56 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y C ONSTI TUTI ONAL L A W

) F RE E DOM OF R E L I GI ON

) F REE E X ERCI SE C LAUSE

) H I ST ORI C P RE SE RVA T I O N

) A PPL I CA B I L I T Y OF H I ST ORI C Z ONING O RD I NA NC E T O A C HUR CH

J ul y21, 1994

T he Hon orab l e E ug ene E

. Joh nson , Sr. P r es i dent T o w n o f S y ke sv ill e C ity C o u n c il Y ou have r eques t ed our opi ni on w hether a chur ch l ocat ed i n a his t ori c dis t ri cti s subj ectt o the di stri ct ’s zon i ng regul at i on s. F o r th e r e a so n s s tate d b e lo w , w e c o n c lu d e a s f o llo w s: A c h u rc h in a h isto ric d istric t is su b jec t to th e p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts of the l ocal hi s t or i c zoni ng or di nance )t hat i s, the c h u rch m ust su b m it p lan s f

o r e x ter io r c h a n g e s to its b u ild in g to th e lo c a l h isto ric z on i ng c omm i s s i on . I f the c hu r c h d oes notas s er tt hatt he component s of t he pr opos ed cha nge ar e gr ounded i n r el i gi ous bel i ef o r p ra c tice , the n th e c h u rc h is su b jec t to th e su b sta n tiv e re q u ire m e n ts of t he or di nance , i ncl udi ng t he need for comm i s s i on appr oval

. I f the chur ch does r eas onabl y as s er t t hat any component s of the pr opos ed change ar e gr ound ed in rel i gi ous bel i ef orpr act i ce, t hen the co mmi s s i o n ma yn e i t h e rq u e s t i o n t h e r e l i g i o u s b a s i s o f t h e d e s i gn c h o ice n o r d isa p p ro v e it.

I Backg r ound A chur ch l ocat ed i n t he hi s t or i c di s t r i ctof the Tow n of S yk e sv ill e is p lan n in g to b u ild a n a d d iti o n o n to its m a in b u ild in g in or dert o acc om m odat e i t s gr ow i ng congr egat i on. N or m al l y , under Sy kes vi l l e’ s hi s t or i c zoni ng or di n a n c e , a pr oper t yow nerw ho w i s hes t o change t he ext er i orof a b u il d ing l ocat ed i n t he hi s t or i c di s t r i ct m u s t s e e k th e a p p ro v a l o f th e lo c a l h is to ri c z o n in g c o m m is s io n .G en. 56] 57 T he chur ch, how ever , as s er t s t hatt he Fi r s tA m endment t o t he U ni t ed St at es C o ns t i tut i on, s peci fi cal l yt he Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e, e x e m p ts it f

ro m th e re v iew a n d a p p ro v a l p ro c e ss o f th e h isto ric di s t r i ct comm i s s i on. A l t hough w e have not s een an expl anat i on of t he chur ch’ s pos i t i on, i t has been s ugges t ed t hatt he chur ch’ s r efus al to su b m it an a p p lica tio n f o r a n e x ter io r a ltera tio n ste m s f ro m its c o n c e rn th a t th e h is to r ic d istric t co m m iss io n w ill c o n d iti o n its appr oval on cos t l ychange s i n t he pl an fort he addi t i on. U n d e rsta n d a b ly , the c h u rc h w o u ld ra th e r sp e n d th e m o n e yo n its re lig io u s f

u n c tio n s in s te a d

.
II

H i s t or i c Z oni ng T he Tow n of Sy kes vi l l e’ s hi s t or i c zoni ng or di nance w as enac t ed pur s uantt o t he aut hor i t y del egat ed t o t he m uni ci pal i t ybyt he G ener al A s s embl yundert he St at e enabl i ng l aw , A r t i cl e 66B of the M a ry lan d C o d e . B e c a u se S yk e sv ill e ’s a u th o r ityto e n a c t h isto ric di s t r i ctzoni ng i s l i m i t ed t o pow er s pr ovi ded i n A r t i cl e 66B , §§8. 01 t hr ough 8. 15, Sy kes vi l l e’ s or di nance i s verys i m i l ari n s t ructur e and p u rp o se to th e S tate H isto ric Z o n in g A c t. Sy kes vi l l e’ s or di nance w as enac t ed i n J ul y , 1 9 8 4. T he purpo ses of t he or di nance i ncl ude s afe guar di ng t he her i t age of t he t ow n bypr es erving t he di s t r i ct s and s t ructur es t hatr efl ectt he cul tu r a l , s o c i a l , e c o n o mi c , p o l i t i c a l , o ra r c h i t e c tu r a l h i s t o r yo f t he t ow n; s t r engtheni ng t he l ocal economy ; i m pr ovi ng and st abi l i zi ng p ro p e rtyv a lu e s; f

o ste rin g c iv ic b e a u ty; a n d p re se rv in g th e h isto ric d istri ct fo r th e e d u ca ti o n , w elfa re, an d p leasu re o f the to w n ’s ci t i zens . O r di nance N o. 187, §2. T he or di nance r equi r es t he M ay or and C i t yC ounci l t o appoi nt a h ist o r i c zoni ng comm i s s i on, w hi ch c o n sis ts o f

re sid e n ts o f

th e to w n w h o h a v e sp e c ial k n o w led g e in f ie ld s lik e h is to ry a n d a rc h ite c tu re . O rd in a n c e N o . 1 8 7 , § 5

. T he com m i s s i on m us t appr ove al l pl ans for t he “c ons t ruct i on, al t er at i on, r epai r , r econst ruc ti on, m ovi ng ordemol i t i on of any St ructur e, i ncl udi ng, w i t houtl i m i t at i on, change of w al l orr oof s ur fac i n g m at er i al s , ” l ocat ed w i t hi n t he hi s t or i c di s t r i ct , i f the change s w oul d aff

ect an ext er i or fea tur e of t he s t ructur e vi s i bl e fr om an adj ace ntpubl i c w ay . O r di nance N o. 187, §8. T he comm i s s i on m aycons i der onl y t he ext er i or of t he s t ructur e and i s pr ohi bi t ed fr om58 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

Be cause of the limit ed scope of the State enablingleg islation and 1 theimp le me nti ng ordina nc e , w ene e d n ot c on sid e r t heF re eExerc ise Cla us e impli c atio ns of

a his toric dis tric t ordin anc ethat pu rp or te d to restric t alteration of the in ter i or of a houseof worship. See Soc iety of Jesus v. Boston Landma rks Co mm’n , 564 N.E.2d 571 (Ma ss. 1990) (designation of church interior a s historic landmark violates free dom of relig ion provision of Massachuse tts Declaration of Rights). c o n s id e ri n g a n yin te ri o r a rr a n g e m e n ts . O rd in a n c e N o . 1 8 7 , § 1 0

. See A r t i cl e 66B , §8. 07 ( a comm i s s i on s hal l onl y cons i derex teri or f e a tu re o f a stru c tu re ). W h e re a s tra d iti o n a l zo n in g is p rim a rily

1 di r ect ed att he us e of l and and the dens i t yand l ocat i on of the bui l di ngs , hi s t or i c zoni ng i s conce r ned onl yw i t h pr es er vat i on of the e x ter io r a p p e a ra n c e o f

b u ild in g s b a se d o n a rc h itec tu ra l a n d h isto ric m e ri t. C ity o

f A n n a p o lis v . A n n e A ru n d e l C o u n ty , 271 M d. 265, 291, 316 A

. 2d 807 ( 1 9 74)

. T o acc om pl i s h t he pr i m arypurpos es of hi s t or i c zoni ng ar ea, t he ext er i or of the bui l di ng m us tbe “pr es er ved a g a i n s td e s t ru c t i o n o rs u b s t a n t i a l i m p a i r m e n tb y eve r yone , w hether a p ri v ate c i t i zen ora governm ent al body

. ” 271 M d. at291- 92 (e m p h a sis in o rig in a l). W h ile th e e x ter io r o f a b u ild in g is s u b

jec t to th e j uri sdi ct i on of t he com m i ssi on , t he “use of the buil dings is unaff ect ed byhi s t or i c comm i s s i on deci s i ons . ” 271 M d. at291. T he Sykes vi l l e comm i s s i on m us tconsid er the fo ll o w ing fa ctors w hen dec i di ng w hethert o appr ove ordi s appr ove an a ppl i cat i on:

A

. T he hi s t or i c ora r c h i t e c tu r a l v a l u e and sig n if ica n c e o f the stru c tu re a n d its r el a t i o n s h i p t o t h e h i s t o r i c v a l u e o f t he s ur r oundi ng ar ea. B

. T he r el at i ons hi p o f t he ext er i or ar chi t ectur al fe atur e of the s t ructur e t o t he r emai nderof the s t ructur e and t o s ur r oundi ng ar ea. C

. T he gene r al compat i bi li t yof the ext e r i o rd e s i g n , a r r a n g e me n t , t e x tu r e a nd m at er i al s pr opos ed t o be us ed. D

. A n yo th e r f

a c to rs, i nc lu d in g a e sth e tic fac t or s , w hi ch the C om m i s s ion d eems t o be p e rtin e n t.G en. 56] 59

We a re told that the churc h in que stion, built in th e m i d- 2 Ninetee nth Cen tury , does havehistorical value. Thus, the commission would use strict judgment wh en re viewingthe church’s plans f or the addition. Despite the va

riant wordingof the Mar yland gu ar an t ee, the 3 analysis of claims under it appe ars to be no different than of claims under the Free E x erc ise Clause. Se e, e .g., Mc Mi lla n v . S

tate , 258 Md. 147, 265 A. 2d 45 3 ( 19 70 ); Snyder v . Holy Cross Hosp., 30 Md. App. 317, 352 A.2d 334 (1976). O r di nance N o. 187, §9. O nl yt he above fac t or s can be cons i der ed by t he comm i s s i on w hen di s approvi ng an appl i cat i on. O r di nance N o. 187, §10. W hen r evi ew i ng appl i cat i ons , t he co m m i s s i on i s t o be s t r i ct in it s j udgm entof pl ans fors t ructur es t hathave hi s t or i c and ar chi t ectur al val ue and l eni ent i n i t s j udgm ent of s t ructur es t hathave l i t t l e hi s t or i c val ue. O r di nance N o. 187, §11. 2
A n yp e rso n , firm , o r c o rp o ra tio n th a t v io late s the o rd in a n c e is gui l t yof a mi s demeanorand s ubj ectt o a fi ne nott o exce ed $500. O r di nance N o. 187, §17. E verydayt hata vi ol at i on occur s i s t o be c o n s id e re d a s e p a ra te o f f e n s e . Id

.
III F ree E x erc i s e of

R el i gi on A . I ntr oducti on T he Fi r s t A m endment pr ovi des t hat“C ongr es s s hal l m ake no l aw r es pect i ng an es t ab li sh m ent of r el i gi on orpr ohi bi t i ng t he fr ee exer c i s e t he r e of

. ” The Fou r t e e nth Am e nd mentmake s t he Fi r st A m endment , i ncl udi ng t he por t i on comm onl yr efe r r ed t o as t he Fr ee E x e rc is e C la u s e , b in d in g o n th e s ta te s . C antw el l v. C onnect i cut , 310 U

. S. 296, 303 ( 1940)

. A r t i cl e 36 of the M ary l and D ecl ar at i on of R ig h ts a ls o p ro v id e s a le n g th ie r g u a ra n te e o f “ re lig io u s lib e rt y .” 3
T he Fr ee E xer ci s e C l aus e embra ces t w o conce pts, “t he fr eedom t o bel i eve a nd t he fr eedom t o act

. ” U n it ed Stat es v. B allard , 3 2 2 U .S . 7 8 , 8 6 (1 9 4 4 ). W h ile th e f re e d o m o f

b e lief is abs ol ut e, t he manneri n w hi ch o n e ac ts on one’ s bel i efs i s notand m a yb e s u bj e c t e d t o n e u tr a l s ta te re g u la tio n s . 3 2 2 U .S . a t 8 6 . A60 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

In S m it h, a case involvingthe sac rame ntal use of peyote, the 4 Supreme Court aba

ndoned its longstandinguse of the “ compelling in tere st” test when e valuatingrelig iously neutral laws of g eneral a pp lic a bil ity that ha vethee ff e c t of burd e nin g re lig iou s pra c tic e . 49 4 U .S. at 88 9. Ins te a d, theCourt c on c lud e d th at “ theso un de r a pp ro a ch

.. . is t o ho ld t hete st i na

pp lic a ble ”to c halleng e s to “ g e ne rally a pp lic a ble prohibitions of socially harmful conduct ....” 494 U.S. a t 8 8 5

. J u stice O’ Connor, in an

op ini on c on c ur ringwi th t

heCourt ’s re su lt b ut n ot i ts analysis, chara cterized this holding as one that “dra matically depar ts from we ll- se ttl e d F ir st Ame ndme nt j urisp ru de nc e.. . a nd is i nc omp atib lewi th our Nation’s fundamental commitment to i ndividual relig ious liberty .” 494 U.S. at 891. s t atut e vi ol at es t he fr ee exer ci s e of r el i gi on w hen “i ndi vi dual s [ar e] c o e rc e d

.. . into v io latin g th e ir re lig io u s b e lief s” o r w h e n th e sta tu te “pena l i zes r el i gi ous act i vi t yby deny i ng any per s on an equal s har e of the ri g ht s , benef

i t s , and pr i vi l eges enj oy ed byot her s . ” Ly n gv. N o rthw est Ind ian C e m etery P ro tecti ve A ss’n , 485 U

. S. 439, 448 (19 8 8 ). C our t s have obs er ved t hat“‘ [i ] nt erpr et at i on and appl i cat i on of the fre e exe r ci s e cl aus e has cr eat ed, w i t hi n t hatfi el d of co n sti tuti o n al do ctri n e, area s d o tt ed b yu n an sw ere d q u e sti o n s. ’” Mes s i ah B apt is tC hur ch v. C i t y of Jef f ers on , 8 5 9 F .2 d 8 2 0 , 8 2 4 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ), cer t

. deni ed , 490 U

. S. 1005 ( 1989) ( quot i ng G ro sz v . C ity of Mi am i B each , 7 2 1 F .2 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 3 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 3 )). H isto ric dis t ri ctzon i ng as appli ed to re lig i ou s i nst i tuti on s i s one o f t ho se a re a s . B . S ta n da rds fo r A ss e ss in gFre e E x e rc ise Cla im I n a r ece ntopi ni on , w e d escr i bed the turbul enthi s t or yof the t es tfordet er m i ni ng t he l egal i t yof a gove r nm entbur den on r el i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed pr act i ce. 79 O pi ni ons of

the At t or ney G ener al 4 5 (1 9 9 4 ). T he cu rr ent t estt hat m ustbe used for asses si ng F ree Ex erci se C l aus e cl ai m s i s s etout i n t he R el i gi ous Fr eedom R es t or at i on A ctof 1 9 9 3 (th e “ R F R A ” ). T h e R F R A re f lec ts a c o n g re ss io n a l d e c isio n to r etur n t he j ur i s prudence of t h e F r ee Exer ci s e C l aus e t o w hati thad been pr i or t o t he Supr eme Court ’ s deci s i on i n E m pl oym ent

D i vis i on, D e p a rtm e n t o

f H u m a n R e so u rc e s v . Sm ith , 4 9 4 U

. S

. 8 7 2 (19 9 0 ). 4
T he co re pr ov i si on of the R F R A i s as fol l ow s:G en. 56] 61 Gov e r n me n t ma y s u b s t a n t i a l l y b u r d e n a p e rs o n ’s e x e rc ise o f

re lig io n o n lyif

it d e m o n stra tes th a t ap p lica tio n o f th e b u rd e n to t he per s on ) ( 1) i s i n fur t her an ce of a c om pel l i ng governm ent al i nt er es t ; and ( 2) i s t he l eas tr es tr i ct i ve m ea n s of f u rth e rin g th a t co m p e lli n g in ter e st. 42 U. S. C. § 2 0 0 0 b b

- 1 ( b )

. Th e RFRA i s i n t e n d e d t o “ r e s t or e t he compel l i ng i nt er es tt es t ..

. t o guar ant ee i t s appl i cat i on i n a llcas es w here free e x e rci se of rel i gion i s su b sta n tia lly bur dened.

. . . ” 42 U

. S. C

. §2000bb( b) ( 1) ( emphasi s adde d , ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T he R FR A i s appl i cabl e r etr oact i vel yt o bot h stat e and fe der al l aw . 42 U

. S

. C

. § 2 0 0 0 b b -1(6 ). T he l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yof the R FR A expr es s es t he i nt entt hat “court s w i l l l ook t o fr ee e xer ci s e ca s es d ec ided pri ort o Sm ith for gui dance i n det er m i ni ng w h ether t he exe r ci s e of r el i gi on has been s ubs t ant i al l yb u rde n ed and the l eas tr es t r i ct i ve means have be en empl oy ed i n fur t her i ng a compel l i ng governm ent i nt er es t

. ” S. R ep. N o . 1 0 3 -11 1 , 1 0 3 d C o n g . , 1 st Se ss. 8-9 (19 9 3 ), re p rin tedin 1993 U .S .C .C .A .N . 1 8 9 2 , 1 8 9 8 . T h e leg isla tiv e h isto ryd o e s m a k e it cl ear , how ever , t hat“onl ygovernm ent al ac t i ons t hatpl ace a s ubs t ant i albur den on the exe r ci s e o f re l i gi on m us tm eett he compel l i ng i nt er es t test ” and the ac t“w oul d notr equi r e s uch a j us t i fi cat i on for every governm ent act i on t hat m ay have some eff ect on r el i gi ous i ns t i tut i ons . ” Id . (e m p h a s is a d d e d ).62 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y IV T h r e sh o ld E lem e n ts o f a F r e e E x e r c ise C la im A . N e u tra lit y a n d G e n e ra l A

p p lica b ility

“‘ A pr operr es pectforbo th the Fr ee Exer ci s e and the E s t abl i s hm entC l aus es compel s t he St at e t o pur s ue a c our s e of “neutr al i t y ” t ow ar d r el i gi on, favor i ng nei t herone r el i g ion ove r o thers n o r reli g iou s ad h ere n ts co ll ec ti v elyo v er n o n ad h ere n ts. ’” B oar d of E d. of K i r yas Joel V i l l age School

D is tr i ct v. G r um et , 512 U

. S. 687, 696 ( 1994) ( quot i ng C om m i t t ee f orP ubl i c E d. & Rel igi ous L i bert y v. N yqu ist , 4 1 3 U .S . 7 5 6 , 7 9 2 -9 3 (1 9 7 3 ))

. T he hi s t or i c zoni ng or di nance i n t hi s cas e and hi s t or i c zoni ng i n gener al eas i l ypas s t hi s thresh ol d t es t

. T he r equi r ement s of hi s t or i c zoni ng appl yequal l yt o al l s t ructur es w i t hi n a di s t r i ctand do nott r eats ecul ar s t ructur es and pr oper t yow ner s anydi ffe r ent l yt han rel i gious buil dings and i nst i tuti on s. B . R eli

gi ous Basis of

O bj ecti on T h e p a r t y o b

j e c t i n g o n r e l i g i o u s g r o u n d s t o a s t a t e o r l ocal r egul at i on m us tdemonst r at e thatt he obj ect ion is gr ounded upon a s in c e re ly h e l d r e l i g io u s b e lie f

. W is cons i n v. Y

oder , 406 U

. S. 205, 215 ( 1972)

. I ndeed, onl y bel i efs r oot ed i n r el i gi on ar e pr ot ect ed by th e F re e E x e rc is e C la u s e . Thom as v. R evi ew B oar d of I ndi ana E m pl oym en t Se c. D i v. , 4 5 0 U

. S

. 7 0 7 , 7 1 4 (19 8 1 ). S ec u lar, p h ilo so p h ica l, an d p e rso n a l ch o ice s a n d b e lief s d o n o t co m e w ith in its p ro te c tio n . Y

oder , 406 U

. S. at216. T he Supr eme C our thas acknow l edged that det er m i ni ng a r el i gi ous bel i ef orpr act i ce i s a “most del i cat e ques t i on” butr eal i zed that “a ll o w ing ev eryp erso n to m ak es h is o w n stan d ard s o n m att ers of co n d u cti n w hich soci et yas a w ho l e has i m po rt ant i nter est s” w o u ld b e c o n tr a ry to th e v e ry c o n c e p t o f o rd e re d lib e rt y . Y

od er, 406 U .S . at 2 1 5 -1 6 . F u rth e rm o re , so m e p ra c tice s m ig h t b e “ so c lea rly n o n re lig io u s in m o tiv a tio n , a s n o t to b e e n title d to p ro te c tio n .” Thom as , 4 5 0 U .S . a t 7 1 5

.G en. 56] 63

One c ommentator has a

rgued that a g overnme ntal eff ort to sort 5 out the relationship betwe en design elements in a churc h and re l i g ious be lie f w ou ld a

mou nt t o s tatee nta

ng le me nt in re lig iou s a ff a ir s and so would violate the Establishment Clause of the Fir st Amendment: “There are no neutra l pri nc ipl e s by wh ic h de sign co ntrol autho ri tie s c an s epa rate the s ecula r from the religious ....” Ang ela C. C arme lla, Ho us es o f W or sh ip and Religious Liberty: Constitutional L i mi t s to Landmark Preservation and Arch i tectural Review , 3 6 V ill .L .Re v. 40 1, 48 3- 84 (1 99 1) . T his argument is inconsistent with the case s cited in the text above, however, (c o n tin u e d ...) A s st at ed ea r l i er , r el i gi ous obs er vance s i n t he form of bel i efs a re a b s o lu te ly p ro te c te d b y th e F re e E x e rc is e C la u s e . C a n tw e ll , 310 U

. S. a t3 0 3

- 0 4

. Pr a c t i c e s o rc o n d u c t , b yc o n t r a s t , me r i tp r o t ect i on onl yw hen t heyfl ow fr om a r el i gi ous bel i ef a nd ar e i nt egr al l yr el at ed t o t hos e under l y i ng r el i gi ous bel i efs

. I ndeed, “no w ei ghtm eas ur es on t he s i de of reli gi on unl es s i tcan be s how n t hatt he governm ent act i on ul t i m at el y aff

ect s r el i gi ous pr act i ce. ” G rosz v
. Ci t y o f Mi a mi B each, 7 1 2 F .2 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 6 (1 9 8 3 ), cer t

. deni ed , 4 6 9 U

. S

. 8 2 7 (19 8 4 ). T hus , t he ce nt r al i t yof the r el i gi ous obs er vance o r p r act i ce t o t he bel i ever ’ s fai t h i nfl uence s t he det er m i nat i on of a Fi r s tA m endment in f rin g e m e n t. T he Supr eme C our thas determ i ned on manyocca s i ons w hethercert ai n conductw as i nt egr al l yr el at ed t o an i ndi vi dual ’s r el i gi ous bel i efs

. I n W

isconsi n v. Y

od er, t he C our tfound thatr efus al o f th e A m ish to se n d th e ir c h ild re n to sc h o o l b e y o n d th e e ig h th gr ade, i n defi ance of a s t at e compul s or yeduca t i on l aw , w as bas ed on a “ f u n d a m e n ta l te n e t” o f

th e irf a ith

. Y oder , 4 0 6 U .S . a t 2 1 8 . A S a b b a t a r i a n wh o wo u l d n o t wo r k o n S a tu r d a ywa s , i n t h e S u p r e me C our t ’ s vi ew , fol l ow i ng a “c ar di nal pr i nci pl e” o f herr el i gi on. Sher ber tv. V

er ner , 374 U

. S. 398, 406 ( 1963)

. T he C our tconcl uded t hat a J eho vah ’s W i t ness w ho refu se d to w ork on w eapo ns did so beca us e of “r el i gi ous convi ct i ons . ” Thom as , 450 U

. S. at715, 716. See al s o Sys ka v. Mont

gom er y C ount y Bd. of E d. , 45 M d. A pp. 626, 6 3 2 , 4 1 5 A

. 2 d 3 0 1 , cer t

. deni ed , 2 8 8 M d . 7 4 4 (1 9 8 0 ), appeal dis m is s ed , 4 5 0 U

. S

. 9 6 1 (19 8 1 ) (obje c tio n s to c o m p u lsory im m u n izati o n , b ase d o n p u rely s e c u lar co n side rati o n s, “a re p h ilo so p h ica l an d p e rso n a l ra th e r th a n re lig io u s [ a n d ] d o n o t rise to th e d e m a n d s o f

th e R e lig io n C la u s e s ” ). Cf

. 79 O pi ni ons of

the A t t or ney G ener alat47-48 ( as s um i ng w i t houtdi s cus s i on t hatan i ndi vi dual w ho o bje ct ed t o a phot o l i cens e di d s o beca us e of sinc ere lyh eld re li g iou s b eli ef s). 564 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

(

. . . cont i nued) 5 which eng ag e in pre cisely the task of “ separat[ing] the secul ar from the relig ious ....” As the S up re m e Court has observe d, “TheEstablishment Clause does not exempt relig ious org anizations from such sec ular g overnme nt activity

as fireinspections and b u i l d ing a nd zoning regulations ....” Tony & Susan Alamo Foundation v . Secre tary of Labor , 471 U.S. 290, 305 (1985). Several U.S. Ci rcuit Courts of Appe al haveused this ty pe of 6 analy s i s t o deter

mine whether

zoning re strictions actually burdene d a churc h’s re ligious belief s or only aff ecte d secula

r dec i s i o n s o f the congreg ation. See Christ ian Gospel Church v. San Franc isco , 896 F.2d 1 221 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 498 U.S. 999 (1990) (c ongreg ation did not demonstrate that wo rs h ip in a particula r home wa s essential to relig ious be lie fs ); Mes s i ah Baptist C hurch v. County of Je

fferson , 859 F.2d 820, 825 (10th Cir. 1988), cer t

. denied, 4 9 0 U. S

. 1 0 0 5 (1 9 8 9 ) ( b u i l d i n g a churc h on a par

ticular site wa s not a relig ious tenet of the c ongreg ation); Lakewood, Ohio Congregation of Jehovah’ s W itnesses, Inc. v. Ci t

y of Lakewood, 699 F.2d 303, 307 ( 6th Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 815 (1983) (b uil din gand

ownin ga c hurc h is a

de sira blea c c e sso ry

of wo rs hip , n ot a fundame ntal tenet of c hurch’ s relig ious beliefs). N oteverychange t hata r el i gi ous or gani zat i on w i s hes t o m ake to th e e x ter io r o f

a h o u se o f

w o rsh ip re f

le c ts a s in c e re lyh e ld r el i gi ous bel i ef. I n fac t , m anyext er i orchanges bea rno appar ent r el at i on t o r el i gi ous bel i ef. For exampl e, s uppos e thata chur ch nee ds n e w g u tters a n d w o u ld p re f e r to re p lac e its o ld c o p p e r gu tters w ith m uch che aperal um i num ones . I ti s di ffi cul t t o s ee how t hi s choi ce co u l d b e p r e s e n t e d wi t h a n y s i n c e r i t y a s g r o u n d e d i n t h e d o g m a or re lig io u s p ra c tic e o f

th e c h u rc h

. W i t hout at t empt i ng i n t he abs t r act t o cat al og t h ese secul ar el ement s of a chur ch’ s ext er i or , w e do conc l ude thats om e cha nges t o t he ext er i orof a chur ch, es peci al l yt he ones t hatar e the r es ul tof r out i ne mai nt enanc e, ar e n o d iffer entt han the al t er at i ons t hatany pr o p e r t yo wne ri n a h i s t o r i c d i s t r i c twou l d ma k e t o a s t ru c tu r e a nd t hatw oul d r equi r e the appr oval of the hi s t or i c zoni ng comm i s s i on. A s st at ed earl i er, secul ar choi ces of a r el i gious i nst i tuti on do no tri se t o t he l evel of Fi r s tA m endment pr ot ect i on. Y oder , 406 U

. S. at216. T her efor e, change s of t hi s natur e ar e subj ect t o t he appr oval of the hi s t or i c zoni ng comm i s s i on. 6 W e al s o r ecogni ze, o f co u rs e, t hats om e ext er i ordes i gn el ement s ar e i ndeed the ar chi t ectur al expr es s i on of r el i gi ous bel i ef. For exampl e:G en. 56] 65

The unde rlying relig ious import of some design elements is self- 7 e vid e nt

) a cross on the fac ade of a church, for example, or a minaret on a mos qu e . O ther d e sign e le me nts

) the choiceof paint color on a churc h door, for instance

) might or might not have relig ious significa nce, dependingon the belief

s of the church. D e c isio n s to u se c lea r w in d o w s a s o p p o se d to st ai ned glas s, or repr esent at i on al st ai ned glas s as o p p o sed to no n rep rese n tat ion al de sign , are r oot ed i n t heol ogi cal choi ce, and cl ear l yaff ect t he w or s hi p envi r onm ent

. N ori s t her e doubt t hatan ae s t het i c fe atur e as bas i c as bui l di ng confi gur at i on ) s quar e, r ound, orr ect angul ar

) i s i nextr i cabl yconnec t ed t o l i tur gi cal e x p e r i e n c e a n d e c c l e s i a l i d e n t i t y. A n g e la C . C a rm e lla , H ous es of W ors hi p and R el igi o u s Li ber t y: C ons t i t ut i onalLi m i t

s t o Landm ar k Pres er vat i on and A r chi t ectur al R evi ew , 36 V i l l

. L

. R ev. 401, 485 n. 319. I f the ar chit ectur al decis i on fl ow s fr om rel i gious bel i ef, i ti s w i t hin the scope o f F i rs t A m e n d m e n t p ro te c tio n . W e ac know l edge t hat det erm i ni ng w hetherpr opos ed ext er i or chang es are t he r es ul tof r el i gi ous bel i efs and pr act i ces can be “a di ffi cul tand del i cat e t as k. ” T h o m a s , 450 U

. S. at 714. I ndeed, a l ocal hi s t or i c zoni ng comm i s s i on i s notfre e to r ej ectt he bel i efs hel d by t he appl i cantchur ch bec aus e the comm i s s i on cons i der s t hem i ncompre hens i b le, i l l ogi cal , ori ncons i s t ent

. T he t as k of the co m m issi o n is t o d ec ide w h ethe r the be li ef s h eld by the ap p li ca n t are s i ncer el yhel d and w hethert heyar e, i n t he chur ch’ s ow n s cheme of th in g s , re lig io u s in c h a ra c te r. U ni t ed Stat es v. Seger , 380 U

. S. 163, 184- 85 ( 1965)

. T o t hatend, t he comm i s s i on i s ent i t l ed t o as k foran expl anat i on of t he r el i gi ous bas i s of des i g n el ement s , i f the s ig n if ica n c e is n o t re a d ilya p p a re n t. S e e a lso Fra ze e v . Ill in o is 7 D e p a rtm e n t o

f E m p lo y m e n t S e c u rity , 489 U

. S. 829, 833 ( 1989) (“ [ s]ta tes a re c lea rlye n tit led to a ss u re th e m se lv e s th a t th e re is a m p le pr edi cat e for i nvoki ng t he fr ee exer ci s e cl aus e”)

. H ow ever , the cl ai m o f the r el i gi ous i ns t i tut i on t hatt he des i gn change i s an
“ e s s e n tia l p a rt o f

a re lig io u s f

a ith m u s t b e g iv e n g re a t w e ig h t.” Seg er, 380 U

. S. at184. T he comm i s s i on canno t inq u i r e i nt o t he tru th o r f a ls ity o f th e b e lie f

. See U

ni t ed Stat es v. B al l ar d, 32 2 U. S. 7 8 , 8 6 (1 9 4 4 ); U

nit ed S t ates v. W

ard , 9 8 9 F

. 2 d 1 0 1 5 (9th C ir

. 1 9 9 2 ). C f

. A m er i can U

ni on of B apt is t s v. Trus t ees of

the Part i cular66 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y P r im itiv e B a

p tis t C h u r c h a t B la c k

R o c k , In c ., 335 M d. 564, 575- 76 ( 1994) ( cour tm ayadj udi cate ch u r ch pr oper t ydi s put es bas ed on sec u lar co n side rati o n s b u t no t “t h eo log ical or d o ctri n al” m att ers). I n t he Sy kes vi l l e s i tuat i on, t he bui l di ng of an addi t i on m i ght w el l be the r es ul tof a s i ncer el yhel d r el i gi ous bel i ef orp rac ti ce. A ccomm odat i ng al l peopl e w ho w i s h t o w or s hi p i n t he chur ch may be r equi r ed by reli g iou s doctr i ne. B utt her e maybe no doctr i nal b a sis f o r so m e o f

th e d e sig n e lem e n ts in th e a d d iti o n . T h e h isto ric z o n in g c o m m is s io n is e n title d to a n a p p ro p ri a te e x p la n a tio n . I n s um , ouranal y s i s on t he thre s hol d i s s ue of w hetheran e x ter io r c h a n g e to a h o u se o f w o rsh ip is th e re su lt o f

a sin c e re lyh e ld r el i gi ous bel i ef i s es s ent i al l yt w o-fol d: ( 1) I f the al t er at i on, cons t ruct i on, r epai r , r econs t ruct i on, m ovi ng, ordemol i t i on of a h o u se o f w o rsh ip re f

lec ts s e c u lar c o n c e rn s, th e n th e c o n g re g a tio n is su b jec t to th e ju risd ictio n o f th e c o m m iss io n a n d m u st c o m p lyw ith t he r equi r ement s t hatt he comm i s s i on es t abl i s hes i n or der t o r ece i ve appr oval of t he congr egat i on’s a ppl i cat i on. ( 2) I f the al t er at i on st em s fr om a si ncerel y held rel i gious beli ef, t he co ng regat i on m ust compl yw i t h t he admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocedur es of the comm i s s i on but m a yb e c o n stitu tio n a lly e n tit led to a n e x e m p tio n f ro m re q u ire m e n ts t hatw oul d i nt er fer e w i t h t he pl anned a l t er at i on. See P ar t s I V C and V b e lo w . C . Substanti al

B urde n T h e S u p re m e C o u rt h a s h e ld th a t “ [ a ] re g u latio n n e u tra l o n its fac e may , i n i t s appl i cat i on, nonethel es s offe nd t he cons t i tut i onal r equi r ement for governm ent al neutr al i t y i f i t undul y bur dens t he fr ee exer ci s e of r el i gi on. ” Y oder , 4 0 6 U

. S. at205. I n one w ayor another , everyneutr al , br oadl y appl i cabl e governm entr egul at i on i nci dent al l ybur dens r el i gi ous act i vi t yt o s om e ex tent, butt hatfac t d o e s n o t im m u n iz e re lig io u s g ro u p s f ro m a ll r e g u la tio n . B ow en v. R oy , 476 U

. S. 693 707 n. 17 ( 1986)

. I n L yng v. N orthw est C em et ery P r ot ect i ve Ass ’ n, 4 8 5 U

. S

. 4 3 9 , 4 5 0 -51 (19 8 8 ), the S u p rem e C o u rt expl ai ned: I ti s true that

. . . i ndi r ectcoer ci on orpenal t i es

on t he free exe rci se o f re l i gion, no tj ust out r i ghtpr ohi bi t i ons ar e s ubj ectt o s cru ti ny under t he Fi r s t A m endment

. . . . T hi s does not and ca nnoti m pl yt hatinc i dent al eff ect s ofG en. 56] 67

The Washington court’s original Fre e Ex erc ise Clause dec ision 8 was vaca ted by the Supreme Court a nd rema nded in light of Employment Div ., De p’ t of Hu ma n, Re

so urc es v . S

mi th

. On re mand, the Washington

(c o n tin u e d ...) g o v ern m en t p rog ram s, w h ich m ak e i t m o re di ffi cul t t o pr act i ce cer t ai n r el i gi ons buthave n o t endenc yt o coer ce i ndi vi dual s i nt o act i ng co n tr aryto the irreli g iou s b eli ef s, req u ir e governm entt o br i ng forw ar d a compel l i ng j ust i fi cat i on for i t s ot herw ise l aw ful act i on s. T h e c ru c ial w o rd in th e c o n stitu tio n a l tex t is

“ p ro h ib it”

... A c c o rd in g ly , a b u rd e n b e c o m e s c o n stitu tio n a llysig n if ica n t o n ly w hen i t pl ace s a “ s ubs t ant i al bur den on t he obs er vat i on of a c entr al r el i gi ous bel i ef or pr act i ce. ” Her nandez v. C om m is s i oner , 49 0 U. S. 6 8 0 , 6 9 9 (1 9 8 9 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). W e mustas cert ai n, t her efor e, w hethert he chur ch’ s bur den of c o m p ly in g w ith th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e h isto ric z o n in g o rd in a n c e is “s ubs t ant i al

. ” I f not , no Fi r s tA m endmenti nfr i ngement w i l l have o c c u rr e d

. 1. A dm in istrati ve P rocess A s di scussed i n P artII abo ve, O rdi nan c e N o. 18 7 requir es a chur ch l ocat ed i n t he Sykes vi l l e hi s t or i c di s t r i ctt o s eek the appr oval o f th e h i s t o r i c d i s tr i ctcomm i s s i on befor e the cons t ruct i on, al t er at i on, repai r , r econs t ruct i on, m ovi ng, ordemol i t i on of anys t ructur e, i ncl udi ng a cha nge of w all o rr oof s ur fac i ng m at er i al s . O r di nance N o . 1 8 7 , § 8

. It is ou r un d e rsta n d in g th a t th e a p p lica tio n is g e n e ra lly accom pan i ed b ya sm al l fee. T he co m m i ssi on ei t her app roves, re jec ts, o r m o d if

ies th e p lan s o f

a n a p p lic a n t b yf

ili n g a c e rtific a te w i t h t he l ocal zoni ng admi ni s t r at or . O r di nance N o. 187, §15. I f the p lan s a re re

je c ted , an a p p lica n t, i n c lu d in g a c h u rc h , w o u ld h a v e to m odi fyi t s pl ans , a pr oces s t h at m ay i nvol ve di al ogue w i t h t he c o m m iss io n in o rd e r to a sc e rta in w h a t m o d if ica tio n s w o u ld re su lt i n s u b s e q u e n t a p p ro v a l o f

th e p la n s . The W a s hi ng t on Sup r e me Cour trul e d tha ta s i mi l a rpr ocess u n d er Se att le’s land m ark p rese rva ti o n o rdin an ce v iolated a c h u rch ’s f re e e x e rc i s e r i g h ts

. F irs t C o v e n a n t C h u rc h v . C ity o f S e a ttl e , 787 P .2 d 1 3 5 2 (W a s h .), vacat ed , 1 1 1 S .C t. 1 0 9 7 (1 9 9 0 ). T h e S e a ttl e 868 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

(

. . . cont i nued) 8 Supreme Court re fused to follow the Supreme Court’s a nalysis in Sm ith and dec ided the ca se on state c onstitut ional grounds. First Covena nt Chu rc h v . S

e attle , 840 P.2d 174 (Wash. 1992). The court said that Washington’s F reeEx erc is e C l ause w as substantially broader than the F re eExe rc iseCla

us eof the U. S. Con sti tution . T hec a se s a pp lyingAr

tic le 36 of theDec laratio n o f Rights , b y c ontr a st, su g g e st t

hat it ha s th esame scope a s the federal guara ntee. Seenote 3 above

. l and m ark com m i ssi on at t em pted t o d esi gn at e t he ch urch as a l andmar k beca us e of i t s hi s t or i cal val u e. 7 8 7 P. 2d at1354. T he chur ch sought a decl ar at or y j udgm ent t hat t he S eatt l e or di nance w as uncons t i tut i onal , beca us e i t vi ol at ed t he chur ch’ s r i ght s of r el i gi ous f re e d o m . Id . T h e o rd in a n c e w o u ld h a v e re q u ire d th e c h u rc h to r ece i ve appr oval of t he com m i s s i on befor e m aki ng any al t er at i on of th e exter i or of t he ch urch. T he o rdi nan ce prov i ded for autom a tic a p p ro v a l o f

e x ter io r c h a n g e s th a t w e re n e c e s s ita ted b yc h a n g e s in “l i tur gy , ” buti tdi d r equi r e the chur ch t o di s cus s pos s i bl e al t ernat i ve des i g n s o l u t i o n s t h a t mi g h t h a v e b e e n a p p r o p r i a t e t o p r e s e r v e t he des i gnat ed fe atur es of t he l andmar k. T he W as hi ngt on cour t fo u n d that the “p rac t i cal eff ectof the pr ovi s i ons i s t o r equi r e a r el i gi ous or g an izat i on t o s eek s ecul ar appr oval of m at t er s pot ent i al l yaff ect i ng t he chur ch’ s pr act i ce of r el i gi on. ” 787 P. 2d at135 9

. A l s o, even i f the pr opos ed al t er at i on w er e r el i gi ous i n natur e, t he chur ch s t i l l had t o s ubm i t i t s pl ans and n e g o tia te p o s s ib le a lte rn a tiv e s . Id

. T he co urtcon cl ud ed thatt hese re q u ire m e n ts c re a ted a n “ u n ju stif ied g o v e rn m e n tal in ter f e re n c e in r el i gi ous m at t er s of t he chur ch and .

. . an i nfri n g em en tof the chur ch’ s r i ghtof fr ee exer ci s e” a nd found t hatt he or di nance w as u n c o n s titu tio n a l a s a p p lie d to re lig io u s in s titu tio n s . Id

. I n t he cour t ’ s vi ew , r equi r i ng t he chur ch t o obt ai n a cert i fi cat e of appr oval fro m the c o m m issi o n cre ated a s u b stan ti al bu rde n o n the c h u rch ’s Fi r s tA m endment r i ght s t hatw as notj us t i fi ed by a compel l i ng i nt er es t

. 787 P. 2d at1361. T h e W a s h i n g t o n Su p r e me Cou r t ’ s a n a l y s i s i s f l a wed , i n our vi ew . Fi r s t , th e b u rdens i m pos ed by“pape r w or k” and other admi ni s t r at i ve cos t s and r equi r ement s associ at ed w i t h s ubm i t t i ng p ro p o sed ch an g es to a lan d m ark co m m issi o n (or, i n S yk esv il le’s cas e, a hi s t or i c zoni ng comm i s s i on) do nots ubs t ant i al l ybur den fr ee exer ci s e r i ght s . T he W as hi ngt on cour tdi d nott ake pr operacc ount o f S u p re m e C o u r t ca se s to th e e f f e c t th a t co m p ly in g w ith admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocedur es of the governm entdo notbur den aG en. 56] 69

r el i gi ous i ns t i tut i on’ s Fi r s t A m endment r i ght s . I n Ji m my Sw ag ga rt Mi nis tr i es v. B oar d of

E qual iz at i on , 4 9 4 U

. S

. 3 7 8 , 3 9 4 -95 (19 9 0 ), t he Supr eme C our thel d t hatt he admi ni s t r at i ve and r ecor dkeepi ng b u rd e n s o f

sa les a n d u se tax e s “ d o n o t rise to a c o n stitu tio n a lly s i gni fi cantl evel

. ” Fur t her m or e, i n Tony & Susan A l am o Foundat i on v. Sec r etar

y of Labor , 471 U

. S. 290, 305- 06 ( 1989) , t he C ou rt concl uded thatt he r ecor dkeepi ng and paper w or k pr ovi s i ons of the Fai rL abor St andar ds A ct di d notvi ol at e the fr ee e xer ci s e r i ght s of in d iv id u a ls a s s o c ia te d w ith a re lig io u s in s titu tio n . I f w e w er e t o concl ude t hat t he bur den of compl y i ng w i t h t he admi ni s t r at i ve r equi r ement s of a hi s t or i c zoni n g o rdi nance w as “s ubs t ant i al , ” w e w ould al s o have t o pr es um e thats i m i l ar admi ni s t r at i ve r equi r ement s of o th e rn e u tr a l r e g u l a t o r ys chemes , l i ke b uil ding cod es, fi re codes, and l and use zon i ng , w ere “und uly bu rdens ome” fo rt he s a me r e a s on . The s e t ype s of r e gu l a t i on s al so r equi r e re l i gi ous i ns t i tut i ons t o s ubm i tappl i cat i ons t o s ecul arboar ds f o r a p p ro v a l. Y e t, b o th f e d e ra l an d sta te c o u rts h a v e re p e a ted ly up held t he ap pli cat i on of t hese requir em ents t o rel i gious i nst i tuti on s. See, e. g. , Lakew ood O hi o C ongr egat i on of Jeh o va h ’s W

i tnes s es v. C i t y of Lakew ood , 699 F. 2d 303 ( 6t h C i r . 1983) ( r es i dent i al zoni ng re q u ire m e n t); C ongr egat i on B eth Y i t z cok v. Tow n of

R am po , 59 3 F. S u p p . 6 5 5 (S .D .N .Y . 1 9 8 4 ) (o c c u p a n c yre q u ire m e n ts); Fa ith A ssem b ly of G o d

v. State B ldg

. C o d e C o m m ’n , 416 N

. E

. 2 d 288 (M ass. A p p . 1 9 8 1 ) (bu il d ing co d e re g u lat ion s). Second, t he W as hi ngt on cour t as s er t ed thatr equi r i ng a chur ch t o di s cus s i t s r el i gi ous m ot i vat i ons fora cha nge i n t he ext er i orof a chur ch w i t h a s ecula rcomm i s s i on w as a s ubs t ant i al bur den on r el i gi on. T o ourkno w ledg e, no cour thad eve rcons t rued the Fr ee E xer ci s e C l aus e t o ren d eruncons t i tut i onal the obl i gat i on of one w i shi ng t o be exem pt fr om a go vernm ental requi rem ent t o est abli sh t he fa ctof r el i gi ous m ot i vat i on for c o n d u ct

. T o t he contr ary , fr ee exer ci s e ca ses rout i nel yr equi r e the per s on orr el i gi ous i ns t i tut i on se e k in g a n e x e m p tio n f ro m n e u tra l g o v e rn m e n tal re g u latio n s to m a k e a n in iti a l sh o w in g th a t th e c o n d u c t in q u e stio n is g ro u n d e d in re ligi ou s beli ef. F or exam ple, a con sci enti ou s obj ect or had to demonst r at e t o t he l ocal dr aftboar d t hathi s fai l ur e t o r egi s t er fort he d ra f t w a s th e re s u lt o f

h is re lig io u s c o n v ic tio n s . U ni t ed Stat es v. S ee ger , 380 U

. S. 163 ( 1965)

. Si m i l ar l y , Sabbat ar i ans had t o s how an unem pl oym entcompensa t i on boar d t hata r efus al t o w or k on S a tu rd a yw a s th e re s u lt o f s in c e re ly h e ld re lig io u s b e lie f s . Sh erbert , 3 7 4 U .S . 3 9 8 (1 9 6 3 ); H obbi e v. U

n em pl oym ent

Appeal s C om m ’ n, 4 8 0 U .S . 1 3 6 (1 9 8 7 ).70 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y T he W as hi ngt on cour t not ed thatt he Seatt l e or di nance had t he

“ p o ten tial” o f a f

f e c tin g th e c h u rc h ’s re lig io u s rig h ts. T h e “ p o ten tial” of aff ect i ng r el i gi ous r i ght s i s not i t s el f a s ubs t ant i al burde n u nder F ree Ex erci se C l ause j uri spruden ce. T he gov ernm ental act i on m ust i n fac t“coe r ce” an i ndi vi dual i nt o vi ol at i ng hi s or herbel i efs or
“ p e n a liz e ” re lig io u s in d iv id u a ls

. Lyng , 485 U

. S. at449. Si nce the chur ch i n Seat t l e neve rs oughtt he appr oval of anyplans fo ran a lte ra tio n , n o c o e rc io n o r p e n a lty in f a c t o c c u rr e d

. Fi nal l y , t he W as hi ngt on cour tas s um ed that al l al t er at i ons t hat a chur ch mi ghtm ake t o i t s ext er i or ar e re l i gi ous l ym ot i vat ed, t her eby ext endi ng Fi r s tA m endment p rot ect i on t o pot ent i al al t er at i ons t hat a chur ch mi ghtm ake f

orent i r el ys ecul arr eas ons . T hi s as s um pt i on is bo th co n tr aryto f

ac t and inco n sis te n t w ith the S u p rem e C o u rt cas es t hatr equi r e a di s t i nct i on betw een s ecul ardeci s i ons and r el i gi ous on es, beca us e onl yr el i gi ous l ybas ed conduc tm er i t s t he p ro te c tio n o f

th e F ir s t A m e n d m e n t. See Par tI V B above. I n concl us i on, “[i ] ti s vi r tual l ys el f- evi dent tha tt he Fr ee E xer ci s e C l aus e does notr equi r e an exempt i on fr om a governm ent al p ro g r a m u n le ss , at a m in im u m , inc lu sio n in th e p ro g ra m a c tu a lly bur dens t he cl ai m ant ’ s fr eedom t o exer ci s e r el i gi ous r i ght s . ” A l a mo Foundat i on , 471 U

. S. at 303. T he admi ni s t r at i ve pr ocedur es of the Sy kes vi l l e H i s t or i c Zoni ng O r d inance do nott hemsel ves cr eat e a su b sta n tial b u rd e n o n th e c h u rc h

. T h u s, th e c h u rc h is n o t en tit led to a b ro a d e x e m p tio n f

ro m th e re q u ir e m e n ts o f th e o rd in a n c e . 2. Fi nanc i al

Cons ide r ati ons T he chur ch i n Sy kes vi l l e i s appar ent l yconce r ned thatt he h ist o ri c z o n ing co m m issio n w il l r eq u ir e the ch u rch to sp en d ex tr a m oneyon t he addi t i on , m o neyt hatt he chur ch bel i eves coul d be bet t ers penton t he r el i gi ous funct i ons of the chur ch. I n es s ence , t he c h u rch i s suggest i ng t hat this po t enti al i ncrem ental costi s a “subst anti al ” bu rden on i t s fr ee exe rci se r i gh t s. B e in g lo c a ted in a h isto ric z o n in g d istric t m ig h t r es ul ti n a pr oper t yow ner ’ s havi ng t o s pend more m oneyon al t er at i ons t o aG en. 56] 71

We emphasize the wo rd “m i ght” bec ause w e haveno way of 9 kn ow ingif

c omp lia nc ewi th h ist oric zon ingre qu ir e me nts wo uld a c tually incre ase c osts in every

instance. Sometimes compliance

) as to choiceof paint color, for

instance

) would involve no extra expense. str u ctur e’ s ext er i ort han i f the s t ructur e w er e l ocat ed el s ew her e. 9 T he comm i s s i on m i ghtr equi r e the ow ner t o us e more expens i ve m aterial s, o r i t m igh t r eq u ir e th e o w n er to m ak e a d d it ion al, m o re cos t l y al t er at i ons . Si nce the hi s t or i c zoni ng comm i s s i on has never r e v i e we d t h e p l a n s f

o rt h e a d d i t i o n t o t h e c h u r c h i n Sy k e s v i l l e , we d o n o t k n o w w h e th e r c o m p ly in g w ith c o m m iss io n re q u ire m e n ts w ill actual l y r equi r e the chur ch t o s pend more m oneyon t he addi t i on. F o r th e p u rp o se s o f th is se c tio n o f th e o p in io n , th e n , w e sh a ll sim p ly a ss u m e th a t c o m p lian c e w ith th e C o m m iss io n ’s re q u ire m e n ts w o u ld i ncr eas e the cos tof t he addi t i on. T he Supr eme C our tr ece nt l ycons i der ed w h et herneutr al regul at i on s that di m i nis h the i nco m e of a chu rch and con seque n tly r educe t he r es our ces t hatcoul d be s pent on r el i gi ous us es i nfr i nges on t he Fi r s tA m endment

. I n Ji m my Sw aggar tMi nis tr i es v. B oar d of E qual iz at i on , t he r el i gi ous o rga n i zat i on ar gued thatt he i m pos i t i on of a t ax on the s al e of i t s r el i gi ous m at er i al s amount ed t o an uncons t i tut i onal bur den, beca us e t he t ax re duced the i ncome of t he o rg a n iza tio n . T h e S u p re m e C o u r t f latlyre jec ted th is a rg u m e n t:
“ [ T ]o th e e x ten t th a t im p o sitio n o f a g e n e ra llya p p lica b le ta x m e re ly decreases th e a m ou nt of m on ey[t hat J i m m yS w agg artM i nis t ri es] has t o s pend on i t s r el i gi ous act i vi t i es , anys u ch b u r den i s not c o n s titu tio n a lly sig n if

ic a n t.” 4 9 3 U .S . a t 3 9 1 (c ita tio n s o m itte d ). Sw ag gertis co n sist en t w ith ea rl ier case s o n the m o n etary i m pactof neutr al r egul at i on. I n Her nandezv. C om m is s i oner , 490 U

. S. 680, 698 ( 1989) , a r el i gi ous or gani zat i on ar gued thatt he di s al l ow ance of a t ax deduct i on for i t s pr act i ce of “a udi t i ng” r educe d t he amount of i ncome i t s m embe rs c oul d s pend on thei rr el i gi ous act i vi t i es . T he Supr eme C o u rt , poi nt i ng outt hat“[t ] hi s ar gum ent k n o ws n o l i mi t a t i o n , ” r e j e c t e d i t

. 4 9 0 U. S

. a t7 0 0

. Th e S u p r e me C our thad ea r l i err ecogni zed thatt hi s ar gum ent , as s erti ng t hatan in d ire c t f in a n c ial b u rd e n v io late s th e F re e E x e rc ise C lau se , “w o u ld r adi cal l yr es t r i ctt he oper at i ng l at i tude of the l egi s l atur e. ” B ra u n feld v
. Br o wn , 366 U

. S. 599, 606 ( 1961) ( r ej ect i ng ar gum ent t hatSunday cl osi ng l aw i nter fered w i t h free exerci se ri gh t s of O rtho do x Jew i sh m erc h an ts)

. T h e C o u rt n o ted t h at if this typ e of arg u m e n t w ere acc ept ed, s t atut es coul d be s t ruck dow n m er el ybeca us e theyt ax72 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

I f “ma int e na

nc eof thelandmark

e ith e r phy sic a lly

or fina nc ia lly 10 pre ve nts or

se ri ou sly int e rf eres wi th c arr

yingout th e[re lig iou s] purp os e ...,” the result might well be diff erent. Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew v. Barwick, 496 N.E.2d 183, 192 n.6 (N.Y .), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 985 (1986). in c o m e th a t lim its th e a m o u n t o f m o n e y th a t c o u ld b e c o n trib u ted to r el i gi ous or gani zat i ons , t her ebyi m pos i ng an i ndi r ectbur den on the i ndi vi dual w ho i s r equi r ed by r el i gi ous convi ct i on t o donat e a gr eat er a m o u n t to th e c h u rc h

. I d. A ccor di ng t o t he C our t , the “li st of l egi s l at i on of t he natur e i s near l yl i m i t l es s . ” I d. T h is l ine o f c ase s h as b ee n ap p li ed to a h is to ri c lan d m ark o rdinanc e. I n St. B artho l om ew ’s C hu rch v. C i t y of N ew Y ork , 914 F .2 d 3 4 8 , 3 5 5 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 0 ), cer t

. deni ed , 4 9 9 U .S . 9 0 5 (19 9 1 ), N ew Y or k’ s l andmar ks l aw pr event ed a c h u rch fr om comm er ci al d ev elop m en t of a s ite o n w h ich a ch u rch -ow n ed h ist o ri c struc ture s t ood. T he courtacc ept ed t hat t he l aw “has dr as t i cal l yr es t r i ct ed the c h u rc h ’s a b ili ty to ra ise re v e n u e s to c a rryo u t it s v a rio u s c h a ritab le an d m inist erial p rog ram s. ” 9 1 4 F

. 2 d at 35 5

. N ev erthe less, the c o u rt r ej ect ed the ar gum ent that t hes e oppor tuni t ycos t s w er e a bur den cogni zabl e undert he Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e, beca us e “w e under s t and Supr e me Cou r t d e c i s i o n s t o i n d i c a t e t h a t n e u t r a l r e g u l a t i o n s t hat di m i ni s h t he i ncome of a r el i gi ous or gani zat i on do noti m pl i cat e the Fr ee Exer ci s e C l aus e. ” Id

. 10 3. P r ohibiti on of

r el i gi ousl y bas ed exter i orchange. T he cl ear es texampl e i n t hi s cont ext of a governm ent al act i on th a t w o u ld

s u b s ta n tia lly b u rd e n re lig io u s p ra c tic e is a f la t b a n . See G oldm an v. W

ei nber ger , 4 7 5 U .S . 5 0 3 (1 9 8 6 ) (im p licitly r ec o g n i zi ng bur den ca us ed bypr ohi bi t i on on t he w ear i ng of a y a rm u lk e b yJ e w is h m ilita ry o f f ic e r)

. Suppose , forexampl e, t hata chur ch pur chas es a s t ructur e i n a hi s t or i c d i s t r i ctfor m er l yus ed as a s ynagogue a nd w ant s t o r epl ace a St ar o f D avi d on t he fa cade w i t h a cr os s . T hi s des i gn change o b v i o u s l y w o u l d b e g r o u n d e d i n r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f

. A d e c i s i o n b y a h isto ric z o n in g c o m m iss io n to d isa p p ro v e th e a p p lica tio n w o u ld s ubs t ant i al l ybur den the chur ch’ s fr ee e xer ci s e of r el i gi on.G en. 56] 73

The RFRA also applies a “le ast restric tive means” test. 42 11 U. S.C. §2 00 0b b- 1(b) (2 ). In light of our c on c lus ion in P art V that hi sto ri c zon ingdo e s n ot s e rv ea

“ c omp e lli ngint e re st, ”wene e d n ot a naly ze t his a dditi on a l te st.

Th e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t h e RFRA i n d i c a t e s t hat t he 12 g o v ern m en tal interest i n so m e lan d u se re g u lat ion s, “su ch as f ir e codes , ” i s compel l i ng. S. R ep. N o. 103- 111, at 9 n. 18, 1993 U

. S. C

. C

. A

. N

. at1899. I f a s ubs t ant i al bur den exi s t s , t he gover nm ent al r es t r i ct i on can b e a p p lie d o n ly if it f

u rt h e rs a “ c o m p e llin g g o v e rn m e n ta l in te re s t.” 42 U

. S. C

. §2000bb- 1( b) ( 1)

. T o t hati s s ue w e now tur n. 11

V W ei gh t of

G ov ern m en tal Interest “To sat i s fyt he comm ands of the Fir st A m endment , a l aw res t ri ct i ve o f rel i gious pract i ce m ustadv ance int eres t s of t he h i gh est o rd e r ... . T h e c o m p e lli n g in ter e st s tan d a rd

.. . rea llym e a n s w h a t it s ay s . ” C hur ch of

the Lukum i B abal u A ye v
. C i t y of Hi al eah , 113 S. C t

. 2217, 2233 ( 1993) ( i nt ern al quot at i on m ar ks and ci t at i ons o m itt e d ). A n im p e d im e n t to re lig io u s a c tiv ityis u n c o n stitu tio n a l, w ro te th e F o u rth C irc u it, u n les s it is ju stif ied “ b ya c o m p e lli n g sta te i n t e r e s ta r i s i n g f

r o m s o m e s u b s t a n t i a l t h r e a t t o p u b l i c h e a l t h , s a f e t y, peac e, oror der

. . . . ” For es tHi l l s E ar l y Lear ning C ent er, I

nc. v. L ukh ard , 7 2 8 F

. 2 d 2 3 0 , 2 4 1 (4th C ir

. 1 9 8 4 ). 12
T h e i nt er es ts un d erly ing h ist o ri c z o n ing o rdin an ce s, w h il e v ery s i gni fi cant , ar e notof compar abl e i m por t ance . I n a cas e uphol di ng t he cons t i tut i onal i t y of t he N ew Y or k C i t yL andmar ks L aw ( butnot i nvol vi ng a F r ee E xer ci s e C l aus e i s s ue) , t he Supr eme C our tw r ot e of

“ a w id e lysh a re d b e lief

th a t stru c tu re s w ith sp e c ial h isto ric , cu ltu ra l, o r a rc h ite c tu ra l s ig n if

i c a n c e e n h a n c e th e q u a lity o f lif e f o r a ll.” P enn C entr al T

ranspo rtati on C o. v. C i t y of N ew Y ork , 438 U

. S. 104, 1 0 8 (1 9 7 8 ). M o re o v e r, th e p re se rv a tio n o f th e c h a ra c ter o f

a h isto ric di s tr ict , li k e S yk esv il le’s, u n d o u b tedlyco n tr ibu tes t o tou ri sm an d the e c o n o m ic w e ll- b e in g o f th e c o m m u n ity g e n e ra lly.74 [7 9 O p . A tt ’y

I n l i ghtof t hi s concl us i o n , w e nee d notcons i derw hether 13 th e F re e S p e e c h C lau se o f th e F irst A m e n d m e n t w o u ld p re v e n t a hi s t or i c zoni ng comm i s s i on fr om di s appr ovi ng a des i gn el ement t hat co m m u n icates a reli g iou s m es s a g e . See Lam b’s C hapel v. C ent er Mo ric h e s U

n io n Fre e S c h o o l D ist. , 1 1 3 S .C t. 2 1 4 1 (1 9 9 3 ). See gener al l y T h o m a s P a k , C o m m e n t, Fr ee E xer cis e, Fr ee Expr es s i on, and Landm ar k Pres er vat i on , 9 1 C o lu m . L .R e v . 1 8 1 3 (1 9 9 1 ). N evert hel es s , neit h er t he Supr eme C our tdeci s i on i n P enn C entr al nor any ot her cas e uphol di ng a hi s t or i c di s t ri ct l aw or l andmar ks l aw s ugges t s t hatt he gover nm ent al i nt er es t s under l y i ng s uch l aw s ar e “c om pel l i ng. ” Indeed, even the for emostnat i onal advoca t e fors uch l aw s , t he N at i onal T rus tforH i s t or i c Pr es er vat i on, m er el ys ugges t ed i n an ami cus br i ef i n F i rs tC ovenant C hur ch t hat l andmar k des i gnat i on l aw s s er ve “an i m por t ant publ i c purpos e”

) u n d o u b te d ly tru e , b u t f a llin g s h o rt o f

a “ c o m p e llin g in te re s t.” A m i cus C ur i ae B r i ef of t he N at i onal T rus tforH i s t or i c Pr es er vat i on a t 7 , C i t y of Seat t l e v. F i rs tC ovenant C hur ch , 111 S. C t

. 1097 ( N o. 9 0 -8 9 2 ) ( 1 9 9 1 ). W hi l e ther e i s no deny i ng t he im p o rt ance of hi s t or i c di s t r i ct zoni ng, i n ourvi ew t he governm ent al i nt er es tats t ake f al l s s hor tof me e t i n g t h e r i g o r o u s “ c o mp e l l i n g i n t e r e s t ” s t a n d a r d

. He n c e , we concl ude that an or di nance m aynotbe appl i ed t o pr eventa chur ch orot herhous e of w or s hi p fr om i ncorpor at i ng i n t he ext er i orfac ade o f it s stru cture d esig n elem en ts th at refl e c t th e c o n g reg ati o n ’s r el i gi ous bel i efs ort hatar e an i nevi t abl e by

- pr oductof r el i gi ous act i vi t i es w i t hi n t he s t ructur e. 13

VI C oncl usi on In su m m a ry , o u r o p in io n is a s f o llo w s: A c h u rc h in a h isto ric d istric t is su b

jec t to th e p ro c e d u ra l r e q u ire m e n ts o f th e lo c a l h isto ric zoni ng or di nance )t hati s , t he chur ch musts ubm i t pl ans forext er i or ch an g es t o it s b u il d ing to th e l o ca l h ist o ri c zo n ing co m m issi o n . If t he ch urch do es notas s er tt hat the co m ponent s of the pr opos ed change ar e gr ounded i n r el i gi ous bel i ef or pr act i ce, t hen the chur ch i s s ubj ectt o t he s ubs t ant i ve r equi r ement s of the or di nance , i ncl udi ng t he nee d forcomm i s s i on appr oval

. I f the chur ch does re a so n a b lyG en. 56] 75

a ss e rt th a t an yc o m p o n e n ts of th e p ro p o se d c h a n g e a re g ro u n d e d in reli gi ous bel i ef orpr act i ce, t hen the comm i s s i on m aynei t her q u e stio n th e re lig io u s b a sis o f th e d e sig n c h o ice n o r d isa p p r o v e it.

J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al J ack Schw ar t z* C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce

*A m anda St akem Conn, a vol unt eer i nt ern i n t he O pi ni ons D i vi s i on, contr i but ed s ubs t ant i al l yt o t he pr epar at i on of thi s opi ni on.

E ditor ’s N

ote: I n C i t y o f B o erne v. F l or es , 117 S. C t

. 2157 ( 1997) , t he Supr eme C our thel d t hatt he R el i gi ous Fr eedom R es t or at i on A ctw as uncons t i tut i onal , atl eas ti n i t s appl i cat i on t o s t at e and l ocal go vernm ents

.