FOCUS Strikes Out With Hamilton Council

By a 3-2 vote, the Hamilton City Council voted against FOCUS consolidating its operations during Monday’s meeting.

In a very rare occurrence for a Hamilton council meeting, it was a true standing-room only crowd. Most of those attending were in support of FOCUS, or Fellowship of Christians United for Service, with many of those serving with the organization.

At stake was the desire of FOCUS officials to build a 10,000 square foot building next to its current center located at the intersection of Hwy. 27 and Palmetto Creek Lane. That would allow FOCUS to move its satellite operations, found in multiple locations in Hamilton, into the one new facility, streamlining the various operations of FOCUS, saving money on operations and maintenance, and placing all its ministries in a central location.

At least that was the desire.

The project had been long in the works since first being presented to the Hamilton City Council. It was then sent to Hamilton’s Planning and Zoning committee for consideration only to be rejected by a 4-0 vote. Apparently, this rejection was based on FOCUS moving the Boutique and Specialty shops into the proposed new building. Retail sales, at deeply discounted prices, are conducted by both shops to help fund FOCUS ministries – but that was part of the problem. Retail sales are generally a commercial venture and FOCUS is located on property zoned agriculture. The rejection from Hamilton Planning and Zoning was appealed to the city council, and that took place Monday evening.

Mayor Patrick Whearley conducted the appeal in the manner of a public hearing.

On behalf of FOCUS, Neal Callahan addressed the council noting that Hamilton’s zoning laws “are a mess” which had been noted by the city attorney earlier in the meeting. He explained that FOCUS had purchased the church located on lot one in the Palmetto Creek subdivision. The organization would later purchase lot two. It was explained the proposed building would be constructed on lot one next to the existing building and connected by a breezeway. It was also noted there were no plans for lot two. But at some point a document was written that combined the lots for property tax purposes. It was a clerical error that would cause confusion throughout the hearing.

In his presentation, Callahan said FOCUS was not requesting rezoning but rather a conditional use based on FOCUS using the facility for a ministry and ministry-related activities, defining the organization as “Christian non-profit fraternal” establishment. He said that many churches host commercial-type activities, specifically fund-raising activities, and added there was no clear definition of what constituted a commercial operation in Hamilton zoning codes.

WHEN the meeting was opened to public comments, four residents of the Palmetto Creek subdivision spoke in opposition to the project, citing an “unclassified” use of retail in agricultural zoning. The proposal was unclassified as none of the typical classifications fit the proposal.

There was concern over the potential of negatively impacting property values in the subdivision, additional traffic and subsequent damage to Palmetto Creek Lane, and safety of residents in the subdivision. Also of concern was in the original plan of the subdivision, lot one had been set aside for religious and religious-related purposes, which opponents argued did not include retail sales. There was also concern expressed regarding the future use of lot two.

The Palmetto Creek subdivision does not have a homeowner’s association but there are restrictive covenants.

Fourteen people spoke in favor of the project with much of what was said extolling the virtues and work performed by FOCUS.

It was explained the continued growth and expansion of services required more room. It was also noted that some donated items for the stores were being kept in storage due to lack of space in the ancillary stores.

It was reported the buildings housing the Boutique and Specialty stores were over 100 years old and money FOCUS was spending on maintenance and repairs could be better used helping those in need.

Callahan said the new building would be about 10,000 square feet with about a third of the space being used for the store operations with the rest utilized by various programs including enrichment services.

COUNCIL members were afforded the opportunity to ask questions and council member Nancy Wall, who had been critical of and opposed FOCUS annexing the property into the city, immediately expressed opposition to this proposal. She noted that when Hamilton annexed the property into the city, FOCUS was supposed to fund water and sewer connections but had not done so, remaining on a well and septic system. FOCUS Executive Director Kathy Carlisle responded that if a person or business donated the estimated $200,000 it would cost, the connections to Hamilton services could be done.

Wall complained the stores operated by FOCUS constituted a commercial operation not allowed in agriculture zoning. She complained that if FOCUS were allowed to do this it would set a precedent that would allow other organizations to do the same. She also claimed that 6,000 square feet of the proposed building, over half its size, would be used for sales though she failed to cite any proof of the claim.

During the ensuring discussion, city council members were advised they could place conditions on a permit but in the end, Wall, Whearley, and Howard voted to uphold the decision of Hamilton Planning and Zoning and not allow the project as it had been proposed.

The leadership of FOCUS will now have to consider a variety of options that could include addressing some of the errors encountered and re-applying to the council, continuing to operate as they have been, or consider the possibility of relocating outside of Hamilton.