Commissioners deny Cocolalla wedding venue CUP appeal

COCOLALLA — Despite overwhelming public opposition, a conditional use permit for a Cocolalla-based wedding venue was approved last month by Bonner County commissioners.

While the initial permit was approved by the Bonner County Zoning Commission earlier this year, local residents were quick to appeal the decision, saying it failed to meet multiple requirements outlined in the permit and did not align with Bonner County codes and the Comprehensive Plan.

Firebrand LLC opened its metaphorical doors in 2021, but was quickly met with opposition from neighboring residents who complained about noise, wedding guests trespassing on their property, driving recklessly on the road leading to the venue, and fire hazards. However, when it was discovered that the venue was operating without a conditional use permit from the county, residents who reported the issue felt like they were met with indifference by county staff.

Commissioner Asia Williams brought that up during the April 24 appeal hearing, asking why the county seemingly did nothing when it was discovered that the venue was not in compliance. The planning staff member giving the application overview presentation said the Planning Department sent the owners of the venue a violation letter around June 2023, but chose not to fine or shut the venue down.

“We typically air on the side of compliance,” he said. “When people are voluntarily compliant, we try to work with them as much as we can.”

However, Williams said she had issues knowing the Planning Department allowed a venue operating in noncompliance to continue business “in good faith,” without knowing if they would be approved for a CUP at all.

“At what point would the Planning Department say, ‘Cease and desist and follow the process?’” she asked.

After receiving a violation notice from the county, venue owners Teira and Cruz Bruner applied for a CUP for the venue as well as for an extra dwelling unit on the property that would operate as a “retreat” for wedding parties. Other programs are also expected to be held in the building.

The application went before the commission and was approved in February. After an appeal was filed, it headed back to be evaluated before the Bonner County Board of Commissioners, which is when Williams brought up her concerns.

Around two dozen individuals signed their name on the appeal, hoping to get the CUP overturned.

Norm Semanko, the appellants’ legal counsel, said that despite the numerous issues the venue has caused the neighborhood, the issue comes down to whether it fits in the zone the property is under, which he believes it does not.

“This is a commercial use, it is not a public use,” he said.

Things that fit under public use include places such as schools, airports, and hospitals, among others. The venue does not fit under any of those things, and should be considered a commercial use as it is not outrightly open to the public, he said.

While Semanko said there was nothing inherently wrong with the venue, it does not fit under public use. Under Bonner County code, a private facility is not permitted to be listed as public use.

Additionally, Semanko said a wedding venue does not fall under the “retreat” category, and making an exception would greatly stretch county code.

“Even if it was a retreat, retreat facilities are permitted only for those who are engaged in retreat activities and shall not be used by the general public,” he said. “How in the world is some component of this public use? It doesn’t really fit any of the uses in this zoning district.”

During the venue owners’ opportunity to speak, Tiera Bruner addressed Williams’s concerns of noncompliant operation.

“This was not a case of willful negligence, but rather, an unfortunate result of misinformed enthusiasm,” she said as she attempted to hold back tears.

The venue owner said it was never her nor her husband’s intention to operate the venue outside of the law or cause harm to their neighbors. When they opened for business roughly three years ago, they truly thought they had done everything they needed to do to run a business on their property, she said.

“Since receiving the violation, we have been working tirelessly to ensure we are compliant,” she said. “Using the Planning Department as a resource, we are making the changes needed to best suit our community’s needs based on feedback from neighbors at each hearing, and should be granted our conditional use permit.”

Teira said the couple has taken neighbors’ concerns very seriously and over the past year, have been hard at work figuring out ways to mitigate stress or incidents with adjoining properties. In terms of noise, she said they are working with Acoustiblock to install yards of Acoustifence — fencing built from a noise reducing material — on the property lines nearest to the DJ booth. 

“We use a decibel reader at our property line to ensure our DJ and noise is within 60 decibels,” she said.

Taller privacy fences are also being installed to avoid lighting making its way into neighboring houses.

The couple also tries to limit their hours of operation from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. to mitigate any noise that does make its way through the treelines and fencing and might be disturbing to neighbors. Additionally, Teira said that if the second dwelling unit is approved, no speaker or PA systems will be allowed during any retreat to avoid unnecessary disturbances.

The DJ booth has been moved and speakers rearranged to try to mitigate any traveling sound. Lights have been pointed farther downward to avoid light pollution into neighbor’s yards, she said. A stop sign has also been placed at the end of the venue’s driveway in an attempt to mitigate traffic problems and close calls that have been reported from guests speeding onto the road without slowing or stopping.

However, those changes did not seem to be enough to pacify neighbors who said they have spent the past few years dealing with constant disturbances from the venue.

“This noise is at best, irritating,” said one public commenter who said his property is in the direct line of sight — and noise — of the venue.

Additionally, he voiced concerns with the minimal fire protection the venue has, especially since smoking is allowed on site and fireworks have been reported occasionally. Being in a rural area, he — as well as multiple other residents — said they are worried the delayed response time of fire services could wreak havoc should a fire break out from reckless wedding guests.

“Can four to six fire extinguishers save my property?” he asked.

Another commenter said nearby residents feel county officials have ignored their concerns despite consistent evidence detailing problems they say have been caused by the venue.

“It’s an insult to us and the time that we spent on this,” he said. “The Planning Commission — they’ve been deaf to our concerns in their failure to address the feedback we’ve provided.”

When asked how the wedding venue’s plans and actions are in alignment with the Bonner County Comprehensive Plan, the commenter said the Planning Commission never gives residents a straight answer, they merely assure concerned parties that it is within compliance.

A lady who lives down the road from the venue said the venue has not prohibited neighbors from continuing to participate in outdoor weekend activities on their own properties outright; however, those activities are now overshadowed by loud music, shouting, profanity, and a DJ narrating each event happening at the venue throughout the day.

Since the venue opened, she said, she has had to deal with multiple people trespassing on her property, somehow thinking her property is part of the wedding venue. She also voiced concerns about hundreds of guests driving home after the weddings each weekend, putting everyone on the road at risk if they’ve had too much to drink.

“Drunk driving is not a new concept to our community, but now it is exponentially increased because of the atmosphere wedding celebrations bring,” she said. “It’s not a question of if, it is a question of when someone will be seriously hurt, or worse.”

Another lady claimed the approval of this venue’s operations was “spot zoning under the cloak of a CUP.”

“This does not belong in our community, nor is it wanted,” she said.

Only two people spoke in favor of the wedding venue — the owner of an adjacent property and Teira Bruner’s mother.

The property owner said he believes planning staff have done a great job in their analysis and interpretation of the CUP. People tend to buy property and look at the zones, but forget to look at the use tables, he said. In his eyes, nothing the Bruners are doing violates the use tables that the property is zoned under.

Bruner’s mother said she believes the couple has gone through great lengths to address neighbors' concerns to the best of their ability.

“They have been diligent in finding solutions that will mitigate the impact of the venue on the neighbors,” she said. “It has been on their mind. They are not taking any of that lightly.”

She also said that if the second building is approved, the couple will be hosting multiple free events that benefit the community; the events will not just be purely for profit.

After roughly two-and-a-half hours of public comment, both parties were allowed to give their rebuttal. Marcus Johnson, the Bruners’ legal counsel, said that this issue is a matter of property rights.

“I heard someone say that property rights matter,” he said. “And property rights do matter, but not just for the people who are sitting in the audience. The applicants’ property rights matter, too.”

Both the venue owners as well as the nearby residents are allowed to do what they want with their properties, he said, provided they are within Bonner County code. As it has been said today based on staff’s analysis, he added, the Bruners are well within the county’s codes.

Much to the chagrin of the appellants, a majority of the board of commissioners agreed as well.

“As much as I agree with a lot of the stuff that I’ve heard here today, I also agree with the staff’s analysis and what the [Planning] Commission did,” Commissioner Steve Bradshaw said. “In order for me to approve the appeal, I would have to be shown a legal reason to do that. For me, that has not happened.”

Commissioner Luke Omodt said that as he’s been listening to residents talk, he can appreciate the challenges they have been facing living near the venue.

“But when I read the use tables, I cannot see a reason or a fault with the analysis provided by staff,” he said. “I believe that the decision of the Zoning Commission and the analysis of the staff is more persuasive from my perspective in regards to this particular file meeting the use tables.”

County code provides the Planning Director the ultimate authority when it comes to circumstances like this, that don’t perfectly fit into a specific box, Omodt added. Because of this, as well as the evidence provided from county staff, he said he was unable to support the appeal of the CUP.

However, Williams disagreed with her fellow commissioners, saying she believes the venue and its uses do not fit under the appropriate use tables or zone that the property is in.

“There isn’t an available use there that lets it fit,” she said. “It’s not whether or not you are willing to accommodate a request to make it work in the community. It’s whether or not the table itself allows it to fit there.”

While Williams said she agrees the Bruners have attempted to address neighbors’ concerns, she still doesn’t believe the venue fits in that zoning district, which is what she must base her decision on.

Williams also said she feels like the way the county addressed this whole issue has heavily contributed to the problem they are facing. By allowing the venue to continue operating without a CUP, the commissioners are now faced with making a tough decision.

Do they allow the venue to continue operating even though it had done so for such a long time without being in compliance — and still may not be able to run in that zoned area — or do they choose to shut down a business that the owners have invested hours of time and thousands of dollars into building up?

“You guys started a business without requesting a permit first,” she said. “And instead of the county saying, ‘Stop, we need to see if we would actually permit that,’ you guys continued and invested in it, more and more time and money and ideas.”

It was the owners’ job to do things in the right order. Just because they didn’t mean to do things the wrong way, doesn’t mean it’s the community’s job to absorb that wrongdoing, Williams said.

“When I read the file, what it sounds like is — a significant amount of effort went into it, and that in some ways, the staff report is trying to figure out how to make it work after it already happened,” she said. “And that is not considering the other property owners that are there.”

Bradshaw disagreed, though, and said the board is tasked with making decisions based on laws, ordinances and state statutes, “which we do not have the luxury to bend and manipulate as we see fit.”

“This is exactly why we have conditional use permits,” he said. “As much as I agree with everything I’ve heard here today, I’m tasked with making a decision based on our laws and ordinances, and not my personal feelings or emotions.”

The motion to deny the appeal of the conditional use permit passed in a 2-1 vote, with Williams voting against it.