WASHINGTON – Environmental activists and community groups have rallied opposition to a proposed construction project in Maryland’s rural Piedmont region, but the defendant is not a typical developer. Silver Spring-based Global Mission Church plans to build a 138,000-square-foot facility in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains to provide a new home for its growing congregation.
“That’s the size of a Target or a Nordstrom’s,” explained Dolores Milmoe of the Audubon Naturalist Society. The church would occupy a clearing on a hilltop overlooking the Sugarloaf Mountain Natural Area.
The case in Maryland seems an odd recasting of the traditional David and Goliath tale, but it’s a version that is becoming more common with the tremendous growth of mega churches around the country.
According to Scott Thumma of the Hartford Institute of Religion Research, “90 percent of mega churches are growing, and 25 percent have seen numbers more than double in five years.” The “mega” designation refers to churches that have an average weekly attendance of at least 2,000 worshipers.
Thumma said while some congregations have branched out by creating small satellite locations, the more prevalent pattern has been for churches to move forward with ambitious construction projects under the auspices of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).
Signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 2000, the act was conceived in an effort to prevent federal, state or local governments from imposing unfair land-use restrictions on religious groups, but the law has paved the way for large-scale expansion by giving mega churches a big stick to shake at zoning regulations.
Although the planning board in Maryland’s Frederick County voted 6 to 1 against Global Mission on Oct. 14, citing concerns about the building’s potential septic output and the lack of adequate emergency access to the site, the church is planning to appeal.
Global Mission’s attorney David Severn said the church’s proposal complied with the pre-established building standards, and that he plans to bring attention to the RLUIPA precedent during the appeal: “If you are going to impose certain limitations on churches, you need to have a very good reason to do so. You need to put burdens on an applicant in the least restrictive way possible.”
Planning board vice chair Bob White said the county has prohibited the building of structures of this scale in an agricultural zone. Although churches would ordinarily be given exception, he said the board is in the midst of rewriting the county’s comprehensive plan to set a maximum of 40,000 square feet for any development.
White said revising the size limit was on the agenda before Global Mission came into the picture, and that the RLUIPA argument is obtuse. “Our attorney said the essence of [the law] is that you cannot discriminate,” said White, explaining that the county’s decision was based on the scale of the building, not its intended use. “The act did not say that religious institutional uses should receive special consideration or a ‘pass’ on county zoning laws.”
However, the record tells a different story. Lora Lucero, an attorney with the American Planning Association, said she thinks the legislation gives churches a boost in the zoning hierarchy.
She pointed to a recent case in Colorado, where a jury decided in favor of the Rocky Mountain Christian Church after Boulder County denied it permission to expand. Lucero said the church had been in the area for years and had undergone several approved renovations, but when the county deemed a proposed addition to be out of scale with the low-density neighborhood, Rocky Mountain sued.
Yet while the church won under the federal statute, the jury decided that Boulder County had not violated the church’s constitutional rights, bringing to light the question of whether the legislation is unconstitutional by nature. “You have to treat [churches] as more special than a regular land-use applicant or you will end up violating RLUIPA,” explained Lucero.
Thumma agreed that the legislation is one-sided and has provided legal clout to churches across the country, but added that victory has a price. “It can create ill will in the community and in some sense, bad publicity.” Not just for the church, but for the town and the religious community as a whole.
He said there are usually viable alternatives to massive construction projects, but both churches and communities are often unwilling to work together to find a solution. Church-expansion proposals and their opposition, Thumma said, are often masking other tensions.
And it is difficult to establish trust between two parties with different agendas and values. Caroline Taylor of the Montgomery Countryside Alliance, which advocates for preserving rural land, said she is skeptical of the church’s plans.
For one thing, the septic capacity for the zone is a strict 5,000 gallons per day. Global Mission has said the building’s wastewater output would top out at 4,999 gallons, one shy of the daily limit. With seating capacity for at least 1,200 congregants, and a commercial kitchen, Taylor said it is hard to imagine the church will be able to comply.
Although Severn said Global Mission has tried to be responsive to the community, offering to provide water meter readings, and scaling down the building size to 138,000 square feet from the original proposal of 200,000 square feet, Taylor said minor adjustments do not suffice.
“In the end, to my estimation, you could halve the 138,000 and you’d still have an enormous burden on well and septic,” she said.
On a page on the church’s Web site dedicated to addressing concerns about the status of the project, one resident wrote: “Dear Pastor – In the same way that you think your mission and work are sacred, we (who live in this area) feel that our land and water and mountain are sacred. So we don’t object to your mission – but we strongly object to your choice of location.”
The church responded: “GMC sincerely respects your view of the land. However, the community also should respect the fact that GMC is the rightful owner of the land.”
Having been drawn into similar disagreements in the past, Thumma said he understands both sides. “It’s a complex situation around the country. Rather than take it to court, and spend an enormous amount of money, it’s better to compromise.” But he noted that in all the cases he has come across – from California to Texas to New Jersey – he does not know of a single mega church that has been turned down.
“RLUIPA is a pretty powerful bill for the protection of religious land uses,” said Thumma. “It just doesn’t accomplish a whole lot, even if the church wins.”