Historic Commission Approves Village Chapel Project

The congregation of the Village Chapel has approved a proposal by the board of trustees for a new learning center. To begin construction the Chapel will first need Village council approval of a major special use permit. Photo by Glenn Sides.

By Tom Embrey

As of Sunday, October 3, 2010

After two days of discussion, the Pinehurst Historic Preservation Commission has issued a certificate of appropriateness (COA) for The Village Chapel's proposed learning center.

During a special called meeting Thursday, the commission voted 5-1 to issue the COA, with a condition that the village planning staff work with representatives from the church to revisit parking issues. Thursday's special meeting was the continuation of a hearing that began Sept. 30.

The Village Council approved issuing a major special-use permit in August after a holding a quasi-judicial hearing that took two days. The site plan must now go before the Planning and Zoning Board and the Village Council for approval.

"I think the chapel went out if its way to conform to the necessary requirements, and I cannot find any reason we should not approve what they have done," commission member Joyce Franke said before making a motion to approve the COA.

Her motion was amended by Carl Holstein to ask that the parking be revisited by the village planning staff. He expressed concern about the need for parking on the right side of the new building. He said the parking is not congruent with the rest of the buildings on the site.

Earlier in the meeting, Commissioner John Strickland voiced concerns over the asphalt parking in the front of the building. Strickland had asked that the chapel consider other materials for parking.

The Village Chapel agreed to look at the parking issues.

"We are willing to do that as long as it is approved by the building inspector and it does not compromise our special-use permit," said Dave Neill, attorney for The Village Chapel.

After Thursday's meeting, Neill called the process "one of the two or three most contentious" that he has ever been involved in.

The main issue that forced the commission to carry over the meeting to a second day was the question over whether or not the proposed project could endanger Pinehurst's Historic Land-mark status, which it received in 1996.

That issue cropped up because of a letter that was sent to Pinehurst Mayor Ginsey Fallon and the Village Council from Dan Scheidt, chief of the Cultural Resources Division, South-east Region of the National Park Service.

Sheidt's letter, dated Sept. 16, said the National Park Service is willing to work with the village on the preservation of its National Historic Landmark status, as well as its concern over how the project could adversely affect that status.

The village is currently on a watch list and could lose its landmark status if it does harm to the historic nature of the district.

On Thursday, Ellen Turco, of Circa Inc., a cultural resources consulting firm, told the commission that the landmark designation is "an honor for Pinehurst" and something that "everyone should want to keep.

"I certainly don't think the proposed addition you are looking at today is significant enough to have an [adverse] impact on your landmark status," she said.

In the earlier meeting, when the letter was discussed, Neill objected to entering the memo into the record, calling it "incompetent hearsay evidence."

Commission Vice Chairman Frank Thigpen upheld the objection, and the memo was not read into the record, sparking outcry from some of the residents in the audience who wanted to know what the memo stated.

The letter requests that construction plans for the proposed learning center be submitted to the National Park Service for review.

Patrick Duffy, who cast the lone dissenting vote on approval of the COA, made a motion during the meeting to send the construction plans for the project to the the National Park Service for their review. That motion failed.

The commission had been advised by staff and legal counsel that the action by another historic preservation agency at either the state or national level was not in their purview.

Commission Chairman Howard Warren had recused himself at the start of the hearing earlier in the week to avoid any perception of a conflict since he is a member of The Village Chapel.

Nancy Smith, another member of The Village Chapel, didn't recuse herself. She voted to approve the project.

Contact Tom Embrey at tembrey@thepilot.com

More like this story

ncsnafu1 2 years, 7 months ago

It is truly a shame that Mayor Fallon, the Pinehurst Village Council and the Pinehurst Historic Preservation Commission have collectively turned their heads on the referenced National Park Service letter. In doing so, they have certainly set in motion the process for Pinehurst to lose its National Historic Landmark designation.

Here is the entire last paragragh of Mr. Scheidt's letter which seems pretty clear to me:

"Once again,I emphasize that NHL staff are ready to provide technical assistance as the Village contemplates changes which may pose a threat to the historic character of the Village Green and the Landmark district. I encourage you to submit proposed plans to our staff for review as soon as possible. The Village's timely communication with us will not only ensure the preservation of Pinehurst Historic District NHL, our paramount concern, but also will make unnecessary a formal consideration of withdrawal of the Pinehurst Historic District NHL designation."

The failure of the above three mentioned individuals and groups to take a simple action with the NPS will be a legacy I hope they are proud of when the NHL designation to lost.

Bflat 2 years, 7 months ago

Doesn't the Historical Commission ensure that any future projects wil be in comliance before issuing any type of approval, so as not to compromise the National Historic Landmark status?

ncsnafu1 2 years, 7 months ago

@Bflat: One would think that the Historic Commission would have the responsibility you cite. One Historic Commission memeber made a motion to send the Chapel plans to the NPS for review and received a second. Unfortunately, the vote on the motion failed. It should be noted that one commission member voting against the motion is also a Chapel member who did not see a conflict of interest while the chairman of the committee, also a Chapel member, did recuse himself to prevent any hint of a conflict.

Consider that 3 out of the 5 Village Council members are Chapel members that saw no conflict and did not recuse themselves with 2 out of 7 Historic Commission members also Chapel members of which one did recuse himself. This by itself speaks volumn's about their character.

phstresident 2 years, 7 months ago

Why is the Historic Designation so important anyway? What benefit does it bring the Village? Nothing that I can think of exept more hassle and red tape when trying to do anything for the good of the community. I say let them take it away...and nobody will notice any change whatsoever!

irishman 2 years, 7 months ago

There are two facts that are not in the record so far. The National Parks Service has no standing in the Pinehurst UDO . Their Quasi Demand to review plans is huge overreach. Why does some federal beauracrat think he can demand to review plans? The Historic Commission must make their judgement based on the facts, and there is no bearing in the code as to letting the NPS review plans.

Secondly, I have yet to hear anyone refer to RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalised Persons Act). Here is the preamble to the law of 2000

SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF LAND USE AS RELIGIOUS EXERCISE. (a) SUBSTANTIAL BURDENS- (1) GENERAL RULE- No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or institution-- (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

There have been many federal cases in terms of religious use of land, and the courts nearly always find that the religious institution is to be given the broadest leaway in developing their property.

The NPS may be sticking it's nose in a tent (RLUIPA) that is way beyond it's purview.

CSmithson 2 years, 7 months ago

@irishman

RLUIPA is overreaching and hasn't really been seriously challenged in the high courts. As it stands now, and certainly from the persepctive of many religious institutions, churches are basically exempt from all land use regulations.

That's what gets you huge mega churches that hack away at the character of the neighborhoods in which many are located. Several of the large churches in downtown Southern Pines have been growing and swallowing up their entire blocks of the town for years. Little by little, historic homes have been bought up by the churches and destroyed to make way for more parking and larger "learning centers."

Any efforts to control this growth and protect historic neighborhoods are essentially met with "RLUIPA says churches can do whatever they want."

I think the law was well-intended and was meant to ensure that religious uses were not singled out and specifically discriminated against, but in practice it has scared municipalities without deep pockets into giving churches free reign to do almost whatever they want.

irishman 2 years, 7 months ago

@CSmithson

One Point I make that hasn't been addressed is a federal agency getting involved in local zoning that could have RLUIPA issues.

My opinion, RLUIPA is either good or overreaching. If you read the cases that have been argued, many churches used RLUIPA to overcome very abritrary city decisions.

Southern Pines is a Prime example. Bart Nuchols arbitrarily decided that the Catholic school was not a permitted use under the UDO, but the UDO clearly stated that Churches (and school buildings) were a permitted use. Bart arbitrarily decided that the church had to be built first, then the school could be built. There is no city in america that can decide upon themselves what a church is, and the Catholic school would be celebrating mass in the class. The church owned over 20 acres, had a rectory and cemetary on the site. The school had to appeal the decision to the Board of Adjustment, which requires a super majority.

Thanks goodness the BOA ruled in favor of the church, but even Doug Gill tried to argue that RLUIPA didn't apply, which he was dead wrong. He tried to argue that a local school did not fall under the pervue of the federal law since interstate commerce did not apply, which is dead wrong. Construction and education are both covered under the interstate commerce clause, and RLUIPA does apply.

My point it that sometimes town leaders are more interested in their power, deciding what they want in town, and not interested in their citizens ability to practice their faith, or what the citizens want.

Just my opinion.