "A" 204 THE LAW OF ZONING AND PLANNING §20.01. r 20.01 Kdigkras Use* (1]In General « Most courts hold that because the location of churches in residen tialdistrictspromote*the generalwelfare,total exclusion if invalid.1 Notably,many decisions are not premised upon First Amendment ground*,but rather oa the ground that excluding churchei is irratio nal Knning.1 Still,contrary to mony jurisdictions,a few courts will first aramine whether the zoning ordinance violates the First Amend ment's establishment or freo exercise clause** Certaintypesofzoning r*6triorions are generally found valid,*uch as setbackandyard restrictions.4 Alow jurisdictions,relying oncon cerns ahout noiseandincreasedtraffic generated by religious uses have oven upheld complete exolusson of churches from residential area*.1 Prohibitions onconducting rcligknia servicesin single-family dwnllings are usually valid.*Accessory land uses on ehnrrh pr^vi-e^ such as flay care content,schools,homelesssheltersandparkinglots arc gftwariillv allowed if the m*it tmlv "incidental"to th»^mmry use.i.e.»religious woryfr*p-* lSee,i^«.,5^tev%MM*wdlt62HBW.BW,6!7p,M8l6(i&^kC1iuitUiDfC^ v.Metropolitan fci of Zonk*Appeals.371 N.B.2d 3331 (Tnd.App.18TB>t and Me Mi**lint.Lawi Ann.ch,40A,f 3 (pTecluditm the imranKm ofchurches from initdan* Uul dfetrkb). 2 Soe generally Cords*."Where to Pray?Religious Zoning snd the tint AmenoV incnt,"3n Kan.L Rev.607 (1W7)iItk»t MH«-R\ahiabJig iWBitacc Betwftftti Zoning ttegulaiiontand Actijcioui and Hducttfan*)UiesT 8 Pace L Hev>1 (1988);Pefiriiaan, "Zoning andtheLocationof Rehgioiis F^ahllihrnetita/*31 Oath.Law.3U (IWtt). *hea,eg.,Lakewood,Onto Congregation of Jehovahs WiaMtftfti.Ino.v.City of Ukewood.690 VM 303 (otb Dr.),owt,dented,464 US.818UiU.1>;Qty of Shouoar v.Klrtt Baptist Church,91*Wash.2d 1.630 P2d 1358 (IBH2). «See,eg.,Board uf 2onui*Appeal,v.Deuatur,tod.Co.ofJ«hovah'i WlbMsiM, 117 N.EJd I 1A (Ind.10541 (setback). BSee CotpAninoo of Presiding Biihop of Church ofJesut Chiist of Latter-Day Satan v.Cityof fortervtllc.203 J*2d 823 (Col.),epu.dim'd,G38 US.80S (tfitt).rch'g <±- ilied,338 U.&039 (I960}. .»See does v.t%of Mitral Reach,721 K2d 729 (11th 0.188.1),<*rc,denisd. 46H V&827 <19to)(upholding the prohibition ofa rabbi from coftduaring reUgkws corvfea.in nil garajr*fc of.State v.Cameron.490 A2d 1217 (NJ.1087}(pteenji&oa the enfocemciit of ao ordinance es&iding uhurebet from sJeaMamiiyarea hecauie of vgguoiec*but ttsxexta*that a properly drawn ordinance mittt be mfrioimi to prevent a nunliier fromconducting religtoiii tmviom inhis Tesktence). 7 See Bait Side Baptist Church ofDenver,Inc.v,Klein,487 F-fld 849(Cole.2971) (parking of ouacf on ohurch property property exefvded):Carbaty v.Norwaik Jewish Center,Inc.,171 A2d 187 (Conn.19A1){.wUnminf pool permitted*;noreoratka of Batfliblt *B-1"-1 of 2 / r j°z «T-a„}T<nnxa PT.T ttr •OPIS -a aai 'uumn 10 usumn sndm «*,*_(Mat 1Qtt*•>» •SN»«,*»«"«^»rS2^"W ««n me* *9 «"•<*WI>CM •««•'S8W fTSZST^?,*,,q,,,d,M **"*•™W •**»"""MOW «Q1MV AIWMU JO Al0 ^ -iKXI-lull?ulT0!!^'!!^"****J01 ^D"iiaM * 4WMI r i^wp,»M4 4B4U uodd pst^u,^u^A[.t,o,AMB W^ •esn ^lossaaey [g] w<M 0N1NNV aNVf)NtNozdOMvi:iaL «m ^•sawaviirtaiwiffiimiMi'i - §12.28 AMERICAN LAW OFZONING •vldence of ouch hazard,*but a variance to permit a church to establish an educational uwlna building not constructed with toe resistant materials may be Conditioned to require installa tion ©f safety features.*^^ $1-12&Dlmmdoni of i^Ugiou tue. l1!?.^rl|fl,rJ«tton11 mlft*™g to ^rtwi Mri"******lifein^lw I ^l^"8 Bn^unteittfi by m^drjaUriee when thtw J7~,^_•""""--"^^ii |f^|jyr""^>xfl umm iaennt«ftH)|ftaareligious.The limit,*^^miMieip»i pm^r to h^u^ftg •ananaanana,asW[H^s|*M »**••MAll sT%BlaTYV VIA •Arj^ej*Z assieast esmam^aasastea.f ***fa %^^^^^^^^*BB*""**'BB*l,^afB*B111^^l*^1^1^1^immmnrmiimmnnltentoe-i—nh^^m ^c^fortf i^ «MPQVMh to iurtif>iaatriatin—«hich erhieU'ySisT Ufles are capable of endangering not only the comfort and convenience of the community,but alto of creating hazards to public health and safety,it k highly important that the dime* sionrofeueh usebe clearly established. If afl religious usee,and the buildings in which they an conducted,consisted in worahip gerviceB which take place in church*,or syiiagegue.with the oustomary identifying symbols,U»problem would be simple.But activft/whiri.if^SSTSUflParticipant.-"™U«^>^fJftSnl 3aTaa«a»Sga- rnlWonii mifvifr are ^1n,^a^^hjBgg_JJgan. eenmi—.T "f?,UM,lun,•Owl*the range of religious5E^r.T*"^^-*ructurefl which house it are various.WMle rshgious conduct U permitted a wide latitude of expre*. £SZL^SST mtmvBtha -^blished,and that theusesaccessorytorehgioueusemustbedenned.Whether a use is *««limous one ia*question of fact."w Selimous use is not daflned solely in terms of religious war- in Exhibit <fe-2"1 of 3 A WBJV.M'MI.'JI. REGULATION OF USES §12*29 ship.Clearly,It extend*to education which is offered bya religious institution primarily for the children ofits member*.0 Th*oofafiffflt htm fr^n extendedtoincludea dav carecenter •AsVifrrnrpr?>iv «reltgfrW incfif.it^p*a cantor for performing arts,1*and*home for davalopmentally disabled persona,"but dasaiilcation asa religious use hasbeen denied to tjie operation of day olaasee to pre-school ohildren at a location several blocks from the church,"and toa correctional institution operated bya religious organisation.*9 The conceptiabroadly extended toconduct with religious purpose,Evenwhere the parndtted religionsuseisdefined in 5JL Catholic Bishop of Chicago v Shorn Habraw Aoadamy v Waataaa, Kiniaryran HI 357,20 NE2d 683 105 App DW 2d 702,461 KVSld 142 U989X (iee4,8dDaptX uitaaT^Z^5*Tha use of land to hooae 80SS'SLSf^Ji?^^da^opoaiiially diaablad parsona su- ^Sr:*lr*?*i*Z Sf^J^SS"^parvistdlijaB^ofSSparaoiMiaiiot While a church may maintain an-112 ifta?2d 33©,440 NYSttd 1016 CalhryuMa,*^^OfiWI,affd <4ih DapO 90 App !»•« unplioidy mrampsaaad fey tha parous 004 an pnfBM goo. allowing tha maintenance of the church.Las Cruooa v Huerte,102 NM *••Tha oparatiim of day classes for 1W,082 F2d 13310964.App).ptmhooL ohJWrttn in tha reeidencaof Tarins ina sotting ordinance ouch the church vicar,located several as "church"and "raligious us*"can bS?»««?,J1^*5ft **.»*co»" Imptioity inchid*was which era an-*j*»J?-^"J?"5^»•»ciliary or related to tha church and 2«7 Pernuttsd tar tha ordlnanca thia could Include a parochial acfcooL ^""j***"?^^..^^JS! DainaoouaCommunityChurchvClaa-f!^^AJ^Zl^^4V^kamsa County,45 Or App 1066.610 4^«AW3d ISO (1870,Toa Civ F2d 27S (1980),app dismd 4*0 US AppDallaa).wntrtfara, HoTLHatlKlOgaim 57.A wrm****Institution for citing Anderson,Amarican Law of giria which ia located ina aona bar* Zoning tfjidid)}1225.Hns such Institutions hut allowing SaageotreUyfl 1244.supra,religious activities,dew notqualifyas S8.Umu™„Univ.istl.at Church ISSt s^KiLlKv^o^flSMiaoadeTS.aidNYBSd %^^^&?$^ **{vm}>by the court without retard to rait* 54.A cantor for porfbrming arts,to 8*oua affiliation.Pariah or Jefinaon v be operated on Sunday,is sufficiently Louisiana Dent,of Corrections,259 La ralatsd.toa Jcwiifaday school and 1083,264 802d 0^11971). religious canter to enjoy ths advan-Community Synagogue v Batai.1 tagaa of raligioua and educational usas NY2d 446.154 NYSSd 16,136 Nttd in obtaining ipacial permits.North 466(1956). Exhibit "B-2"2 of 3 ,1240 AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING -M-S'.ainw.ma.g'ii s.»w '...* termsof a "dnirch for public worshipandother strictly raligious , uees,"it is construed to include the social activities of the ] religious group.This broad concept of religious use was articu* lated byone Court aa followa:"A church ia more than merely an edifice afibrding people the opportunity to worship God*Strictly religious uses and activities are more than prayer and sacrifice andall ohurehes recognise that thearea of their responsibility is broader than leading the congregation in prayer.Churches have always developed social groups for adultsandyouthwherethe fellowship of the oangregratlon isstrengthened ...Tolimita churchtobeing merely ahouse of prayer and sacrifice would,in a large degree,be depriving thechurchof the opportunityof enlarging,perpetuatingandstrengthening itself and the congre gation....Itiatraatj^thereligiow congregation through fellowship may not bepermittedtobe perverted into a justification for establishing ...a country club, ...and each case ultimately rests upon its own facts.0 This.,language strongly affirms that activity related tothe purpose of areligiousorganizationiaareligioususe.It clearly includes the church itself,aparochialschool with its normal components for recreational and other extracurricular activity,a convent,11 an orphanage,*a center for counseling drug users,* and parking areas related to these activities," That the scope of raligioua useis not unlimited is suggested in Ooe v Dallas,"in which a Texas court upheld the denial of a permit to build a "church"on the ground that it was to be used asahealingcenterratherthana place of worship.Thecourt 56.Board of ZoningAppealsv Wheaton,118 Ind App 58,76 NB2d 567 (1946);8oott Co.v Roman Catho lic Archluahep,83 Or97.166 P66 turn 66.Unlvaraitjr Height*vCleveland Jawlah Giphan'e Hcnw,20 F9d 743,6 OhioL Ah*667,64 ALR 1006 (1927, CA6 Ohio),cartdan 276 US 660,12L Bki49ll488Gtl41.% 60.Acenterfor counseling drag uaara,conducted at achurchperish house by artangemrmt with a hospi tal,ia a "valid religious use*"The scope of judicial dennithm of "reli- Seoul uaar ia very breed.Slcvin v 660 Exhibit "B-2W 3 Of 3 Lflng Island Jewish Medical Center, 86 Mi*2d312,619 NYSBd 987 (1971),Citing Anderson,Aniariaao Law of Zoning (1st ad)}9.26. 61.Dtonata of Rochester •Planning Bd.of Brighton,1 NY2d 608,164 NT88d 645,186 NEBd 687 (1966). Diocese of Cant New York v Schwar- aor.28 Mtoc 2d 516\199 NYS2d 999 0966%ana (3d Dapt)13 AppDiv3d 608.217NY6Sd667. Sea ganerally Burns,Zoningtor Churches sad Bimilar Uses.22 NY3 Planning News Ho4p 6(1968)i 68.Cbe v Dallas, (1963,Tea Civ App). 266 SWld 161 "z&aemmammmmm 3-333 feciAj*o!MnYZc*iw^^j 3461*1 A California statute prohibits the exclusion from mideatisl zones of Iamily day care honics fc*d*or fewer children.111 A New Ntv Yv*Maimer v.Bd.of Apptob for CSty of.Auburn.98 MIkM 1QU.41SNYBM362(Sat,Ct !97«(wntofwecU «Jp«ft«wd«m WrtooX£ «r*center mi mar whos ceme-was qm within dines a(pcrauttoi mm). AlMVfemfe;Sa4im v.Bd.of Zoning Appall of City of Savtoe.41 P» Ooomw 340.399 AM IK (19W)(no dMmgioo benwta -fcy cmcwm maHautyBA.35ftGosmwS4l,3MA2dtQ76<i97tt. M,C5ri»ttriA*StlefrCode*!5»J,sWdiiWi«K Ptopw*ofall iftoal ordure*„d &&^ta jbtfjbd ,,,.^oi mi** °wB0MM»^wyWtedi^w<towta|<itttt^^fari^h>fa^2 Z-i!!?*"m*b ,°,y °****»(m ••'•*»*•*«»**••»NocomfWoiMlimppanrt,ttmns ordinance,or otto aoofa*okonnce ihall be ».qriltd tor *ueh .teOHy wfclck to uA ru,uned of .m^u.n.^££ enwreo Krvfaj «»«t^cMidna,estate or cUdren who raMeiutac teds*sfa.il not coMtlbit.«donge 4 cccptncy to,pmw^TlLt IS(pe-Msaas will.State 179(0)of DivWoo 1jTtal bSSHodl SSIm^S.'01 *Ttm,tlmm9 *»Huffily *hkfciWr*i« <*n»«l eW!4 dqr Mt britim iq CtWomli,that tat notd tor tyeh Hdlilia «M nans nave adopted amaag restnctioas wUeh ddar the aewleeiMa.Ll mi) (Rsia-l/IS »aUU> Bxhibit ,rB-3»1 of 2 »•Jt—.»rV».'Jt"-"'".«• i-.«*•*:Jersey court le4rhoVcvef,«unn vtmiuy uay «v u%iua;uir tw*.***.to cishteen chHolS^s nof l^Srtittcd ^hcwie oe^K0^ snincioeataUise of av residential M<JijUfcaao ,1¥ir-r /^ Day care centers frequently offer rtnictiixead educational Phv; grams.Most courts have been willing to final that such day cam wntei*axe permitted school use***"One coasert .ruled that a IiW ordinance which distinguished between permitted schools and pn> hibilfld day care centers was capricious,unrewfsonabla and ^aj imyraiaticAtothepaUioht^thTaB^v r>av care ctaiters affiliated with churches may**pemntted r»g_ nous uae».iM A village zoning ordinance that eianicd achurch nam, mission to operate a day care canter on its premises,was held to be invalid because it discriminated against children and exceeded the U*fefeoaeid v.Zeaiaa Bd.of Adj.of Dennis Twp~160 KJ Super 150,4Q|* A2d 357 (App Div 1979)(use act "cunccutfily"carried «oa io a dwdlins ualtk sat Op^ Gaarsav Doncan v.Eatiddo.It!Oa 311.S3 SB2d 771 1X933).•j W'Uviaguoa v.Davit,243 Iowa 21,50 NW2d M*<1«M).4 Nfbnukai Dewey v.MoDteuori Bduo.Center,Inc.*995 Neb 791,17S NWIJ 792(1970).ip Nww Jmw Tnfce L.Coin.v.Bd.of Adj.,U8 NJ toper 453.288 A24 lli Oaw Div 1972).% ^mC*iolfea:*tar«iaav.atytf But see: Arkanosi City of Uttie Rook v.Iiitent-Toddler lbfoartesieci Scbooi,lac,„, SW24 743 (Ark 1980)(fXiHiculu»c40a^-«U^ public ejaaiaottuy school;center was ao*a psxiru^s^toc^use.) LauMan*Laktaid*bey Cafe Cater.Inc.v.Bd.of Adj.,121 So2d 333 (|j| Apr*1960)(day ears eaeter was not permitted ^artery 9caoolH or Mpre-ldsas| aarten**). »*Clty QfCaiDsso v.eaoaa,1 11124 .1*1 US NE2d 762 (1933).The found Iter leaool use and day care use would areata tbe same level of noiss oonummity dlaturbaucav so that there was no police power jurifkatkn for crimicalbf afoinst daycare centers. 114 See Ualtsfiss UaivanaUst Church v.Shorten.63 MUc2d 978,314 NK 66 (Sup Ct 1970),where the court broadly interpreted the lenn MrdigLous unT st include a church operated day care fscttlty uxatcd oa ehweh property. Hat aaa Heard v.City el Dalle*45*$W2d 440 (Tex CW App 1970)(day CsSf canter eoadaetiiia itUaious tervises and training which was operated by m ' was not permitted fdigjous use.but rather wes conditionally permitted day ery or kindergarten). Exhibit "B-3"2 of 2 * A UF^ARIAH TOtVBliaALieT OH.OF OW TA0&AT7 V,SHORTEN 71 Citaaan«N.Y.aaaei and Title 3-A ofArticle6ofthe Social Services Law (ace §410(3)). That tlie center willtaketheform Qf an affiliated but separate corporate entityin order tobe eligible for state funding does not make the project any the teas an operation of the Church.Though the benefit to die Church is,from die point of view of Article XI,Section 3oftheNew Ycrrk State Constitution "a collateral effect"of the Social ServicesLawday care provisions (Board of Educationv.Allen,20 N.Y,2d 109,116,281 N.Y.S.2d 799,804,228 N.E.2d 791.794,affd.392 U.S.236,8R S.Ct. 1923,20 L.Ed2d 1060),the day care center is nonetheless an operation of the Church which,If H isa proper religious activity,may not normal ly be abridged by zoning provisions. The perimeter of protectedreligious activity isnoteasyto define. That it extends beyond prayer and sacrifice but not so far as the opera tionof t acountry club isthe teaching of Matter of Community Syna gogue v.Bates.1 N>Y.2d 44$,453,154 N.Y.S.2d 15,21,22,136N.E. 2d 488,493.What fa1h hfttween tho«*e*Lremes is adumbrate!hv Aii- dVsQu'a suggestion (Zoning Law and Practice in New York State 327, i 9.33)thai "Religious use ♦»»is broadly extended to conduct with religious purpose",and Rathkonf's statement a The Law of Zon ing and Planning 19-22)"flat rh»rent-apt ftf whaf mnRKtntec a nUurrh has changed from a place of worship alone,used once or twice a week, to a church tiaed Atrinr the mnt'nu weflf.nights aa wrfl aft ifovs fnr vari- nnu papftriiipi ftw^^mptni^y fym^on,*"Though,as the Bates case de clares (1 N,Y.2d at p.453,154 N.Y.S^d at p.22,136 N.£2d at p. 495)"each case ultimately rests upon its own facts",a review of prior decisions makes evident that operation;ofa dav care center is fas the brief*of both petitioner and amicus curiae stress)well within the ambit n*^I'rqyft »gtSvitYi Sustained as religious activity have been:"guid ance of indoor and outdoor activities for youth and community work"* Matter of Goniinuniry Synagogue v.Bates,1 N.Y.2d at p.448,154 N. Y.S.2d at p.18,136 N.EJd at p.491;"school;meeting room;kinder garten,small games,open field and hard-top play areas'',Matter of Di ocese of Rochester v.Plan,Bd.,1 N.Y.2d 508,516,154 N.Y,S.2d 849, 853,136 N.J£.2d 827,#31;production of television programs and cor respondence course*involving the use of "modem Office machinery and equipment,such as postage meters,automatic typewriters,rnait-Opening and sealing machines,teletype machines,addressograph machines, recording apparatus and a small offset press"and the maintenance of a 'Mining room,kitchen,printing shop,storage room",Matter of Pallh (or Today,lnc;w.Mardock,11 A.DJ2d 718.204 N.Y.S.24 751,affcL 9 N.Y2d 761,21S N.Y.S.2d 70,174 JN.i£.2d743;"a gymnasittm^Shaf fer v.Temnle Beth Emeth,198 App.Div.607,609,190 N.Y.S:841. H42;Matter otTemplo Israel of Lawrence v.flam,10 Misc2d 1084, 170 N.Y.S.2d 393;"teaching of secular subjects",Wtttbury Hebrew Cong.v.Downer,59 MUc^d 3&7$388,302 M.Y.S.2d 923,92$;"meet- /r E*nb±fc «c»''? »"""'Z Uo pacrexd «»**£.«•*»Aq papuooas uu«oW «a?aarflHfiS9SBSS;!S 01 sa -on aotWNicwo •uoxa«T.nDaJ dto sxu,ux P-TO^^^^s^aauoxssx^oo 3S,*oo PUT3 °>to*™*"..aA ,ss*a «»t-5-w ,.»«aauoTSST-oo l-J*^Xp-s^K^uox^ow aoAW-^TA JB3A -UT a^oA V>u AW es»P..Te*te»ep «»3°*|£3paban mreODW »*« ^,*«DTTIOU6 eou«UTP*> ;V a«o otvp ,wn **a*•; ,fIwW 6a^AT<^5.aq Aim aaeo P",»J22»^B8 ^aA Mr.Dean Mimms City of South Miami December 1,1993 Page 2 considered an accessory toa church.The ruling rests on an interpretation of the specific language of the Richmond Heights zoning ordinance and hence does not necessarily apply to other ordinances.Nonetheless,the opinion contains some important observations relevant to the issue in South Miami,among which are the following:"The record shows that the church operates the day care to attract new members tothe church and accomplish its mission of preaching the gospel and serving the community....The day care service contributes tothe comfort and convenience ofthe church parishioners by providing child care for them. It is my opinion that day care centers,being legitimate accessory uses in churches,could reasonably be established in churches which are themselves nonconforming.This opinion isbasedonthe idea thatan accessory use is almost by definition an integral part of the principal use to which itis accessory.Hence its establishment does not constitute the expansion ofthe existing nonconforming use or the addition of anew nonconforming use.Williams discussion of accessory uses (Section 74.10) cites more than one case in which "...it was heldthat the right to appropriate accessory uses should be implied along withthe principal use. Furthermore,Williams (Section 74.45)cites several cases which explicitly allow the addition of accessory usestoexisting nonconforming commercial uses in residential districts.This seems to metobe analogous tothe establishment ofan accessory day care ina nonconforming church. Finally,it is my opinion that the current language of the South Miami Land Development Code can reasonably be interpreted as permitting day care facilities as accessory usesin churches,including nonconforming churches.However,the Code does not explicitly state this and it might be desirable toamendit so that it does explicitly say so.The following are suggested amendments: ADD A DEFINITION TO SECTION 20-2.3 TO READ AS FOLLOWS: CHURCH,TEMPLE OR SYNAGOGUE.Shall mean a building,a building and other structures or a group of buildings and structures which by design and construction are intended for organized religious services and other forms of worship including accessory uses associated therewith.In this context the term "accessory uses shall be interpreted broadly to include uses runbythe church to provide service to the congregation and to reach out to the general community.Such accessory usesmay include recreational, educational,day care and other activities. Mr.lean Mimms City of South Miami December 1,1993 Page 3 AMEND SECTION 20-3.3 (B)TO READ AS FOLLOWS (new material shown underscored): (B)Established Nonconforming Uses Uses which were established prior to the adoption of this code or its predecessors,but whicharenow inconsistent with the requirements ofthis Code shall bepermitted if suchusesmeet the requirements of this Codefora valid nonconforming use. A vnlid^noncnnforming use ahull include valid accessory uses Qstfthlifiheri after the principal Uflft heeflTTie nonconforming as well as valid accessory uses eBtahliahed prior to the principal nag hecoTnintr nonconforming. I hope this opinion is helpful.Aswithmostofmy opinions,itis based on specific research and a review of specific portions oftheSouth Miami Land Development Code.Itis therefore subjectto modification basedon any relevant facts that were not considered.Please feel free topointout any additional facts or information thatyou think relevant. Sincerely yours, ROBERT K.SWARTHOUT,INCORPORATED Robert K.Swarthout,AICP RKS:tb -tW«ptUM»P -a—iaa^Molumtoawn'—ft aUBisaoaaa<n woaanasro iapft*f *y„j*J •sassOsm JWaissaaasaa^nesi^a^^-vatti q sntJ^w*w»—««r .^T^JI,S «siwsmjioo IBVna)JS*ta*i *•««••«pwaot asm ttnuSoid ^MWl|WS!iss«*>»t^unnrnnnir m-*"1 TT,in *ll>—• I«3[aei>wwss>m<a»waw»^»^pm «»mated •"^J?"""*? ^rt^^ytwsffasystt ;»»^a^fWlWl V •||||--AJ»««l*™V-"*»«*•t«|W«U *»•—»~** ^mnnnvm^nvn^^i ^^^^—e'»«y*lg?g iM«o»»imi«WWa«"'f*w tarns tap Aq pwnutd ?«iP«W .STiSp t tana*««l V««02S ««)*****HI '"^..gfr Mian aecaota *f <en»udg 1 P**P3 4j^gw%-4aatjaa sjaanfll °sywl "tg •t*vo si vrm nut uamp gjg*f*|*'tufti *K JSEWTOlg,yr^iyra^^in?S it^p^nY TOWIBD KTOIBI<li8rt"i|iai*^L^fen^.JtmWMaOTH OMOWTOIH•rj 'i^D itmx *HI *W»B 1 ««nnM 'Mm*sh*iiww# •fOfModau 40J <sfecri tg •a«iH)A ™^8JT"oKOKHOtS iO iXID ~* Isdes ^Jn^imm^mBnm —^^^m aaevie •flanai ,49BBSKSBAr aiSSflflBwS eSXJ ttatSS)aSJSSJI VSUa VJI**ms»»a»a»apsB*^mm~—~w iff** tjMigsta -am *pfeleMspi••*•£««qnss,Mi «^aja»age anata syqsfjsine sjnssti waspta, sjBtuai sjtaoiq afU|U4Uih •*•»**! wis-**««^'«^5JlM ^ayaajg sussiBS 5jaaVj-aaaiia»Tsjsn ifl BIS—n •**«1tqta*-p wo unet-ji ?J^^|Tsjjn5^^ •OK <aqnt *tVJBatsjd tfsn lap sjg fn *#*•**<-*t«-»«*»wnn fiXVlfl MeVfttt+llff <9>9l«MMl AiaiNi-fi **rSSfl *•"•>xnvncvo mrr wu mro*sxvjn ••**•***tsMfi aq as sae paaa spMMVQ «ssuittfP*o t so Jhsjinni em tsjosowaap nj•A HDttT _^ •DOtvr Kftn *tfttOATi Hiioror .•••••••i m*r *A J __^^_^^^^^^BB.ABB SMBe BBWBBBBj-XDBfljeafJ^pfn^^Bj^sanflsSAtiaofinm S«a»aaaaaa-a{q(»)tfsliasl •»|SB> <sa35"j)>nunisnim ytafu»^^ss^yrwJJ(a)tOMSBt sjsn-^aj|iafltf JS j^g^ BY 1*W*«%•VMijiitJiiillltlT ******** 4S0M a «tt)«u^!»^-aiW *»em is*«»fern***«n W **^«wa#1JII|i...SjBB^atetfP^^naafiipisaasn^IC"•**-•W*Mjqsafatsaap .-,^Stt .—^^_j.»_aeesBBiaaMsaattaa n s Sjssa smBeuj*^«»etn»^"u»I»»"ll»»»»i.-~^aaaa ami JO fun m«bb Baasea aasiBBam saaa-ssBffntfBSBa AS aMBJBjBjBBSJBJ ^^^^•*•!•#•••"•!i*»SSBJI sua)fp f*a ssassaaa ^_mmmT~^rmatSl ft Ttmn trmrt^bbi m a*lte-BBamtaaaaMi«ft 'afBflTlllaW aslBSjaj SHI CA PBCBJBBB)s^SaSsWaW ••«••"I •••llllv^•UU St «atPSSSfiSffrSSffK]^a»eae»B|BBB«F —,---wbj*»t r -»^^^«W BWBBBBBBamaak asa ^™—™l *i ^*•*".^__^^^^a^BBHB***aaB>ak M SBSSBKBS SBSawSBBSD SBalamssbssianttaasaassdsj•ueBsasasi eyssj SSR 'SUiaj na"«n ^!••»"••«"w«BJ|9pBBVfB|ia|||iill »»f^-_IT .—amp.laaJsam SSH tt SaMMR UlEl in»i^>oriW#4a^»^2ssi ISittlwin^iilii^W^ ut vn m m mum u»«t»?WQ *ft «^<pllw|y *.lL., auns w•smwwa Nsitu*buu»mi -w 8tt