Clashing visions of a South Anchorage preacher looking to the future and a neighborhood striving to hold onto its tranquil character have landed a church's growth plans in federal court.

The court fight pits Rabbit Creek Community Church against the Municipality of Anchorage -- the two who will be paying the legal bills. But aligned with the city are the residents of a quiet, woodsy neighborhood off Rabbit Creek Road who see the church's expansion plans as, in the words of one, a "big monstrosity."

The dispute centers a good bit on fear: the fear of homeowners over the consequences of an expanded church or of what the church might do with the way cleared for expansion. The church, for its part, argues that it has complied with the law and that some of the neighborhood concerns are unjustified.

The church's tortuous, years-long struggle to add onto its existing angular, brown wood structure in the residential area has twice been through a review by the city's planning and zoning apparatus, losing at just about every turn. Now the church's lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court, claims the city's opposition amounts to religious discrimination.

The lawsuit argues that city agencies that reviewed and rejected the church's plans have "imposed a substantial burden on the rights of the church and its members to the free exercise of religion. ..." And the city, in implementing ordinances that put special burdens on churches, is in violation of the religious rights contained in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, according to the suit.

City requirements that single out churches in residential areas and require approval of their site plan before development can go forward are discriminatory, according to the suit. With any other nonreligious use of the land, the site plan approval wouldn't be necessary, but "as soon as you say you're going to have religious services," the special requirements come into play, said attorney Ronald L. Baird, who is representing the church.

Assistant municipal attorney Pamela Weiss said the city is preparing its response to the suit but does not believe the city's code violates federal law.

"We'll, of course, vigorously defend the code," she said.

The suit asks that a federal judge reverse the city's judgment and declare the church's expansion plans lawful. It also asks for unspecified damages.

"We've thought and prayed long and hard over this," said the Rev. Terry Hill, senior pastor, "and we feel like our plans fit into the zoning requirements as well as the municipal code."

He said church officers have a vision of a growing congregation and services they want to offer, and the expansion plans they've put to paper fit with it.

WALL OF OPPOSITION

Homeowners scattered among the trees and unpaved roads behind the church at Rabbit Creek Road and Snowshoe Lane fear bright parking lot lights, traffic problems, boosted demands on their limited water supply, and the visual blight that they see accompanying the church expansion.

The neighbors fought the expansion plans from the moment they were put on the table in 2004.

"Our concern is we don't want to stare at this big monstrosity," said Jon Bauer, who for six years has lived in a home near the church.

Bauer said it's nonsense that city law unfairly singles out churches, as contended in the lawsuit.

"It says churches are permitted," he said. "It's just like anything else -- there has to be common sense involved. He's talking of clear-cutting the entire lot. The scale is just mind-boggling."

To date, the homeowners have had the city pretty much entirely on their side. The church -- which typically draws about 350 people to services on Sunday, according to Hill -- won an initial approval from the Planning Department when it applied to grow in mid-2004. But that first step, which included plans for a school in the expanded structure, was about all the good news the church has had over the years.

According to court papers, interviews and municipal Planning Department records, homeowners took their objections to the Planning and Zoning Commission, which reversed the approval.

The church came back for a second round in 2006 with another site plan -- this time, according to Hill, reducing the size of the improvements and omitting the school. Hill calls the church's current plans a "life development center." The plans call for a dominant room, which Hill describes as "predominantly a worship center" and space for indoor sports, meeting rooms and offices.

In all, the two floors involved in the proposed expansion would add about 45,000 square feet of space on the east side of the church.

LESS PRIVACY

Documents from the cities' planning agencies note that concern all along the way has centered on the expansion plans' effect on the region's water wells, traffic, drainage and existing vegetation.

"Quiet and privacy prevail," according to one finding of fact from the Planning and Zoning Commission, "and the proposed use does not conserve those qualities."

Further, nearby homeowners see the plan's athletic facilities and meeting rooms and wonder if a school could one day be in the works, despite the church's contention otherwise.

"I'm skeptical," Susanne Comellas, who has lived in the neighborhood for 30 years, said of the church's contention that a school is no longer part of the project. "It pays to ask questions. ... If we don't question things, once things are built or done, there's no going back."

A key neighborhood concern is that the area is not tied to city water and sewer facilities. That means that demands on the roads and available water resources will be increased, and they are not sufficient to support the church's project, Comellas and others contend.

An eventual school would mean substantial traffic and could also be risky for kids on that sometimes-treacherous, inclined stretch of Rabbit Creek Road, she said.

"This particular project is so overwhelmingly huge, it would change the entire character of the neighborhood," she said.

The church's second effort was rejected at every step, from the Planning Department through the Planning and Zoning Commission and to the Board of Adjustment. Documents from those panels indicate members made their decisions based largely on the same concerns raised by church neighbors.

The lawsuit, however, argues those rejections are based on wrong assumptions and contain wrong or incomplete evidence regarding the improvements' effects on traffic, air pollution, water resources and storm drainage.

Baird said the church is not trying to be a difficult neighbor but is going to court simply as an assertion of its rights.

"They are looking to expand," he said. "They have the legal right to expand."