Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies permit to rebuild church in single‑family neighborhood after neighbors object
Summary
Council denied a specific use permit for a proposed church at East Eighth Street, citing neighborhood compatibility concerns; Planning and Zoning had recommended denial and over 20% of notified neighbors returned negative responses, triggering a supermajority requirement.
Mount Pleasant City Council on July 15 unanimously denied a request for a specific use permit that would have allowed a church to be rebuilt on two residential lots at East Eighth Street.
The ordinance, numbered 2025-13 and tied to Specific Use Permit SUP-2025-02, was presented at a public hearing. Staff said the site had previously hosted a church that burned in 2023; an earlier permit application had been denied by council in 2024. Planning and Zoning recommended denial at its July 8 meeting by a 4–0 vote. Notices sent to property owners within 200 feet returned negative responses representing slightly more than 20 percent of the notified area, which under city code requires a four‑vote (supermajority) approval to grant the permit.
At the hearing, a resident who identified herself as representing neighbors urged denial, citing parking limitations, public safety, noise disturbances and the history of fire damage at the location. The resident told council the adjacent Journey Park routinely reaches capacity during sports activities and is not a reliable overflow parking source for a congregation. A representative of Oasis de Venizion, Maria Sanchez, asked council to consider the church’s revised plans and new, reduced hours and said the congregation would try to work with neighbors.
Staff outlined conditions the applicant had offered, including building to the submitted site plan, increased soundproofing, limiting services to end by 9 p.m., restricting services to specified days and hours, directing overflow parking to the nearby city parking lot rather than neighborhood streets, and prohibiting residential or shelter use of the building. Staff noted the proposed building footprint and hours were reduced from the submittal considered in 2024.
Council members expressed concern about proximity to existing homes and repeated prior complaints, including reports that occupants had stayed overnight previously and that a fire had been associated with cooking activity. After deliberation, Council Member 5 moved to deny the ordinance; the motion was seconded and the council voted unanimously to deny the permit.
The denial keeps the property in its single‑family residential zoning and prevents the church’s proposed reconstruction under the SUP application as presented.
