Amulek

I understand that as a strategy, and like I said earlier, I think the Church may have tipped its hand that they are probably fine with doing that. A rose by any other name and all. But the part of me that is not fully a Saint - the part that has lived in Texas my entire life, bullied and disdained by the same sort of people who are opposing the temple now - that part of me wants to see the Church ignore these Capulets and force them to drive by the best looking building in their town and see another city's name on it. But maybe we can give it the MOTAB treatment and compromise by calling it the McKinney Texas Temple at Fairview.

The original announcement in Conference was that a temple would be built in Prosper, which is also adjacent to McKinney. Subsequently, the First Presidency released the location and a name change (see, e.g., here). The Church never purchased a site in Prosper, so I believe it's technically accurate to say that this physical location is were the temple was always going to be built. But the way the article is written - suggesting a name change - implies that it may have originally been planned to be named the Prosper Texas Temple. But they very well may have ultimately decided to call it McKinney even if it had been constructed in Prosper - there's no way to know though.

In my opinion, no. It's more about them looking down their noses at their larger, adjacent neighbors (i.e., McKinney and Allen).

Couple of things that I found interesting this go around: The Church changed its lighting plans. Originally, the Church had said we would turn the lights off outside operating hours (e.g., 11 PM - 5 AM). In the current proposal, we said we would be lowering the lumens to produce zero foot-lamberts at the edge of our property, thus ensuring no light trespass onto neighboring properties - thereby enabling us to leave the lights on around the clock. I couldn't help but wondering if this was a baiting tactic to give them something new and excessive to focus on in order to give us a bit of wiggle room to 'give' in concession. Temple Name One of the P&Z members asked if we would be willing to change the name to Fairview instead of McKinney. The attorney at the stand was pretty quick to say yes but was then flagged down by one of the SCL attorneys and told 'no.' Again, I couldn't help but wonder if he was so quick to say yes because that was something that (internally) they had already decided was a concession they were willing to make. I know that when the Area 70 who attended the meetings associated with version 1.0 was present, he was also amenable to changing the name if that's what it took to get the deal done. I sincerely hope this is something the Church is unwilling to bend on. A city trying to dictate the name of a house of worship isn’t just overreach, it’s anathema to the very bedrock of what this country stands for.

P&Z doesn't approve anything themselves - they just make recommendations to the Town Council. In this case, they recommended the Town Council approve the application with significant conditions. They don't have to accept any of those conditions though. And with a recommendation for approval (albeit, with conditions), I believe that means they will just need to have a simple majority for the proposal to pass. They had expressed unanimous support for the mediated design previously. When we go before the Town Council next week, I assume the attorneys will be asking the Mayor and Town Council to put that commitment to the test.

For those so interested, meeting files can be located here: https://fairviewtx.portal.civicclerk.com/event/924/files/attachment/774 I didn't see the motion that was passed, but I believe it should be available w/in 72 hours - possibly sooner, if I remember to look for it again.

Possibly. But the Town Council doesn't have to accept any of those conditions; we'll see what they do on Tuesday. In talking with some of the Church's attorney's after the meeting, they seemed to be very positive about how things went. Edit to add: One of the attorney's I was talking with after the meeting mentioned how some of the conditions tacked on by P&Z are actually in violation of the Town's existing laws. I didn't press him for details - they were happy to just get through this phase and on to the Town Council, which matters more.

Final result was to recommend approval with a litany of conditions. I should be able to pull the full list after they post it, but (going from memory), they wanted us to - Bring the structure height down a couple more feet (from 44 to 42 feet). - Redesign the building again to get to a maximum height no greater than 68' (identical to the stake center). - Rename it the Fairview Texas Temple.* - Connect sewer to Allen. - Turn the lights off outside operating hours, including all hours when the temple is closed (Sundays / holidays). - Couple more light restrictions (3K kelvin max, height / position / direction requirements, etc.) - Adjust some of the runoff direction more toward the side with extra capacity. - Not to exceed proposed square footage / space as set out on current proposal. Might be missing some. Getting tired and going to hit the bed now. Will write more tomorrow. *I almost fell out of my chair when they rattled that off as a condition. The idea of a government body dictating to a religious group what they need to call themselves is shockingly offensive.

Looks like they are going to recommend approval with some silly conditions. Not sure we'll go for that. Will summarize and comment later.

Straw poll looks all negative so far.

No, she texted it to someone else who was on the list of people they arranged to speak.

Sounds like we're coming up on the last few comments. I'm going to resist the urge to say anything that might detract from the overall (generally positive) vibe. My guess is that they may still vote against it, but we'll see.

Holy crap-for-crap. I'm sitting next to one of the ladies who's heading up the communication / organization side of things, and she texted my snarky "everything's bigger in Texas, but not in Fairview" comment and it made it into one of the comments!

Much better comments from church members this time.

More confusion over zoning laws. They still seem to be under the impression that churches have to be the same size as houses. I'm very disappointed that nobody from the town in any of these meetings has taken the opportunity to make the distinction between different zoning rules.

Bad argument about 'up to 120 feet' not meaning up to 120 feet. Lots of puzzled faces.

Public hearing opening up now. 3-minute time limit.

Asking a lot of nitpicking questions about square footage, roof coverage, etc. One of the guys went down the 'is the height necessary for religious use' line of questions.

Question from board a about lighting. Previously, the church had talked about turning the lights off at night. Now that we are going to be under the nighttime output levels we don't plan on turning the lights off at night.

No further questions for staff. Proposal from application being presented by attorney now.

Staff is presenting proposal now. So far, nothing new. Setback, lot coverage, etc. all within spec or no greater than previously allowed. Sewage not officially settled yet, but it won't be a problem with Allen.

Couple minutes late, but they are coming in now.

Noticed that the room has all six flags that have flown over Texas. Tactfully, they went with the first Confederate flag, rather than the stars and bars. Probably for the best.

6:40 - They're in closed session with (own) legal counsel now. Remainder of Church attorneys just showed up. Should be kicking things off here in a bit.

Thirty seven minutes to start time. Far more residents than non-residents present. Based on shirt colors, the majority of residents are on the opposition side, but there are more supportive residents than I may have guessed. In aggregate, I would say there are more supporters than opponents in the room.