'Substantial burden'

Debates between Kootenai County neighbors and the Hayden Lake Seventh-day Adventist Church have gone on for months. Now, after a third public hearing, both parties are awaiting a second hearing examiner decision. 

If approved, the 42,00-square-foot private school and worship place would sit on a 10-acre agricultural parcel on the corner of Lancaster and Rimrock Road. Currently located just a few miles down on Lancaster Road and Government Way, Pastor David Morgan said the present facility could no longer accommodate the congregation's needs. 

The church's proposed conditional use permit was initially denied by the county hearing examiner last September. However, the decision was challenged by supporters and weighed against the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) of 2000. 

RLUIPA is a federal law that prohibits government zoning regulations that substantially burdens the religious exercise of churches, assemblies of institutions. Since being reminded of the provision, Kootenai County Community Development Director David Callahan and county legal counsel advised the board of commissioners that approving the rejection without considering RLUIPA could cause significant repercussions.

"The critical part, in my view, is we are correcting our error since tonight's review allows you to consider this case with the additional criteria listed in the RLUIPA Act," Callahan said. "Once that is done, we have met the letter of the law, and the case can go forward properly."

The sole provision around the act would be if the governmental entity could demonstrate that the imposition of any burden is of compelling interest and is the least restrictive means of supporting said interest. Applying this practice — which is called the strict scrutiny test — was warned by county legal counsel Pat Braden back in October to be extremely difficult in front of a court. 

Greg Embrey, a legal representative for the application, argued that it is a substantial burden under one of the four categories related to the RLUIPA Act. He pointed out that there are multiple ways the church would be burdened if the county denied the permit, such as the limitation of programs offered to the community, a lack of ADA compliance at the current facility, and inability to provide wanted schooling. All of which Embrey said would be resolved by the new building. 

In the third public hearing last week, 26 neighbors testified against the development overwhelming the few that came out in support. However, since the beginning of the debate, community development planner Vlad Finkel noted a link to a live petition that, as of Jan. 26, had 1,271 signatures against approving the church's application.

Dissenters of the project have primarily echoed the same concerns regarding traffic, compatibility, noise and aesthetic disruption. 

"Traffic is probably the No. 1 concern, but also the landscape for this nonresidential structure is wrong," Wendy Cockrell testified. "Development is happening, growth is here, but let's be responsible for it. That 10-acre parcel needs to have a home on it, with a family and three cars, not 175 cars."

Still, Embrey argued that Lancaster and Rimrock Road were already seeing high traffic levels and estimated that only a little more than 200 would be added weekly by the church's activities.

"There are, in fact, federal cases on the RLUIPA statute that say neighbors' concerns about traffic do not qualify as a compelling governmental interest," Embrey said. "That very modest traffic impact simply does not rise to the level of a compelling government interest."

In the most recent discussion, neighbors made a new point — that the county decision would set a precedent.

The 10-acres acquired by the church is designated in the agricultural or country zone, typically meant for preserving open space and noncommercial structures. Neighbors argued that the 20,000-square-foot private school and 22,000-square-foot structure didn't meet those standards. 

"If this project were for some reason to be approved based on RLUIPA, that approval opens the floodgates and trumps the Comprehensive Plan that the county prepares," Mark Lord said. "Therefore, any religious institutions can go into that area undeterred." 

Sandra Young also spoke on behalf of the church, pointing out that the Kootenai County Comprehensive Plan allows the agricultural and country zone for residential and nonresidential uses to exit "side-by-side."

"This use is compatible with the county designation of the plan," Young said. "No public agency has had an objection to this request. Whether it has been the traffic, stormwater impacts, water, sewer, all of those agencies that gave input at the first hearing found that anything could be mitigated."

Multiple times, neighbors stepped forward to say that the church nor the facility's purpose was the issue. Many spoke of their religious beliefs and their membership at churches in the area. They, like Kevin Heckendorf, were worried about the nonresidential growth disturbing the area. 

"None of the opposition for the proposal today does the application for faith or religious purposes. It's a matter of precedent this matter would establish for this area," Heckendorf said. "During the hearings, the applicant has stated the facility's goal is to be a blessing to adjacent neighbors, however, overwhelming the community has said it does not feel blessed by them making this sweeping change to the landscape."

Once Joan Woodward, the hearing examiner, makes her second recommendation for approval or denial, the permit will go before the county commissioners. From there, the commissioners will present the final decision.