Wanted: suburbs, cities, and villages where churches are free to build.
The city planning commission of Plymouth, Minnesota, a suburb of Minneapolis, seriously considered a proposal that would require all members of Plymouth churches to be residents of Plymouth. They considered another proposal prohibiting churches from building sanctuaries seating more than 300 people. On the advice of their legal counsel, both proposals were dropped.
The ordinance that did pass, though, required churches to buy a minimum of ten acres before they could construct a new building. In Plymouth, where population has grown from 30,000 to 60,000 in six years, houses average $200,000; property comes at a steep price. In effect, the city ordinance raised an almost unscalable economic barrier before new churches.
“You’re looking at $2 million to start a first unit,” says David Hoffman, pastor of St. Philip the Deacon Lutheran Church in Plymouth.
“Among Plymouth’s city staff, more so than elected politicians,” says Hoffman, “there seems to be a growing negative attitude toward non-profits, especially churches. Because we do not pay taxes, they apparently see us as a burden to the city. As watchdogs they intend to control that burden.”
Plymouth, Minnesota, is not unique. Grace Community Church, a congregation of five hundred in Bethel, Connecticut, has been meeting in a school for ten years. In 1987 they paid for an option on a thirteen-acre parcel, knowing that the town of Bethel-founded in 1759, as the name implies, to build a house of worship-did not allow a church anywhere in village limits except by special permit.
The zoning board approved their permit application, but neighbors went to court appealing a procedural point. With their purchase option about to expire, Grace Community bought the land in 1989 without the legal assurance they could ever build. One year later the appellate court reversed the zoning board’s decision and sent it back to them for new hearings. This time, bowing to public pressure, the zoning board denied the church a permit.
Grace Community hired a second attorney specializing in church zoning and constitutional law. In 1992 the court overturned the zoning board’s decision partly because of an ancient clause in the Connecticut state constitution that guarantees the right to build churches.
“The people on governing bodies usually aren’t lawyers,” says John Mauck of Mauck, Bellande, Baker & O’Connell in Chicago, attorney for Grace Community Church. “Generally they’re neighborhood people: a realtor, a dentist, a homemaker. They’re not trained in interpreting the law, so they listen to factors that are legally irrelevant. It becomes political, and it becomes important what kind of church you are.”
Four years after buying property, Grace Community Church in Bethel, Connecticut, is finalizing plans for their new building, which due to increases in construction expenses will cost $700,000 more than it would have in 1988.
Zoning fights have become one more obstacle for inner-city churches as well. Christ Center, a two-hundred-member African-American church in Chicago, has attempted to buy property for four years and been refused zoning repeatedly.
John Mauck, who also serves as attorney for Christ Center, says, “In the city of Chicago, if someone wants to make a building into a community center, a meeting hall, a funeral parlor, a theater, or even an arena seating up to 2,500 people, buyers don’t need a special-use permit because many places are zoned for that. But if you want to put a church in those same places, you need a special permit.
“In other words, an owner can put in a theater that shows Rambo at two, five, seven, nine, and eleven o’clock, seven days a week, with hundreds of people coming in, traffic, popcorn all over the neighborhood-no permit required. But if you want to take that same building and worship Jesus three times a week, then you need permission from the city zoning board. That’s not only outrageous, it’s unconstitutional.”
While these three churches may represent extreme examples, in most communities the relationship between churches, their neighbors, and their municipalities clearly is not the privileged one of decades past. In today’s changing environment, church leaders who contemplate building new facilities need a new set of assumptions.
From three veteran leaders in other churches, here are expensive, hard-won lessons about the new realities.
Approval Comes to Those Who Wait
Northwest Assembly of God, a church in the suburbs of Chicago with Sunday morning attendance over five hundred, grew steadily over three decades. In addition to their three acres on the corner of two arterial roads, the church had made room for further growth by purchasing an old school that stood on nine acres. Their problem: a seven-acre park separated the two pieces of property.
For twelve years they attempted to buy or exchange with the park district for the property. Several park district board members adamantly resisted selling to the church, primarily because of the park’s mature trees.
The church’s leaders finally decided to take a different course. Lacking sufficient space on their three-acre corner lot to enlarge the worship facility, they made plans to level the school and build a sanctuary, Christian education building, and parking lot. They knew, however, that the school property was not zoned for church use.
They applied for a special-use permit. At the first public hearings, irate neighbors appeared in force.
“Our property will be devalued.”
“Teens will hang around in the parking lot.”
“The parking lot will be too close to our fences.”
For a long while, the issue was a stalemate. Three members on the village trustee board supported the church, three members opposed, and one was undecided. After heated debate, however, the swing vote went with the church.
The neighbors persisted, however. They pestered the park district, trying to convince them to exchange their property for the church’s school property.
“The park district eventually asked us for an offer on their property,” recalls Northwest’s pastor, S. Robert Maddox. “They also listed what they would want from us if we were to exchange properties. We proposed to tear down the school building on our property at our expense, pay for the new tennis courts and playground equipment, and reconfigure the land for a park, if they would exchange properties.”
The park district agreed provisionally, pending village approval and how other neighbors would react in public hearings. So the church returned to the village with new plans to develop their corner property and the adjacent seven acres that were still park district property.
“We went to the village thoroughly prepared,” says Maddox. “We had documented engineering studies, traffic-flow studies, environmental studies. We gave our presentation, and when the chairman asked if anyone opposed, the only people who came forward were supportive.”
The city council approved their proposal unanimously. Then the park district held public hearings, received only positive feedback, and they too gave final approval. After fifteen years of negotiations and expert’s fees of $50,000, the church’s goal of expanding their property and buildings had been achieved.
Looking back, Robert Maddox identifies several factors that contributed to the final positive result.
Do your homework. The neighbors of Northwest Assembly of God were particularly impressed with their thoroughness.
“Our neighbors’ biggest objection was traffic,” says Maddox. “We were planning to build an auditorium that seated 1,900. The neighbors were saying, ‘That’s an awful lot of extra traffic.’ We paid a company to sit in the parking lot on a Sunday morning and evening, and a Wednesday evening to count cars so that we could prove to neighbors what our current traffic was and estimate what it would be with further growth. Then we explained that the heavy church traffic would only be on Sunday morning, a low traffic time in general.
“The neighbors’ other concern was drainage: ‘Where’s all the water from this parking lot going to run off?’ We then showed them our engineer’s plans to do extensive sewer work in our parking lot and established that the sewer lines in our streets are large enough to handle a torrential rain.”
When churches carefully research the objections and demonstrate that the homework has been done, people in the community tend not to ask as many questions and are less likely to be antagonistic.
Make friends. The church’s attitude toward its neighbors also contributed to their success.
“We were very open to their concerns and recommendations,” Maddox says. “At no time did we suggest, ‘This is what we’re going to do; you’re just going to have to accept it.’ Rather, we said, ‘This is what we’re thinking. What do you think?’ We were not trying to cram anything down their throats. We also didn’t say, ‘Hey, if you don’t do this, we’re going to court.’ Threats don’t work.
“Having been transparent, we won them over as friends. We communicated that we’re on the same team.”
By not viewing the zoning board as the enemy and recognizing their concern to promote aesthetic value in the community, the church didn’t burn any bridges and in the process developed long-term relationships.
Communicate a community vision. Leading neighbors to accept change depends on motivating them with a picture of what can be, a vision of the positive role the church will play in the community.
“At our meetings with the neighbors, we unveiled our master plan,” recalls Maddox. “We conveyed to the community our vision to reach out to teenagers, help create moral values in children, and instill in the hearts of all ages the desire to be good citizens who abide by the law and respect one another’s property. We highlighted everything a neighbor is concerned about as it pertains to their possessions.”
Fighting the Good Fight
After serving as dean of chapel at Gordon College, Harold Bussell became pastor of nearby First Congregational Church in South Hamilton, Massachusetts, a church begun in 1714. The congregation grew from 50 to 700 people attending on Sunday.
In this quaint New England town of 12,000, ten miles from Boston, that caused problems. The church parking lot has twelve parking spaces. The church building faces a state highway running to the beaches on the Atlantic. With parked cars lined up in front of their centuries-old, historic-district homes, the neighbors felt invaded, and the town fathers, jealous of their historic traditions, resisted change (the town is named after Alexander Hamilton, who along with Lafayette, had a relationship with First Congregational).
But the church had to do something. So they purchased the house next door to use for adult education, offices, and parking. They planned to pave a lot in back of the house, which wouldn’t solve but would lessen their parking problems. (Church growth wasn’t the only issue. Soon the safety of attendees was threatened: 100 women with small children attended weekly Bible studies, parking on the busy highway. Eighty people also came during the week for a meal and Bible study for older adults.)
“As soon as we purchased that house,” recalls Bussell, “the neighbors began to not only resist but dread our growth and the possibility of our building a new sanctuary, changing our building, and altering the area’s historicity. One neighbor in particular led the resistance against every move we made. Every time we appeared before a board, they came en masse.”
Discrimination also became an issue. Some neighbors assumed the church had grown primarily because of Gordon College students and Young Life members. Neighbors even requested information on how many church attendees worked at Gordon College.
The church went before South Hamilton’s zoning board with an overall plan for upgrading their building and parking. Both the zoning board and the town board approved their plan. Each decision, however, was appealed in court by the neighbor leading the resistance-not by the town.
“We have won each court case, but it has cost big bucks,” says Bussell. “With engineering and legal fees, we probably have spent $80,000. We’ve been in litigation over two years, and we’re still at it.”
The church’s legal struggles have received widespread, unfavorable press. The Boston Globe covered the story in several articles. “The papers gave a sensational perspective,” says Bussell, “as though the church was fighting the town, and that’s what’s been carried in the papers for two years. We chose not to respond because we were in litigation.”
Then a local newspaper in the next town ran an article with the headline, CHURCH COSTS TOWN $40,000. Ironically that article did the church more good than harm.
“I knew I had to do something,” remembers Bussell. “I took out an ad explaining to South Hamilton citizens that the legal conflict was not between the church and town. It was the neighbors’ appeal that cost the town $40,000, not us.”
Townspeople complained to their politicians; this was costing taxpayers too much. Village officials felt compelled to negotiate between the church and the neighbors.
While their numbers had dwindled, those neighbors still resisting the church turned to the historic district commission, which gives final approval on aesthetics, as their final resort. Although the town and zoning board had approved First Congregational’s development plan, the historic district commission rejected it.
As it now stands, the church has temporary occupancy of the building next door to the church, but they still are negotiating with the historic district commission and the neighbors as to the size of the lot and the use of the building.
With hindsight, Bussell sees ways they could have handled the situation better.
Document everything. The church failed to write down some important conversations. Before purchasing the property, they called the head of the historic district commission, who said there would be no problem. However, by the time they purchased the house, the head of the HDC had changed.
Mend broken fences. One house across the street from the church, built in 1639, had an oak fence with spindles that were being broken off by cars parking for church services. This had been happening for years, but the neighbor had never complained. On one occasion, when church leaders took the initiative to talk with this neighbor, the problem came out.
When he heard about it, Pastor Bussell immediately went and apologized. Then he bought fifty oak spindles, stained them to match the antique look of the originals, and asked the neighbor to let him know when any were cracked so the church could fix them. He also assigned the responsibility to check and repair the fence regularly to one man in the congregation.
Recognize that zoning conflicts can be two dimensional. “In some respects spiritual warfare is always an underlying factor when the church grows and faces opposition,” says Bussell. “We cannot be naive about those who have an agenda to prevent our growth.”
But assuming that towns are out to persecute churches, believes Bussell, is wrong. That’s not always the case. We can overspiritualize conflict; sometimes the issues are just about change.
“We need to be responsible enough,” Bussell says, “not to blame things in blanket fashion on spiritual warfare or read more into a situation than is there.”
Practice social graces. Emotion only stirs more emotion. Abrasive, polarizing individuals should not take the point when dealing with people outside the church. In the face of opposition, it’s easy to assume people are conspiring against the church when that isn’t the case.
“When church leaders go to municipal boards,” says Bussell, “they must be socially skilled people who will listen and not have knee-jerk reactions. While they must be solid and uncompromising, they also need the tact Daniel used when he worked with Nebuchadnezzar.”
Don’t Take No for an Answer
Ten years ago South Park Church in Park Ridge, Illinois, a completely residential Chicago suburb, numbered around 700 people, yet their parking lot held a mere 50 cars.
The church made plans to double their parking lot. The city resisted, turning them down at the zoning level and the city council level over the issues of “lot coverage” and expansion into a neighborhood community. City officials also objected to the aesthetics of the plan.
” ‘Lot coverage’ is a common, significant issue,” says Greg Gann, the church’s attorney (from the firm of Shaheen, Lundberg, Callahan and Orr in Chicago) and a member of the congregation. “Zoning officials carefully guard what percentage of land can be covered by brick, mortar, asphalt, and cement, to preserve ‘green space.’
“When a church has a large complex on limited acreage, it will always be pressing against the lot coverage restrictions. Ironically, zoning laws require churches to have a certain number of parking spaces for each linear foot in the pews and a set number of parking spaces for the handicapped.”
South Park Church felt the city was not on firm ground in denying the permit, and so they eventually filed a law suit against Park Ridge.
“Going to court is an emotional and difficult decision for a church,” says Gann. “It is contrary to why churches are in existence. But there are times when there is no choice.”
Getting the case before a judge provided a forum for the facts to be weighed by an objective third party, and it made all the difference.
One year later, after litigation and expert fees of $30,000, South Park Church won their case and built a new lot.
Today South Park Church enjoys a positive relationship with the city of Park Ridge. In fact, in addition to their parking lot, South Park Church has since erected a 20,000 square foot, multi-story building, without a single objection from the city or neighborhood.
“One reason,” says Gann, “is when South Park Church built the parking lot they had fought for, they built the best parking lot they could. They were sensitive to landscaping, lighting, and usage. If you drive by their lot, it is not noticeable; it fits the community.”
Greg Gann advises churches:
Regard litigation as a last option. “Zoning boards of appeal and city councils have great discretion, wide latitude,” says Gann. “Church leaders don’t want to make enemies of them. Do everything possible to nurture favor, in the highest sense, with them. Be peacemakers and have them on board if at all possible.”
Gann recognizes, though, that some circumstances prevent an amicable solution. When the city council or zoning board of appeals in effect says a church cannot grow, a difficult decision has to be made about whether to pursue litigation. If public officials deal with a church in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner, or if a zoning ordinance is discriminatory against religious assemblies or is vague or overly restrictive, there is a legal basis for a suit. Gann would urge, “A suit is in fact necessitated.”
Gann clarifies the kind of city rulings that are arbitrary and capricious: “If ten churches in a community have a lot coverage of 65 percent, but the city says yours can only be 40 percent, or if you want access to certain streets from your parking lot but are denied-that crosses the line and seems to be unreasonable.”
Take a look around. South Park Church checked with several churches in the community to see what percentage of green space they had on their property. They discovered that few churches complied with the green-space/lot-coverage requirements.
“A church that finds this so,” says Gann, “can seek a zoning variation on that basis. There is some flexibility; it’s in the hands of the zoning board of appeals.”
Call in the experts. The neighbors of South Park Church were concerned over practical issues like drainage. Neighbors asked, “What happens if there’s a hundred-year storm? Is that water going to end up in my back yard, or worse yet, in my basement?”
Another concern was property value. They had invested in a house and expected it to appreciate. To them a parking lot next door doomed their property values.
“With few exceptions,” says Gann, “those perceptions aren’t based on fact. For a successful presentation to the community, we surrounded ourselves with competent experts, first-rate engineers who knew and dealt with storm water. Our expert appraisers testified on the basis of historical data that property values often increase when a house borders a ‘casual user’ such as a church.”
Be frank about the alternatives. Churches, argues Gann, are a known quantity. If a church can’t buy the twelve acres of vacant land in the community, neighbors can’t be sure what will end up there in the future. If a church stands in the neighborhood today, neighbors can’t be sure it will still be there ten years later unless it can grow and fulfill its dream. This can’t be stated as a threat, but if a church already is there, neighbors do know who their neighbor is, and that can give them a sense of security.
Listen sympathetically. Gann discovered that generally neighbors speak from their hearts. They’re not trained spokespeople, and when they get up and talk in front of city council or zoning board meetings, they’re scared-scared of change, scared of what this means to them.
Gann concludes: “It is a compassionate church-and a church that will prevail more times than not-that listens carefully to what the neighborhood and city officials are saying. And if a church can show flexibility in some areas, they are wise to do so.”
It appears zoning wars will continue for the foreseeable future. But if the experience of the leaders in this article are any indication, these wars will be “won” at the lowest cost if church leaders refrain from thinking only of winning or losing, or seeing themselves in a war against “flesh and blood.” Rather, churches will prosper if they assume the goodwill of others, build favor through Christian consideration and compassion, and seek the best interests of everyone concerned.
Craig Brian Larson is associate editor of Leadership.
Copyright © 1993 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal. Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.
