After some rude citizens commented, vORT's attorney sounded foolish. He tried to make the point that CC isn't a church because a large percentage of space dedicated to ancillary activities. The Church's expert responded that a parking lot takes up more square footage than most stores but we don't redefine the term shopping center. Also, no one would redefine a high school as an auditorium with ancillary class rooms. Where did vORT get this dork?
I have liked his style from the beginning--at first it's unclear where he's headed with his questions but it always makes sense when he brings it all together.
Not that it's necessarily going to make a difference in this case due to all the descrimination that's stacked against us as a township right now--
But as I've been saying all along, it's better to spend a couple bucks and try to fight this rather than roll over and take it up the patootie voluntarily.
Ted, When referring to VORT, please use all capitals. Quite frankly it looks silly. Our attorney may ask questions, but there is a reason and when he completes all his questioning, you may understand then what he is trying to accomplish.
Sorry tED. The Attorney did exactly what he was supposed to do; discredit the so called experts testimony regarding the definition of church. He really had him skwirming, didn't he. I can't wait for next meeting. This is better than HBO.
Yep. VORT's attorney is worth every penny. Apparently you wernt listening too closely Teddie boy. His point about the ancillary use had nothing to do with the church definition. He made a very clear point, which was the point of the town attorney's question, of whether the writers of the ordinance could have meant Megachurch when they said church. Since it was written in 95 and even the "experts" authoritative text had no definition of a Megachurch in '95, then they couldnt have taken that use into consideration back then, could they? Their meaning of church was following the customary definition. The other point concerning the ancillary use, was just to support the fact that if someone makes any application, and then 2/3 of the total sq footage is used for other then the primary use, it is grounds for denial of the application. In this case 2/3 of the project are for purposes other then "a house of worship/weekly meeting place for people of common beliefs to worship" then it aint a church, no matter what they say.
vort did really waste your money on that lawyer if you can call him that!
It was obvious where he was trying to go, but he hard a hard time getting anywhere.
It was funny when Dicker asked him if he was implying that the publication Steck referred was authoritative ! He couldn't give a straight answer " uh, oh , duh, uh, well, uh, no, uh, maybe, uh please don't ask me any tough questions like that!!!"
