Church Files Lawsuit Against Cody, Wyoming (Zoning/Planning Bd)

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I hope the Church wins their lawsuit and will have the grand steeple they seem to despertly want.  And I hope that the towns people have positive feelings every time they look at the temple.

Unfortunately, I think only one of those hope will happen.  Which one is still to be determined.

It's hard to say.  24 some years after the Billings temple (which was hotly contested) the town and people seem to have embraced it.  I'm sure there are some people who don't like it (the people who don't like Latter-day Saints in general I'm guessing) but those people's feelings don't have anything to do with the existence of a temple in their town, so they aren't really relevant.

[bluebell]

The 'preserve our cody neighborhoods' group decided to appeal their loss and it looks like it's going to the Wyoming supreme court.  Interestingly, the church moved forward and began construction on the temple in October, though a finding on the appeal probably won't happen until sometime early next year.  

I'm not sure why they are building the site while the lawsuit is still in progress, other than that they must feel very good about their chances.

[Kenngo1969]

Oops!  Wrong thread!  

Edited November 28, 2024 by Kenngo1969

[bluebell]

The Wyoming supreme court heard arguments last week on the issue of the Cody Temple (which is already under construction and set to be open later this year).

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2025/02/11/lds-church-admits-cody-official-gave-bad-advice-that-led-to-approval-of-temple/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2K7CCSnZowO8YphrKBl89CWi50Wg-IhyVjyr7Dq9fUCPyJSsRBVNblPeQ_aem_vEZmrsWvM8oAUuaztwyN5Q

[Calm]

On 9/11/2023 at 4:10 PM, helix said:

It's not a controversy. It's only that way because the Salt Lake Tribune likes to manufacturer them.

The land is essentially sitting on an underground stream. The adjacent neighborhood is already pumping to divert groundwater so their basements don't flood. The temple property will need to divert groundwater just the same.

Update on the Heber Valley temple:

Quote

 

The Utah Supreme Court ruled today to suspend an injunction that prevented the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from constructing a temple.

Several years into a tense legal battle, Thursday’s ruling means that the Church will be able to start construction on the Heber Valley Temple, something that several plaintiffs intended to stop when they first filed a lawsuit against Wasatch County in 2023.

Background

In October 2021, then-Church President Russell M. Nelson announced that a temple would be coming to the Heber Valley Area. In 2022, the Church held a groundbreaking at the temple site, located on an 18-acre site near 1400 East Center Street in Heber City.

 

https://www.abc4.com/news/religion/heber-valley-temple-utah-supreme-court-ruling/

https://www.kpcw.org/wasatch-county/2026-02-05/utah-supreme-court-heber-temple-construction-can-proceed

Quote

 

Attorney Robert Mansfield, who represents the residents, told KPCW in an email he’s disappointed in the Supreme Court’s ruling.

However, he said it was important the court noted the church could take on additional risks or expenses if it built the temple, then lost the case on appeal.

Deputy Wasatch County attorney Jon Woodard also acknowledged that risk.

“As with any project under appeal, the church would be proceeding at its own risk and would be required to remediate the site if the approval were ultimately overturned,” he said.

Justice Paige Petersen, who wrote the opinion, said the residents failed to identify what irreparable harm the construction would cause.

She wrote the court was not convinced by arguments about privacy, noise and light pollution and traffic.

The Supreme Court also found arguments about environmental impact unconvincing, saying the residents failed to provide evidence of irreparable harm if construction is allowed to proceed.

The church, for its part, has promised to restore the site to its original condition if it loses the case. 

“Buildings get torn down all the time,” church attorney David Jordan told the Supreme Court in December. “Now, obviously, no one would like to do that, but that’s the church’s risk – and a [risk] that it’s willing to bear and go forward and construct during the pendency of the appeal.”

That promise from the church factored into the court’s ruling.

The court said it recognized that potentially undoing construction “may cause inconvenience” to the residents.

“But Petitioners have not explained how, if they prevail on appeal and the construction is halted, they will have been irreparably harmed in the interim,” it wrote.

Church spokesperson Sam Penrod said Thursday the church intends to restart utility and grading work on the site “right away.”

“Once completed, this temple will bless the lives of Latter-day Saints in the Heber Valley by providing a sacred house of worship closer to their homes,” he said in a statement.

The Heber Valley temple plans call for an 88,000-square-foot building, with a steeple reaching 210 feet into the sky. The site is on Center Street, just east of the Heber City limits.

 

 

Edited May 9 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

Here's a good synopsis of the decision of the Wyoming Supreme Court regarding the suit by Protect Our Cody Neighborhoods:

 

Quote

 

Wyoming Supreme Court Clarifies Finality & Voting Standards for Municipal Planning Decisions

• Date: Jun 18, 2025    

Wyoming Supreme Court Clarifies Finality & Voting Standards for Municipal Planning Decisions

Introduction

Case: Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods et al. v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints & City of Cody Planning, Zoning, and Adjustment Board (2025 WY 64).
Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming – opinion delivered 13 June 2025.
Key Parties:

• Appellants: Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods (POCN) – a group of homeowners opposing construction of a LDS temple in Cody, Wyoming.
• Appellee: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the “Church”).
• Appellee (non-participating): City of Cody Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board (the “Board”).

The controversy arose after the Church sought approval to construct a temple in a Rural Residential (RR) zone. It filed three parallel requests: (1) a “special exemption” from the 30-foot height cap, (2) a site-plan approval, and (3) a conditional use permit (CUP) because houses of worship are conditional uses in the RR zone.

This judgment resolves whether the district court properly dismissed POCN’s petitions for judicial review as untimely. Central to that determination were: (a) when the Board’s decisions became “final agency action,” and (b) the number of votes needed to approve a site plan under Cody Municipal Code § 9-2-3 as compared with Wyo. Stat. § 15-1-608(c).

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wyoming unanimously affirmed the district court’s dismissal of POCN’s challenges, holding:

1. The Board finally approved the Church’s site plan and CUP on 15 June 2023.
2. Because those approvals constituted final agency action, POCN’s petitions, filed more than 30 days later (21 and 24 August 2023), were untimely under W.R.A.P. 12.04(a).
3. Cody Code § 9-2-3 governs site-plan approval and requires only a majority of members present; therefore the 3-to-2 vote on 15 June sufficed even though it did not command four votes from the seven-member Board.
4. The Board lacked statutory or ordinance authority to revisit or modify its 15 June approvals at later meetings; its subsequent “reconsiderations” were nullities.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Dep’t of Revenue, 2007 WY 62 – establishes that a timely petition for review is “mandatory and jurisdictional.”
• Air Methods / Rocky Mountain Holdings, 2018 WY 128 – defines “final administrative order” as one leaving nothing further for the agency to do.
• Rosenberger v. City of Casper Bd. of Adjustment, 765 P.2d 367 (Wyo. 1988) – boards of adjustment have no inherent power to rehear or modify final decisions absent statutory authority.
• Ahearn v. Town of Wheatland, 2002 WY 12 – when state statute is silent, local ordinance controls if not inconsistent with state law.
• Ebzery v. City of Sheridan, 982 P.2d 1251 (Wyo. 1999) & Goodman v. Voss, 2011 WY 33 – minutes reflecting a vote can themselves constitute a reviewable final decision.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning proceeded in three logical steps:

1. Textual Interpretation of Cody Code § 9-2-3 vs. Wyo. Stat. § 15-1-608(c)
   “Section 15-1-608(c) does not apply to Cody Ord. § 9-2-3 because § 9-2-3 is not a zoning ordinance.”
   Title 9 (Building Regulations) is distinct from Title 10 (Zoning). Therefore, the state statute mandating four concurring votes for zoning matters did not override § 9-2-3’s plain requirement that the “affirmative vote of a majority… in attendance” suffices for site-plan approval.
2. Finality of Agency Action
   Once three of five members voted “aye” on 15 June, the site plan stood approved; the CUP motion adopted the staff report wholesale, which included the dispositive finding that the temple’s flat-roof height complied with the 30-foot limit, rendering any special-exemption request moot. Nothing further remained for the Board to decide; therefore the decisions were final.
3. Lack of Reconsideration Authority
   Neither Wyoming enabling statutes for boards of adjustment/planning commissions nor Cody’s ordinances empower the Board to sua sponte revisit approved site plans or CUPs, except for revocation under § 10-14-1(K) (breach of conditions or public-nuisance grounds) – neither of which applied. Hence all “re-tabling,” “re-considering,” or “amending” actions at subsequent meetings were ultra vires and did not reset the 30-day appeal clock.

3. Impact of the Judgment

This ruling carries significant practical and doctrinal consequences:

• Municipal Practice: Planning boards statewide must heed the exact voting standards embedded in the specific ordinance governing the item before them (site plan vs. variance vs. CUP). Misapplying state-level voting rules can inadvertently yield unappealable approvals.
• Finality Doctrine Strengthened: Parties opposing an agency decision must assume the clock starts the moment a motion passes and is memorialized in minutes – even if the board later re-opens discussion.
• Guardrails on Self-Reconsideration: The decision discourages boards from “second guessing” themselves without statutory authority, fostering predictability for applicants and neighbors alike.
• Litigation Strategy: Objectors must file protective petitions for review within 30 days of any board vote that could plausibly be final; awaiting issuance of a written permit or recording may forfeit judicial review.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Site Plan: A detailed drawing and narrative showing building placement, access, utilities, landscaping, lighting, etc., required prior to issuance of a building permit.
• Conditional Use Permit (CUP): Permission to conduct a land use that is “conditional” (neither prohibited nor expressly allowed) in the zone, subject to satisfaction of enumerated criteria and possible conditions.
• Final Agency Action: The moment an agency’s decision-making process is complete and nothing remains but to implement the decision – triggers appeal deadlines.
• Majority Present vs. Majority of the Board:
  • Majority Present – more than half of the members who actually attend the meeting (e.g., 3 of 5).
  • Majority of the Board – more than half of the board’s full complement, whether or not absent (e.g., 4 of 7).
• Ultra Vires: Latin for “beyond the powers”; any subsequent Board action lacking statutory authority is legally void.

Conclusion

The Wyoming Supreme Court’s decision in Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods crystallizes two pivotal rules:

1. For non-zoning matters governed by Cody Code § 9-2-3, a simple majority of members present approves a site plan; state statutes addressing zoning boards do not alter that calculus.
2. Once such approval (or a CUP) is voted and memorialized, the agency’s action is final; absent a specific ordinance authorizing rehearing, the board cannot revisit its decision, and any judicial challenge must be brought within 30 days.

These principles reinforce certainty in land-use regulation and underscore the critical importance of timely judicial review. Municipal boards, developers, and citizen groups alike must now navigate Wyoming’s planning process with sharper awareness of when – and how – rights to appeal mature and expire.

Case Details

Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods, an unincorporated association; Terry and Diana Skinner; Dan and Konnie Haman; Patrick and Lynn Pitet; Sheila and Doug Peterson; Becky Stern; Siri and Tom Blake; Carla Egelhoff; Peggy Rohrbach; Brandi and Ty Nelson; Sarah Mcclure; and Chuck and Celeste Radtke v. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, a Utah corporation sole and City of Cody Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board

Year: 2025

 

Court: Supreme Court of Wyoming

 

 

Source: https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/wyoming-supreme-court-clarifies-finality-&-voting-standards-for-municipal-planning-decisions/view, last accessed May 9, 2026.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Here's a good synopsis of the decision of the Wyoming Supreme Court regarding the suit by Protect Our Cody Neighborhoods:

 

 

Source: https://www.casemine.com/commentary/us/wyoming-supreme-court-clarifies-finality-&-voting-standards-for-municipal-planning-decisions/view, last accessed May 9, 2026.

People are still mad about it. The local paper did a whole article just interviewing the group’s attorney about how the WY Supreme Court got it wrong. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

People are still mad about it. The local paper did a whole article just interviewing the group’s attorney about how the WY Supreme Court got it wrong. 

Never say die!  Onward and upward!  They should appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court!  I'm sure the Court would take it, and would be more than eager to remedy this manifest miscarriage of justice!    

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Never say die!  Onward and upward!  They should appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court!  I'm sure the Court would take it, and would be more than eager to remedy this manifest miscarriage of justice!    

This group isn't the smartest.  About a year ago there was a city-wide power outage and someone from that group decided that it was because the city turned off the power so that the temple power grid could be hooked up.  When the city had to publish a disclaimer explaining what had happened and that it had nothing to do with the temple (which was under construction at the time), people started accusing the city of a cover-up.  The city that didn't want the temple with a mayor who openly fought against it.  It grew into such a big issue that a state paper headquartered hundreds of miles away actually did a story about it.

6 months ago a Catholic church in a different town had to get special permission to build on their own land to extend the entryway of their church and people went to city council to try to stop it.  When the city approved it, it got into the papers and the comments section was all about the corruption of the LDS church!  

These are not people you can reason with.