Kentucky shrine dispute puts religious freedom and neighborhood zoning on a collision course

The local board approved a conditional-use permit and setback variances. One member voted against approval because the church was not on an arterial street, according to the neighbors’ Supreme Court brief. That objection went to the board’s power to approve the project under the ordinance, not to the sincerity of anyone’s faith.

In its December 2025 ruling, the Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that the board lacked authority to grant the requested permit and variance under the applicable rules. It also held that the denial did not violate the federal religious-land-use law on the facts of this case. The church’s application had acknowledged that the proposed accessory use was not directly permitted at that location under the ordinance.

A 4-1 vote tells residents what the board wanted to do. It cannot, by itself, establish that the board had the legal power to do it. That distinction matters whenever an official grants an exception that affects people who did not ask for it.

Take the religious claim seriously

The church has an argument worth taking seriously, not one to wave away with a reference to the zoning map. In its petition to the Supreme Court, Missionaries of Saint John the Baptist argues that the location beside the church is connected to its religious mission and that blocking the grotto there burdens its religious exercise.

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA, protects religious exercise against certain burdens imposed through land-use rules. Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman said a coalition of 20 states supported Supreme Court review so the justices could clarify how those protections apply. If a zoning decision imposes a substantial burden on religious practice, a board must confront that question rather than dismiss it because the applicant is a church.

That is the strongest case for the congregation: An alternative site is not necessarily an adequate substitute for a place it considers important to its worship. Nor should neighbors or officials decide for the church what its religious mission requires. Those points deserve a careful legal assessment.

But taking the claim seriously does not mean accepting that any preferred design or location must receive a variance. The Supreme Court accepted only the substantial-burden question, not the petition’s separate question about equal treatment of religious and nonreligious uses. The justices should decide the issue they took up without turning religious protection into automatic permission to build.

Give the neighbors an answer, not an assumption

The neighbors who challenged the approval argue that the proposed site was restricted by zoning and that the church has not shown why a smaller grotto could not be built on its church parcel. They have also raised concerns about traffic. Those are positions to examine, not proof that an alternative would meet the church’s needs or that the shrine would generate a particular amount of traffic.

The neighbors’ brief says the arterial-street requirement also applies to listed uses such as hospitals, higher-education institutions and nursing homes. Officials should explain whether they apply the same standard to religious and comparable nonreligious uses, rather than assume either equal or unequal treatment. If the church can show that the rule substantially burdens its religious exercise, officials owe the church a serious response to that evidence, too.

This is where a consistent zoning process does its work. Officials should identify the rule, explain whether they have authority to grant an exception, consider evidence about the proposed site and any alternatives, and address residents’ concerns without treating predictions as established impacts. Fair treatment is not a presumption that the church wins or that the neighbors win.

The Supreme Court’s review will address the federal substantial-burden question; its docket does not yet list an argument date. The justices should give local officials a clear standard for assessing a genuine religious burden while respecting the limits of their legal authority. If Park Hills officials consider a new application for this project, the Board of Adjustment should hold a public hearing and issue written findings on its authority, the proposed location and the evidence about neighborhood effects. Residents and the church alike deserve a decision whose reasoning they can see.