Temple Baptist representatives tell Clute council building is grandfathered; staff says refile SUP, inspections required

Representatives of Temple Baptist Church told the Clute City Council on Oct. 25 that the church’s 1950s sanctuary at 730 South Main Street should be treated as a grandfathered, lawful use and therefore not be subject to retroactive retrofit requirements that could force the congregation to close.

The church’s representatives, including an attorney and members identified in the meeting as Angelica Velez and Crystal Marzine, said the building was lawful when constructed and that retroactive enforcement of sprinkler or other interior fire-suppression requirements would impose an unaffordable cost. “A new sprinkler system would be at least $500,000,” one presenter said, adding that such a bill “would shut our doors down completely.” The delegation also cited Texas Local Government Code §211.016 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) as legal protections they believe apply.

City staff and the city attorney countered that the ordinance language the church cited (city code section 4.4, on nonconforming structures) primarily addresses lot-coverage and setback issues, not exemptions from building- or fire-code compliance. The city attorney explained that under Clute’s zoning ordinance churches are required to obtain a specific use permit (SUP) to operate in many zones, and that SUPs may be granted permanently or with conditions at the council’s discretion. “The SUP is not automatic,” the city attorney said; council may impose limits or conditions when granting one.

Staff described the practical next steps: the city asked the church to refile the SUP application with plans and supporting documents so the building official and fire marshal can perform a formal structural and code inspection and prepare a written report. Staff told the council it is not yet determined whether interior sprinklers would be required; that will be decided after plan review and inspection. A city staff member said, “we asked you to resubmit it with plans so that we could carry out the process,” and reiterated that the SUP and building-code reviews are separate processes that both must be completed.

Council members said the meeting was the proper forum to hear the church’s position but that the council cannot negotiate or take formal action on the item until a completed SUP application and plans are before the city. One council member summarized the path forward: “Until you bring that SUP, there’s nothing that I can do.” No ordinance or other action was taken at the meeting.

The church representatives said they believe enforcement has been inconsistent historically and asked for fair treatment consistent with state and federal law; staff and the council asked them to refile the SUP and provide any existing blueprints or engineer reports to support a formal review. The council emphasized that building- and fire-code compliance is a safety matter that the city will consider when evaluating any SUP.

What’s next: The church was advised to refile the SUP with plans and to work with city inspectors. The council will consider any SUP and the staff report at a future public meeting.