The Common Council met 06/15/2022. The only items of business underwent individual votes, both of which were related to the building of a new building for the Apostolic Truth Church (ATC) on the north side of Appleton. One item was an amendment to the city’s Future Land Use Map and the other was a rezoning request, both of which needed to happen before a church building could be constructed on the land.
These items were both discussed and voted on during the 05/11/2022 City Plan Commission meeting. During that meeting two commission members—Commissioner Andrew Dane and Alderperson Denise Fenton (District 6)—voted against the future land use map amendment and rezoning and cited concerns that allowing a church to be built there would reduce the land available in the city for housing. Additionally, Alderperson Nate Wolff (District 12), though not a member of the commission, was in attendance and expressed opposition to the rezoning.
During the Common Council meeting, those concerns about the city needing land to build housing were never raised. One neighborhood resident did appear and express concern that traffic and on-street parking would be impacted. It was noted, however, that the church intended to build a parking lot with ample parking. Ultimately, both the Future Land Use Map amendment and the rezoning request were approved but 5 alderpersons, without giving any indication as to why, opted to abstain from voting [which seemed very abnormal to me.]
Two members of the public spoke on the items. The first was Aaron Soto the senior pastor of ATC who gave some background on the church and then talked about their plans to build a church building on the property in question.
He told the Council that ATC was founded in 1983 by Pastor Michael Schmalz and described it as a multi-generational/multi-ethnic congregation. They provided a special Swahili language worship service for African immigrants transitioning to the Fox Valley Area and also provided a plethora of services to those immigrants.
He said they were a church community that welcomed all people regardless of lifestyle or persuasion, and many members would confirm this. [I do just want to note here that the Apostolic Truth Church is a member of the United Pentecostal Church International which in 2014 adopted a position paper affirming gender distinctions and in 2015 adopted a position paper holding the view that “the Bible presents fornication, adultery, polygamy, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, and transgenderism as improper expressions of human sexuality.” Additionally, UPCI as a whole has a reputation for being controlling or even “cult-like” to use that term colloquially, but that does not necessarily hold true for every individual congregation or for this this specific congregation in particular.]
He also touched on food, family coaching services, and compassion services they provided to people who were in crisis.
They had owned the property in question for over 2 decades, and their founding pastor had actually been given the honor of naming the southern bordering street Glory Lane. All of that happened before subdivisions, homes, and apartments were built in the area. In fact, they had owned that property even before the area was annexed by the City of Appleton. He somewhat jokingly noted that the very empirical Google Maps listed the property as the “Future home of ATC”.
The congregation had raised $2million to construct a building, and they were at the cusp of construction which they hoped to start in the next 12-18 months.
The building design included a 1,200 square foot community room that could be used by neighborhood residents for parties and meetings, and atrium where people could gather and do things like study for finals or have a cup of coffee, and a new storehouse/food distribution facility.
He finished up by saying that the property was on the corner of Glory Lane and Providence Avenue which expressed the heart of the congregation. “We believe in our hearts that our relationship with Glory Lane property is providential.” He asked the council to approve the items.
Mary, a neighborhood resident, also spoke on the items. She said she had talked with people I the neighborhood and they were worried about the impact on traffic and parking that the church would have. She pointed particularly to the parking that already spilled into the area streets from the local park especially during soccer tournaments. She said that it had been her experience at her own church that most people liked to park on the street and not in the parking lot because it was faster to get out, and she was worried that would impact the parking situation even more. She didn’t think that the neighborhood had the capacity for the traffic that the church would bring to the area. [Honestly, the idea that church attendees prefer to park on the street rather than in the parking lot was one of the more bizarre things I’ve heard recently. I’ve attended a reasonable number of churches over the years and in various cities, and I can’t say I ever witnessed attendees demonstrating a preference from street-parking over parking lots. In fact, my sense is that people prefer to park as close as possible rather than having to walk too far.]
After the public hearings were closed, the Council took up the items.
Alderperson Katie Van Zeeland (District 5) asked if staff could address the concerns raised by the neighborhood resident.
Community and Economic Development Director Karen Harkness answered that parking was one of the issues that was covered in the staff report and staff believed there was appropriate infrastructure and the area could support the capacity and traffic that would result from a church.
Alderperson Vaya Jones (District 10) followed on that question by pointing out that the Appleton Area School District was considering holding a referendum in November that in part would fund a new elementary school. She asked if there had been any consideration given to what effect a new school would have on the area in addition to the church.
Director Harkness responded that staff was aware of the potential referendum and that there had long been potential plans to build a school in that area. Staff would not dig into that until they actually knew that it was happening. It would not be unusual for them to request a traffic study and take a look at that as developments with the school were occurring.
Alderperson Sheri Hartzheim (District 13) who was the alderperson in the district where the church and the potential school would be built said that there was quite a bit of distance between the potential school location and the church property.
Alderperson Alex Schultz (District 9) asked if the proposed church development included no parking on the property but instead would rely on city streets for parking.
Director Harkness responded, “No, sir, they have a lot of parking showing on their development.”
Alderperson Israel Del Toro (District 4) said that he took the time to drive out to the area and speak with the neighbors to find out what the neighborhood feeling was regarding the proposed church development. Generally, he found most residents were welcoming and very open to the church building there.
He went on to mention his one concern which was that from an environmental perspective there was a lot of blacktop that was planned to go around the waterway that went through the property. “So, I just encourage folks that do develop this area to be good environmental stewards of this piece of land. As I was driving around there today, I saw wildlife in this neighborhood, and we just have to keep that in balance as well as you develop forward.”
There were no further questions or discussion and the Council voted to approve the two items with 9 alderpersons voting in favor of the Future Land Us Map Amendment and the Rezoning request and with Alderpersons Vered Meltzer (District 2), Fenton, Joss Thyssen (District 8 ), Schultz, and Wolff abstaining from voting.
Alderperson Brad Firkus (District 3) who had voted in favor of the items asked if all of the abstentions would affect quorum. City Attorney Christopher Behrens said it would not because they would need a minimum of 8 for quorum.
[Frankly, this whole thing was weird, and I feel like there is a huge part of this story that is missing. Given the circumstances around this—i.e., the length of time the property has been owned by the church, the fact that their ownership of the land predated Appleton’s control of the area, and the neighbors’ general acceptance or even welcoming of the development, there seems to be no reasons why these items should not have sailed through the approval process without barely a second look. The parking concerns seemed adequately addressed, and the housing issues brought up during the Plan Commission meeting ended up not even being raised during the Council meeting. Ultimately, there was zero indication given as to why the 5 alderpersons chose to abstain from voting. If it hadn’t passed, I would think that the city would have just been setting itself up for a lawsuit given the dearth of reasons to not approve the requested changes. All in all, it was extremely odd.]
View full meeting details and video here: https://cityofappleton.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=964879&GUID=77BEF753-12DA-40B6-8050-6FEA620D0B18
Be the first to reply