02-0882 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

F I l I /i 3. Educat~(}nal Building For Colonial !hptist Church: Mi. Pfeiffer asked that !\1r. Murdock take the floor as Chw. He state,i that he ha.d some comments with regard to this application that he would prefer to make ss a member of the CommiBsion rather than as Chair. Ms. Bernhart advised the Commission that the Council reconunender:1 denying the applicant's request for a waiver from providing vertical ..cc~ssibility to t.b: second floor of a two~story church educational building with respect to the toilet rooms. The Council relcoOllnends granting the request for installation of an. elevator und! the second iloor is complf.lted mth the provisions that the elevator shaft be CO:.1structed at the time the fi:-st floor is bebg built. Mr. Gat), McDonald and Pastor Les Warren were present to repre!ent the applicant who Wi$ requesting a waiver from providing vertical accessibility for a proposed 10.000 square feot, twe-story church educational building which will be adjacent (connected) to the existing worship/educational building. This facility. 'with an estimated p~ojec1 b'Jdget ofS400,OOO will be utilized for church Sunday schooi and office in conjunction with worship services. The applicant is alae! requesting an exemption from the installation ofan enlarged water closet on the second floor of the proposed facility. Mr. McDonald stated the hardship was created because the building Wa.!1 dedgned with the understanding that churches were exempt. After the design and during the process, they were made aware. of Mr. Brasg's memo stating that some build~s owned by churches are not exempt. Mi'. McDonald felt that because tbe building is used as a chure!"... it '"iould b~ deserving of an exemption. For financial reaSO:1S, addi."lg the c~gense of w elevator l!iJld other items is a major challenge. M..r. Warren stated that the building was designed to be 8::cessibIe to everyone; there is notJ'lJng on the second floor that is not duplicated on the first floor. :Mr. Pfeiffer stated that he believed that the apptica.'1t and this facility are ex.empt from the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities A~ (.~A) and the Iijorida Disability Act (FDA). He said he would like to make a. statement and adviseoihe Com..nission ti.at he was making the statement V'vith much reluctance because it is contrary to the opinion Md the counsel of his colleague, A1 Bragg. Mr. Pfeiffer commented that Mr. Bragg understands because in their profession. disagreement is part of what they anticipate. In fact, without di$3,grecment. attorneys wouldn't ever make any money. He said he has a great dea.!. of confidence in 'Mr. Bragg and regards him as a trusted advisor and goed fric.nd'l~ever, he disagrees with Mr. Braggls interpretation ofthe Statute. Mr. Pfeiffer said it was :5 opbion that the Legislative intent was to make churches exempt to the wne extent that they are in the provislons of ADA. The exemption for churches exist in Florida law. The forme:- exemption exist because the Legislature had inserted the word "churches" into the act and specifically made churches by that ll=tion subject to requirements of the Florida Speciiic Accessibility Requirements. In 1997 the Legislature removed that word. Mr. Pfeiffer said he thought the Legislature believed it w.u making churches exempt from the Florida Specific Requirements and making accessibili.ty re~~irement& applicable to churches only to the extent that they are applicable under the ADA.Fhat being the case, Mr. Pfeiffer believes the CO.m.mission is without authority to issue an exelnption for trus church facility, and should instead issue a final order. This order would state tha! the church is exempt, no exemption is required and the Comm.ission doesn't have the authmity to gra.,.-lt an exemption because none is needc,U ;;t~ ~ ...b lvfr. Lipka ql.1estioned the t4SC of the propeny. :.\ls. Berrlllart said it w'ill be utilized for f\ churd~ Sunday school and office in conjunction with worship servicc~:l. .'vft. Murdock asked Ms.