SANDPOINT — In a debate on land use designations, the Bonner County commissioners have postponed a decision on a remanded conditional use permit for a wedding venue in Cocolalla until Aug. 26 to allow the board time to review and consider all information brought forth during the lengthy hearing.  

The decision came after approximately five hours of testimony from applicants, appellants, and community members regarding the request. Discussions centered around the proposed private community facility, and whether the proposed use, a wedding venue, fits that designation.  

Deliberation and decision on the file are expected on Aug. 26 at 10 a.m. to allow commissioners to fully review all comments and concerns presented at the hearing and determine if the proposed wedding venue is in accordance with the private community facility classification.  

Applicants argued that the wedding venue is properly classified as a private community facility, where their designation was backed by a handful of previous approvals, and now needed a formal, in-depth statement to declare the proposed use fit the classification. 

“The court did not re-evaluate project impacts. It did not reject the project or the CUP; it did not require new evidence or determine that the classification was incorrect. This issue was solely the lack of a reasoned explanation,” applicant Teira Bruner said. “Though this matter is before you on remand from the district court, the prior approval was vacated due to insufficient findings, not because of impacts or incompatibility. This is not a new application. We've been doing this for three years, or a full rehearing. The purpose of today is to allow for you, the board, to issue a legally sufficient decision based on the existing record.” 

They further noted that the property had been designed and upgraded to better protect neighbors from noise, lights, and other potential disruptions.  

Appellants argued the wedding venue was not a private community facility, but a commercial event business, which is not allowed on the property’s rural-zoned property. The appellants shared that private uses should be applicable to pre-existing groups like club members and HOA groups, not rotating groups of people for private events.  

“The subject use does not qualify, because the facility operates as a commercial event venue, holding itself out to the general public by renting its premises to anyone for a lofty fee. There is no defined membership, nor pre‑existing class of authorized users… This cannot be a private facility, as it functions opposite of one,” appellant Robert Johnson said.  

The appellants and their representation further said the proposed venue, which has been in operation since 2023, is incompatible with the county’s comprehensive plan and deeply affects neighbors’ property rights, as was also noted in public comments.  

Community members were given a shorter-than-normal time to speak during public comment due to the longevity of the meeting, with that portion of the hearing taking just under an hour. Most comments were heavily against the proposal, with individuals citing concerns of noise, lifestyle impact, and negative impact on neighbors’ property rights. Community members shared their intentions in moving to a rural neighborhood to experience a quiet quality of life, which they noted had been impacted since the wedding venue opened.  

“To the people that say we’re NIMBYs, you’re correct. To those in favor of this, from outside of the area or neighborhood, it’s not your backyard. You’re not living with it, so they don’t suffer the damages over and over,” one concerned community member said.  

Those supporting the proposal cited frustrations with the application process, noting that the applicants have followed and maintained all requirements to create a safe and compliant environment for guests, neighbors, and the applicant's family, which resides on the property. 

“The fact that they are here today, again, defending their rights as property owners, after they complied with every condition to obtain and maintain their permit only proves that Bonner County has done little to support this small business and family, but everything to support the witch hunt that persists,” a supportive community member said. “Any concern of the property usage could have been addressed if these neighbors would’ve visited an open house the Bruners hosted prior to see the controls in place to protect water supply, safety, and noise control ... Instead, those neighbors chose to take to Facebook in an attempt to slander the business with false reviews and attack their character.” 

Thursday’s hearing was the latest development in a permit process that has stretched across multiple hearings, appeals and a district court remand.  

The file has a lengthy history with the county, where it was originally recommended for approval by the county’s hearing examiner in October 2023 and later approved unanimously by the Zoning Commission in February 2024.  

One month after its approval, neighbors to the applicable property filed an appeal, citing the county’s at-the-time planning director failed to categorize the applicant’s wedding venue by the Comprehensive plan and Bonner County Revised Code, among other applicable manuals. They further suggested that changes had been made to the staff report “just hours before the Zoning Hearing.” 

Once appealed, the 2024 Bonner County Board of County Commissioners upheld the zoning commission’s decision and affirmed the decision again in June 2024 to address deficiencies regarding the proposed retreat use of the facility, where that portion of the file was withdrawn from the application.  

In September 2025, the District Court vacated the county’s decision and remanded the file back to the county for further proceedings. The court found that the 2024 approval was not made according to Idaho Code, and that commissioners had not provided enough reason for their approval of the venue as a private community facility. The court noted that the applicant’s withdrawal of the proposed retreat use of the facility complied and should be omitted from future discussions.