Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan

Hawaii Supreme Court
953 P.2d 1315, 87 Haw. 217 (1998)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A neutral and generally applicable zoning law does not violate the free exercise of religion, even if it incidentally burdens a religious practice, if the regulation does not impose a 'substantial burden' on sincerely held religious beliefs. A burden is not substantial if the hardship is self-inflicted or is primarily one of expense and inconvenience.

Facts:

In 1986, the Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Hawaii (the Temple) obtained a building permit to construct its Main Temple Hall to a height of approximately 66 feet in a residential district.
The applicable zoning code limited building height, but the 66-foot plan was permitted as a 'nonconforming' use based on the rules in effect when the permit was issued.
During construction, the Temple brought in 'temple builders' from Korea who altered the plans without submitting revisions to the city.
After construction, a city inspector discovered the Hall had been built to a height of 74-75 feet, nine feet taller than authorized by the permit and in violation of the zoning code.
The Temple’s spiritual leader, Abbot Dae Won Ki, asserted that the extra height was necessary to create 'balance and harmony' integral to the religious teaching and experience of Korean Buddhism.
Abbot Ki described the act of reducing the building's height as a 'desecration of the worst kind.'
Residents of the surrounding neighborhood testified in opposition, complaining that the Hall's imposing size resulted in loss of views, declining property values, and a sense of being overshadowed.

Procedural Posture:

The Honolulu Department of Land Utilization (DLU) issued a notice of violation to the Temple in 1988 for exceeding the zoning height limit.
The Temple's first application for a variance was denied by the DLU Director in 1988, a decision affirmed by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).
The Temple's appeal of the first denial to the circuit court was ultimately dismissed as untimely by the Intermediate Court of Appeals.
In 1993, the Temple filed a second variance application with the DLU.
After public hearings, the DLU Director denied the second application and ordered the removal of the portion of the Hall exceeding the permitted height.
The Temple appealed the Director's decision to the ZBA.
The ZBA held a contested case hearing and affirmed the Director's denial of the variance.
The Temple appealed the ZBA's decision to the First Circuit Court (trial court).
The circuit court affirmed the decisions of the ZBA and the Director, rejecting all of the Temple's claims.
The Temple appealed the circuit court's orders to the Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the denial of a zoning variance to prevent a religious temple from exceeding a neutral, generally applicable height limit violate the temple's right to the free exercise of religion, where the temple claims the extra height is religiously significant?

Opinions:

Majority - Levinson, J.

No, the denial of a zoning variance to prevent a religious temple from exceeding a neutral, generally applicable height limit does not violate the temple's right to the free exercise of religion. A party challenging a neutral law on free exercise grounds must first demonstrate that the law imposes a 'substantial burden' on a sincerely held religious belief. The Temple failed to meet this burden because its hardship was self-created; it initially submitted plans for a 66-foot structure and then intentionally violated its permit and the zoning code by building it higher. The court found that the burdens of expense and inconvenience required to remedy the violation are insufficient to constitute a substantial burden on religious practice. Furthermore, the Temple could have built its Hall to the desired height in other appropriately zoned districts, indicating the zoning law did not prohibit its religious exercise, but merely regulated its location. The court also held that the Temple's procedural due process rights were not violated because any errors in the administrative hearing process were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and did not prejudice the outcome.

Analysis:

This decision reinforces the principle that neutral laws of general applicability, such as zoning ordinances, do not violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause even if they have an incidental effect on religious practice. The court's holding emphasizes that self-inflicted hardships will not be recognized as a 'substantial burden' on religion, preventing parties from using religious claims to excuse intentional legal violations. This sets a precedent that religious institutions are subject to the same land-use regulations as secular entities and cannot expect special exemptions for problems they create themselves. The case also provides a clear example of how appellate courts apply a harmless error analysis to procedural defects in administrative proceedings.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple v. Sullivan (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"