Congratulations to our client, Milwaukee Rescue Mission, on securing approval to construct a new facility in New Berlin, Wisconsin, for its recovery program. Despite well-funded, coordinated opposition, the Zoning Board reviewed the law and the facts and reached a favorable outcome for the Milwaukee Rescue Mission.
The dispositive issue before the zoning board was exactly what makes a church a church. Is it the presence of a traditional sanctuary with pews and a pulpit? Or can a facility dedicated entirely to long-term residential addiction recovery, run as an explicit Christian ministry, also claim that title under local zoning laws?
This was the main question before the City of New Berlin Board of Appeals in Wisconsin. In a final written ruling issued on June 22, 2026, the Board resolved a contentious, high-stakes dispute between a local citizen coalition and a prominent regional mission. The decision shows how modern zoning laws, federal religious protections, and community interests clash when faith-based organizations expand into industrial sectors.
The Background: A Proposed “New Journey”
The conflict arose when Moorland Hospitality Group, LLC, DeMoCat, LLC, and the Milwaukee Rescue Mission (collectively called “MRM”) sought approval for a new facility at 5295 South Moorland Road. The site is located within an M-1 Light Manufacturing District. MRM planned to launch its “New Journey” program at the site. This program functions as both an inpatient and outpatient Alcohol and Other Drug Abuse (AODA) treatment center. According to MRM’s leadership, the entire program is designed as an active Christian church ministry.
On December 8, 2025, the City of New Berlin Plan Commission officially determined that MRM’s proposed facility is a permitted use in the M-1 zone. They classified it under the municipal code’s definition of a “Church (community scale).” Unsatisfied with this interpretation, a local neighborhood advocacy group called New Berlin Citizens United, U.A., filed a formal appeal to reverse the commission’s decision. They argued that the city was stretching the definition of a church far beyond its clear, legal meaning to justify a high-density institutional facility.
The Legal Battleground: Defining “Community Scale”
When the matter was brought to a formal hearing before the Board of Appeals on May 20, 2026, the argument focused closely on the exact wording of Section 275-70 of the City of New Berlin Municipal Code. The code defines a Church (Community-Scale) as:
“A place of gathering for religious observance, ministry, and fellowship and related social events and may include classrooms for periodic religious instruction, and administrative offices.”
Crucially, the ordinance states that these large-scale facilities are identified either by a building footprint larger than 15,000 square feet or by a wide range of permitted accessory uses. The code specifically lists acceptable accessory uses, including:
- Gymnasiums
- Classrooms
- Day-care facilities
- Assisted-living facilities
- Health care facilities
Because community-scale churches are considered a principal (automatically allowed) use in New Berlin’s industrial zones, MRM did not need a special conditional use permit if they meet this description. If they do not meet it, the treatment center could be entirely prohibited in the M-1 district.
The Appellant’s Argument: Pews vs. Patients
The neighborhood group New Berlin Citizens United presented testimony from a leader in the organization. Brenner analyzed MRM’s filed blueprints and found that 3% of the entire building footprint was designated as a chapel or sanctuary. The remaining 97% of the space was allocated for living quarters, classrooms, a gymnasium, and administrative staff.
Based on these figures, the Appellants presented a strict textual argument:
- The Transience of Worship: A “place of gathering” naturally suggests a location where congregants come together for a specific religious rite or service and then depart. It does not suggest a permanent residence.
- The “Open Door” Danger: If an addiction center is considered a church just because it’s run by a religious group, what prevents other non-conforming uses from doing the same? Under that logic, a hospital operated by Catholic nuns or a commercial livestock feedlot run by a religious farming charity could legally be classified as “churches.”
- The Staff’s Hesitation: The Appellants pointed directly to the city’s own internal Staff Report. In that report, the Director of Community Development noted that the use was only “arguably consistent” with a church definition, while admitting that from a “pure use standpoint,” the site was most correctly categorized as an institutional medical facility.
Those voting to reverse the permit found the arguments very convincing. They believed the proposal was an institutional rehabilitation clinic trying to hide behind a religious label to avoid industrial zoning restrictions.
The Respondent’s Argument: Total Ministry
Milwaukee Rescue Mission attorneys, along with City Attorney, argued that focusing solely on a chapel’s square footage misrepresents how modern faith-based rehabilitation works. The Board heard compelling testimony from Reverend Pat Vanderburgh, President and CEO of Milwaukee Rescue Mission. Rev. Vanderburgh testified that the New Journey recovery program cannot be divided into secular and religious sectors.
- Every Room Is a Sanctuary: Ministry doesn’t only happen on Sunday. It happens actively when men foster fellowship by living together, sharing meals, and confronting addiction as “brothers in Christ” across living spaces, classrooms, and the gym.
- Legal Recognition: Milwaukee Rescue Mission filed its Articles of Incorporation, clearly stating that its purpose is to operate as a church. They also provided documentation showing that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) explicitly classifies Milwaukee Rescue Mission as a church for federal tax purposes.
- The Explicit Inclusion of Housing: The defense emphasized that New Berlin’s zoning code explicitly lists “assisted-living facilities” as an acceptable church accessory use. Since assisted living is naturally residential, the city council had already clearly intended for community-scale churches to accommodate individuals overnight on-site.
Greg Kessler, the city’s Director of Community Development, supported this view. He confirmed that after a months-long investigation, city planners determined the spiritual, faith-based foundation of the recovery program legally qualified it as a community church.
The Shadow of Federal Law: RLUIPA
Milwaukee Rescue Mission highlighted an important issue during the proceedings: the federal Religious Land Uses and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). RLUIPA explicitly forbids local governments from enforcing land-use regulations that impose a “substantial burden” on an institution’s religious exercise unless the government can demonstrate a compelling interest and that it is using the least restrictive means available.
The pro-approval faction of the Board noted that denying Milwaukee Rescue Mission the right to operate its recovery ministry could likely lead to an immediate, costly federal lawsuit. Because Wisconsin case law (Heef Realty & Investments v. City of Cedarburg) states that any ambiguity in a local zoning ordinance must be interpreted in favor of the free use of private property, narrowly interpreting the text against a religious charity posed a significant legal risk.
The Zoning Board of Appeals Decision
When the Board of Appeals met in open session on June 22, 2026, to vote on the neighborhood’s motion to overturn the permit, the board members split evenly. The final count was 2 votes in favor of granting the appeal (reversing the permit) and 2 votes against. Under normal parliamentary procedures, a tie vote results in a failed motion. However, New Berlin’s local municipal code sets a stricter procedural hurdle for challengers. Section 275-16(C)(3) states that an absolute concurring vote of four members of the Board of Appeals is needed to overturn any formal decision made by the Plan. Commission.
The Appellants argued that this local rule was invalid because a broader Wisconsin state statute (Section 62.23(7)(e)(3m)) permits zoning boards to act by a simple majority of members present. The Board’s final order rejected that challenge. Citing a 1959 Wisconsin Supreme Court precedent (Vaicelunas v. Fechner), the Board ruled that the state statute only sets a procedural minimum. Local municipalities are still free to establish higher voting thresholds to prevent easy reversals of commission decisions. Because the neighborhood coalition received only 2 votes instead of the legally required 4, the motion to overturn the zoning permit officially failed.
The Final Verdict
By operation of law, the tie vote resulted in the neighborhood’s appeal being officially denied, and the Plan Commission’s original approval of the Milwaukee Rescue Mission’s facility was fully upheld. Following the split vote, the full Board later voted 4-0 to adopt the comprehensive written document outlining both arguments as their final official record.
This provides a temporary peace at 5295 South Moorland Road. MRM’s New Journey program remains legally recognized as a community-scale church, paving the way for them to develop their residential recovery ministry within New Berlin’s industrial sector. The citizens’ group may contest this final administrative decision in Wisconsin’s circuit court via a petition for certiorari within 30 days, allowing the court to review the property’s final outcome. For more information, see the following press articles here, here, here and here.
If your rescue mission or rehabilitation facility is facing zoning challenges, please reach out to Daniel Dalton or a member of the Dalton & Tomich PLC team to discuss your claim.
