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

bluebell · July 25, 2023

On 7/21/2023 at 3:33 AM, colin said:

Sorry for all the comments, this is almost definitely my last one, but I just can't help but add this:

Cody does have a population of 9-10k and many areas are far from dark at night. The proposed location, however, is actually on the edge of town and (as you'll know since you're from Cody) on the way to Red Lake, a BLM/recreation area, on a road that's basically a dead end (unless you're prepared for some fairly serious 4x4 action). (And yes, if anyone is wondering, the proposed temple site in Cody is on a (two-lane) dead-end road; there's only one way in and out, all of which is on small residential streets until the nearest arterial road, which is at least a mile away. The nearest intersection with a through street of any size is almost a mile away. This is, from what I can tell, fairly unusual for temple sites, even of this comparatively small size.) There's a small subdivision just past the temple site that's being developed, but beyond that is all BLM land, so the subdivision doesn't and won't expand very far. Which is all to say that the area of town is actually one of the last places within the city limits that's easily accessible and dark. A person can drive out just past the subdivision turnoff, and within about a mile reach the end of the paved road, at which point they're in an area where very few man-made structures are visible even during the day, and where at night pretty much the only lights (currently) visible are a few towers atop nearby Cedar Mountain.

But wait—there's more! The specific area where the temple site is proposed (which is just before you pass the subdivision turnoff that's just before the end of the road) is even darker than you'd imagine. In fact, (for some unknown reason) there aren't even streetlights for a couple hundred yards along that section of road. It's so dark that, if you happen to live right there (and I can attest to this from personal experience) and you step outside the house at night, it takes a good 5 minutes before you can see a thing without aid of a flashlight (app). The closest street light in the direction of town is probably 30-40 yards away, not so close the light reaches you. In the other direction, toward where the temple entrance would be, it's profoundly dark. Astonishingly so considering you're still within city limits. The next street light on the other side of the temple site is around 200 yards away; if you're driving by, that's the last street light you'll pass under before the end of the road.

It's probably the last oasis of darkness within Cody's boundaries, at least the last one easily reachable by car and thus easily accessible for most folks. That's the place someone decided was perfect for the temple.

I’m in the big horns camping and have no service. But thanks for the added info. Definitely lots of different opinions that are all valid.

Calm · July 25, 2023

4 hours ago, bluebell said:

The land was donated by church members.

That explains it. Would be nice if an exchange with the city could be worked out. My guess is that is unlikely, but maybe politics are less convoluted and more practical in Cody.

Edited July 25, 2023 by Calm

smac97 · July 26, 2023

An update: Cody Planning Board Deeply Divided, Still Can't Decide Fate Of Mormon Temple

Quote

CODY — Those expecting a resolution to the ongoing controversy over a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints plan to build a temple in Cody didn’t get what they wanted Tuesday night.

The Cody Planning and Zoning Board repeatedly deadlocked and couldn’t accept or reject the temple’s site plan at a special meeting in front of about 100 people at the Cody Auditorium, even when stipulations were placed on a pair of options for the plan.

Votes taken to both reject and approve the site plan were met with split 3-3 votes.

The temple has divided this small northwest Wyoming community over its plans to build a 101-foot building — including a 77-foot steeple — in a residential area and illuminate the building.

Board member Scott Richard summarized the situation succinctly to Cowboy State Daily after the meeting.

“The board is still deeply divided,” he said.

Sounds like one member of the board was absent.

Quote

Some Progress?

The one item the board did approve Tuesday night was a conditional use permit (CUP) for the church.

The board had already approved a conditional use permit for the temple in its first meeting on the matter in June, then rescinded that approval at its next meeting.

On Tuesday, the board changed some of the “findings of fact” in the CUP, including most notably a determination that city code stipulates a building’s height in the rural residential zone the temple is planned for cannot exceed 30 feet tall.

The change in this finding reverses an earlier determination made by Cody City Planner Todd Stowell that the steeple would not count toward the building’s maximum height.

I am curious if this decision will be upheld. This "Staff Report" from the PZA Board, dated June 15, under the heading "Height Interpretation Notes" (p. 38), states:

Quote

a) The adopted building code is consistent with the proposed building height conclusion. Attached are comments from the Cody Building Official and Park County Fire Marshal that conclude that the steeple does not constitute a “story” under the building code, but is a “rooftop projection”, and that rooftop projections are independent of the building height limitations of the building code. The building code allows rooftop projections, including towers and steeples of any height, so long as they are constructed of and supported by noncombustible materials and otherwise meet standards for structural, wind and seismic design. Here are links to the code references cited in their attached comments: Chapter 5 Section 504 and Chapter 15 Section 1511.

The "code references" here are for the IBC - the "International Building Code," which is "a model building code developed by the International Code Council (ICC). It has been adopted for use as a base code standard by most jurisdictions in the United States."

Section 504.3 of the IBC specifically exempts "steeples" from height requirements:

See also this commentary on RLUIPA:

Quote

RLUIPA, passed by a unanimous Congress in 2000 and signed into law by President Clinton, was proposed and enacted by Congress in response to actions taken by local government to exclude houses of worship within communities. Churches traditionally located in residential areas and the model was the same throughout the United States: a high steeple, a large seating area, a choir loft, a meeting area and lots and lots of stain glass windows. Fast forward to 2008 and the traditional model of Church has disappeared. We now see Churches located in former basketball arenas, strip center malls, industrial parks and in the center of towns and villages where offices and industry once were located. Churches are becoming more accessible to their attendees and members than ever before.

Many communities have not embraced the new Church locations and have used zoning to exclude or limit the use of land available for religious use. This is based on two reasons. First, many communities are hostile to religious organizations as they are not required, by state law, to pay property taxes. Second, many communities remain unreceptive to any religious organization and do their best to discourage them. Zoning, the legal authority granted to local governments from a state through its constitution and enabling legislation that gives a community the ability to regulate the use of land within its boundaries, generally consists of a map showing how the different areas of a community are used, establish land uses permitted in each district and a series of specific standards governing lot size, building height, and required yard and setback provisions. They also set forth a series of procedures for administering and applying the zoning ordinance.

A nearly unanimous Congress passed RLUIPA to level the playing field allowing religious uses in other areas of communities when it enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) 42 USC 2000cc. This law, cosponsored by Senators Hatch and Kennedy, two political leaders at the opposite end of the political spectrum, was Congress’ response to the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), where the Court ruled that Congress, in enacting a predecessor religious land use law, exceeded its enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment by “contradict[ing] vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance.” City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 536.

And here:

Quote

Why did Congress feel that is was necessary to go to such lengths to adopt a statute that obviously seeks to direct the courts' interpretation of the First Amendment, specifically in the context of zoning and land use regulations? To answer that question, it is helpful to review the legislative record. It is replete with testimony and studies providing examples of local governments discriminating against churches in general, or against specific denominations. Actions cited in the Congressional record as justifications for this act include the following:

* Orthodox Jews in Hancock Park, California could not obtain an exemption from the residential zoning ordinance in order to use a private home as a synagogue, after a homeowner's association objected;

* A small Christian church was barred from meeting in storefronts in Rolling Hills Estates, California, in areas that had been zoned for commercial activity;

* A Mormon church in a Boston, Massachusetts suburb could not erect its steeple, which neighbors objected to as out of character for the neighborhood.

That a steeple dispute was one of the issues which precipitated the passage of RLUIPA might become noteworthy.

Quote

Board member Kim Borer used this federal law as a reason for not showing the church favoritism that she wouldn’t grant to others.

“I think equal is equal. It’s higher than what I would vote for for any type of building,” she said.

The issue here, I think, may come down to particulars and semantics. From the Staff Report:

Quote

The Rural Residential zone, in which the temple is proposed, has two height limits—maximum number of stories, which is two, and maximum building height, which is 30 feet above finished grade. Regarding the maximum number of stories, there is only one floor level in the proposed temple, and as stories are measured from a floor to the ceiling above a floor, the number of stories is one. At one story, the temple building complies with the limit on maximum number of stories.
...
Now we must analyze whether the temple complies with the “maximum building height” standard, which is 30 feet.

Building height is defined in the Cody zoning code as follows:

BUILDING HEIGHT: Building height refers to the vertical distance between the average finished grade and either: a) the highest point of the coping of a flat roof; b) the deck line of a mansard roof; or c) the height of a point midway between the eaves of the main roof and the highest ridge line of a gable, hip or gambrel style roof. For structures without a roof, building/structure height is the vertical distance from the average finished grade to the highest point of the structure, except those projections otherwise exempted or specified in this title.

The following is how I interpret the literal language of that definition.

First, notice that building height is not necessarily the highest point of a building. For example, on sloped roofs building height is measured only to the midpoint between the eave and ridge of the main roof. More than one home in the immediate proximity of the proposed temple can be used to illustrate the point. However, some of the materials that have been circulated relating to the temple project have not taken this into account—likely unintentionally. Correct information is necessary for a proper analysis.
...
The cupola is technically a component of the steeple, but in the shape of a hip style roof, which may at first suggest that building height should consider the cupola. However, the cupola does not form the “main roof” of the building. Its size is only a small fraction of the flat roof below. As such, part “c” of the building height definition—shown in context below, is not applicable, due to the cupola not being the main roof.

Quote

BUILDING HEIGHT: Building height refers to the vertical distance between the average finished grade and either: a) the highest point of the coping of a flat roof; b) the deck line of a mansard roof; or c) the height of a point midway between the eaves of the main roof and the highest ridge line of a gable, hip or gambrel style roof…

The conclusion is that the official building height of the proposed Cody Wyoming temple will be approximately 25-26 feet—the distance from average finished grade to the highest point of coping of the parapet wall of the flat roof, which height complies with the maximum 30-foot building height limit of the Rural Residential zone in which the temple is proposed.

In other words, "height" is a fairly nuanced term, and board member Kim Borer doesn't seem to appreciate that. The Staff Reports cites to multiple homes in the area which have roofs that exceed 30 feet, but which are compliant with the city code.

Quote

Last week, the church filed a petition in Park County District Court asking the court to rule on a particular vote the board earlier took on the temple. This filing was never mentioned during Tuesday’s meeting.

Although the temple hasn’t been rejected by the board, a lack of concrete progress in approving it means the church is no closer to achieving its goal.

“I don’t feel it’s incumbent on this board to keep coming up with ideas to pass on that,” said board member Josh White. “We rule on things that are presented to us.”

Thanks,

-Smac

Calm · July 26, 2023

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

. Stowell said before the meeting he had been informed the church felt it didn’t need an exemption to have the temple height approved.

That’s too bad, I thought it meant when I first read it that they had decided not to exceed it, but that they still wanted to build on the site.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Calm

smac97 · July 26, 2023

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

That’s too bad, I thought it meant when I first read it that they had decided not to exceed it, but that they still wanted to build on the site.

I can sort of understand the Church's position on this. It has previously encountered pretty stiff resistance to temples, sometimes including a mix of motives of varying degrees of legitimacy. I think the Church wants to be on equal footing with everyone else, which can at times require a fairly stringent reading and interpretation of zoning laws.

Again, "height" is, in legal parlance, a "term of art," that is:

Quote

A word or phrase that has a special meaning in a particular context. "Legal terms of art" denote "words or expressions that have through usage by legal professionals acquired a distinct legal meaning".

It will not do for members of the board to take a folksy, home-spun approach when applying principles of law that are based on nuanced terms of art (such as, in this instance, "height").

Moreover, I think the Church wants to be a good neighbor, but it also does not want to knuckle under every time someone disagrees with this or that aspect of a temple. The Church sometimes accommodates these concerns, and sometimes does not. I think that is a wise approach.

Thanks,

-Smac

Kenngo1969 · July 26, 2023

Quote

[From the RLUIPA commentary @smac97 quoted] ...

* A Mormon church in a Boston, Massachusetts suburb could not erect its steeple, which neighbors objected to as out of character for the neighborhood.

Quote

That a steeple dispute was one of the issues which precipitated the passage of RLUIPA might become noteworthy.

@smac97 probably knows this already, as some others here might, as well, but I do think that it's important to emphasize the steeple height dispute wasn't related, as the article indicates, to the steeple height of a regular, every-day, garden-variety church building of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Rather, it was related to the steeple height of the Boston Massachusetts Temple.

From the entry at ChurchofJesusChristTemples.org regarding the Boston Massachusetts Temple:

Quote

Not long after construction of the Boston Massachusetts Temple began, a few neighbors became alarmed by its size and filed suit with the intention to have the temple torn down. The plaintiffs argued that the state's Dover Amendment, which exempts religious buildings from local zoning, violated the separation of Church and State. The federal judge disagreed and ruled in favor of the Church.

Eventually, the Church of Jesus Christ prevailed in the dispute, and the steeple was added later. Again quoting from the foregoing source's entry on the Temple:

Quote

The Boston Massachusetts Temple was dedicated without a steeple due to a lawsuit contesting the proposed height of the steeple. The Church eventually won the case on appeal, and the 139-foot steeple was added about a year after the dedication.

I'm unsure how similar the disputes regarding the heights of each respective building are, or whether any litigation (and consequent Court opinions) resulted from the dispute in Boston. I rather doubt that any Wyoming judge would feel bound by a Massachusetts precedent. I wonder, though, if such a judge might find such a precedent persuasive? I rather think that, indeed, a Wyoming judge might. I can't imagine, if (Heaven forbid) the Wyoming dispute were to result in litigation, why (an) attorney(s) representing the Church of Jesus Christ wouldn't at least mention the Massachusetts dispute, and its outcome.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Kenngo1969

halconero · July 27, 2023

Confirms my priors that Euclidean zoning is mostly garbage.

Kenngo1969 · July 28, 2023

On 7/26/2023 at 9:24 PM, halconero said:

Confirms my priors that Euclidean zoning is mostly garbage.

I dunno. :unknw: :huh: Certainly, I can understand, from a certain vantage point and to a certain extent (though, like most anything else, perhaps it can be taken to extremes), the wisdom of clustering specific uses together.

Thinking · July 28, 2023

On 7/26/2023 at 9:44 AM, smac97 said:

BUILDING HEIGHT: Building height refers to the vertical distance between the average finished grade and either: a) the highest point of the coping of a flat roof; b) the deck line of a mansard roof; or c) the height of a point midway between the eaves of the main roof and the highest ridge line of a gable, hip or gambrel style roof…

I'm confident that when this code was written, a 77 foot steeple on the top of a roof was not even thought of as something that might occur. Anybody who has ever had to create a set of rules knows how difficult it is to include everything. I constantly make changes to my classroom rules to cover things I hadn't considered. In the 1990s there was no rule about smart watches. Now I have a rule that forbids the wearing of a smart watch during a test. That was a rule that I put in during the school year after I caught a student looking up the answer to a problem during a test. It looks to me like the Church is trying to win this case using the letter of the law, and it might. It might also lose the spirit of the battle.

smac97 · July 28, 2023

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Quote

BUILDING HEIGHT: Building height refers to the vertical distance between the average finished grade and either: a) the highest point of the coping of a flat roof; b) the deck line of a mansard roof; or c) the height of a point midway between the eaves of the main roof and the highest ridge line of a gable, hip or gambrel style roof…

I'm confident that when this code was written, a 77 foot steeple on the top of a roof was not even thought of as something that might occur.

Well, I'm not sure that's the case, for a few reasons:

First, it seems to be pretty common practice to not include steeples, belfries, etc. in building height restrictions (see, e.g., the Cheyenne code and Section 504.3 of the IBC).

Second, steeples (and other non-habitable architectural features like spires, belfries, etc.) taller than 30 feet are not an innovation. They've been around for a very long time (again, they are expressly addressed in the IBC). If anything, I think it would be unreasonable to not anticipate that "something {like that} might occur."

Third, the Staff Report notes: "{B}uilding height is not necessarily the highest point of a building. For example, on sloped roofs building height is measured only to the midpoint between the eave and ridge of the main roof. More than one home in the immediate proximity of the proposed temple can be used to illustrate the point." In other words, there are homes in the area which apparently have "rooftop projections" higher than 30 feet, and these projections were apparently approved by Cody.

Fourth, I don't think it will do to argue that private residences can have "rooftop projections" which exceed 30 feet, but a church cannot. That gets into Equal Protection territory (as well as RLUIPA).

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

Anybody who has ever had to create a set of rules knows how difficult it is to include everything.

Zoning codes are used in pretty much every town, even small ones like Cody. There are nearly 20,000 incorporated cities/towns in the United States, the vast majority of them with a population of under 10,000 (again, like Cody). I'm reasonably confident Cody did not want to pay a substantial amount for a law firm to draft a bespoke city code from the ground up. Instead, most or all of the Cody Municipal Code is "boilerplate" language used in thousands of other places, with a bit of tinkering here and there.

Using zoning ordinances as a cover for NIMBY considerations to crowd out religious buildings is nothing new, hence the passage of RLUIPA.

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I constantly make changes to my classroom rules to cover things I hadn't considered. In the 1990s there was no rule about smart watches. Now I have a rule that forbids the wearing of a smart watch during a test. That was a rule that I put in during the school year after I caught a student looking up the answer to a problem during a test.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that steeples, belfries, spires, cupolas, etc. are new architectural features? That nobody has encountered them before, so they could not possibly have been accounted for in zoning ordinances in 2023?

31 minutes ago, Thinking said:

It looks to me like the Church is trying to win this case using the letter of the law, and it might. It might also lose the spirit of the battle.

With respect, I disagree.

First, I don't know what "spirit of the battle" means.

Second, reasonable minds can disagree about such things. In such disputes, the law can and should step in to provide a level and dispassionate set of rules and guidelines.

Third, "rooftop projections" appear to be part of the "letter of the law." Again, there are homes in the area with roof projections which exceed 30 feet.

Thanks,

-Smac

bluebell · July 28, 2023

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

It looks to me like the Church is trying to win this case using the letter of the law, and it might. It might also lose the spirit of the battle.

My parents, who are as active and supportive of the church as they come, are worrying about the same. Given the community, this lawsuit could easily get the church what it wants while creating hard feelings and opposition where none existed before.

halconero · July 28, 2023

10 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I dunno. Certainly, I can understand, from a certain vantage point and to a certain extent (though, like most anything else, perhaps it can be taken to extremes), the wisdom of clustering specific uses together.

Euclidean zoning ≠ general land use laws. It is a specific type of zoning common to the US and Canada.

I’m fine with land use laws that specify keeping heavy industrial and residential areas apart - those types of laws have been around since before the advent of Euclidean zoning, when tanneries used to sit outside city walls.

By contrast, Euclidean zoning is mostly like keeping only one type of house (like a single detached) in a neighbourhood and prohibiting/limiting any other type, from townhouses to small businesses.

Having lived in both types, neighbourhoods with tiny shops and some mixed housing types are much mote enjoyable.

Thinking · July 31, 2023

On 7/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, smac97 said:

Well, I'm not sure that's the case, for a few reasons:

First, it seems to be pretty common practice to not include steeples, belfries, etc. in building height restrictions (see, e.g., the Cheyenne code and Section 504.3 of the IBC).

Cody is not Cheyenne. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cody is not bound by what is in Cheyenne's code.

Sometimes when I tell a student they can't do something they will say something like, "But Teacher X lets us do that."

On 7/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, smac97 said:

Second, steeples (and other non-habitable architectural features like spires, belfries, etc.) taller than 30 feet are not an innovation. They've been around for a very long time (again, they are expressly addressed in the IBC). If anything, I think it would be unreasonable to not anticipate that "something {like that} might occur."

We are talking about a residential neighborhood. The codes are different for non-residential neighborhoods.

On 7/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, smac97 said:

Third, the Staff Report notes: "{B}uilding height is not necessarily the highest point of a building. For example, on sloped roofs building height is measured only to the midpoint between the eave and ridge of the main roof. More than one home in the immediate proximity of the proposed temple can be used to illustrate the point." In other words, there are homes in the area which apparently have "rooftop projections" higher than 30 feet, and these projections were apparently approved by Cody.

Roofs are typically pitched at 4:12 or 6:12. You might see a pitch at 12:12, but that's pretty steep. Let's take the 12:12 pitch. if the house was 40 feet wide, the pitch would go 20 feet up from the eave to the ridge, then 20 feet back down to the other eave. The midpoint of that height is 10 feet, meaning the eave would be at a maximum height of 20 feet. 20 feet + 10 feet = 30 feet. The ridge would go up another 10 feet, making the ridge 40 feet above the ground.

On 7/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, smac97 said:

Fourth, I don't think it will do to argue that private residences can have "rooftop projections" which exceed 30 feet, but a church cannot. That gets into Equal Protection territory (as well as RLUIPA).

Like I wrote earlier, I'm confident that when the codes were written, a rooftop projection that tall in a residential neighborhood wasn't considered.

On 7/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, smac97 said:

I don't know what "spirit of the battle" means.

I think you do, but perhaps bluebell can explain it better.

On 7/28/2023 at 2:40 PM, bluebell said:

My parents, who are as active and supportive of the church as they come, are worrying about the same. Given the community, this lawsuit could easily get the church what it wants while creating hard feelings and opposition where none existed before.

Tacenda · July 31, 2023

On 7/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, smac97 said:

Well, I'm not sure that's the case, for a few reasons:

First, it seems to be pretty common practice to not include steeples, belfries, etc. in building height restrictions (see, e.g., the Cheyenne code and Section 504.3 of the IBC).

Second, steeples (and other non-habitable architectural features like spires, belfries, etc.) taller than 30 feet are not an innovation. They've been around for a very long time (again, they are expressly addressed in the IBC). If anything, I think it would be unreasonable to not anticipate that "something {like that} might occur."

Third, the Staff Report notes: "{B}uilding height is not necessarily the highest point of a building. For example, on sloped roofs building height is measured only to the midpoint between the eave and ridge of the main roof. More than one home in the immediate proximity of the proposed temple can be used to illustrate the point." In other words, there are homes in the area which apparently have "rooftop projections" higher than 30 feet, and these projections were apparently approved by Cody.

Fourth, I don't think it will do to argue that private residences can have "rooftop projections" which exceed 30 feet, but a church cannot. That gets into Equal Protection territory (as well as RLUIPA).

Zoning codes are used in pretty much every town, even small ones like Cody. There are nearly 20,000 incorporated cities/towns in the United States, the vast majority of them with a population of under 10,000 (again, like Cody). I'm reasonably confident Cody did not want to pay a substantial amount for a law firm to draft a bespoke city code from the ground up. Instead, most or all of the Cody Municipal Code is "boilerplate" language used in thousands of other places, with a bit of tinkering here and there.

Using zoning ordinances as a cover for NIMBY considerations to crowd out religious buildings is nothing new, hence the passage of RLUIPA.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point. Are you saying that steeples, belfries, spires, cupolas, etc. are new architectural features? That nobody has encountered them before, so they could not possibly have been accounted for in zoning ordinances in 2023?

With respect, I disagree.

First, I don't know what "spirit of the battle" means.

Second, reasonable minds can disagree about such things. In such disputes, the law can and should step in to provide a level and dispassionate set of rules and guidelines.

Third, "rooftop projections" appear to be part of the "letter of the law." Again, there are homes in the area with roof projections which exceed 30 feet.

Thanks,

-Smac

I knew what he mean't by spirit of the battle, surprised you don't Smac. Just think spirit of the law.

Stormin' Mormon · July 31, 2023

6 hours ago, Thinking said:

We are talking about a residential neighborhood. The codes are different for non-residential neighborhoods.

Like I wrote earlier, I'm confident that when the codes were written, a rooftop projection that tall in a residential neighborhood wasn't considered.

A residential zone does not mean that only residential uses are allowed. In the Cody code, church building are allowed by right (that is, no permit or review is required) in R-2, R-2MH, R-3, and R-4 zones. Even in the lower density RR and R-1 zones, church buildings are allowed through a conditional use permit. Church buildings in residential areas (which very commonly have steeples) were most definitely considered in the land use code. I haven't been following this thing closely enough to know what the current zoning is for the proposed temple site. Anyone know?

As a point of comparison, radio antennas are also allowed in residential areas. If they do not exceed the height limit of the particular residential zone they are located in, they are deemed an accessory use and allowed. Otherwise, an antenna can rise up to 50 feet past the building height limit, but such would require a conditional use permit.

And yes, these are taken from the land use codes for Cody, WY:

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/codywy/latest/cody_wy/0-0-0-3813

https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/codywy/latest/cody_wy/0-0-0-3827

Long story short, these codes do consider a variety of scenarios in which residential areas would have projections of one sort or another that rise above the maximum building height.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

rodheadlee · July 31, 2023

13 hours ago, Thinking said:

Cody is not Cheyenne. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Cody is not bound by what is in Cheyenne's code.

Sometimes when I tell a student they can't do something they will say something like, "But Teacher X lets us do that."

We are talking about a residential neighborhood. The codes are different for non-residential neighborhoods.

Roofs are typically pitched at 4:12 or 6:12. You might see a pitch at 12:12, but that's pretty steep. Let's take the 12:12 pitch. if the house was 40 feet wide, the pitch would go 20 feet up from the eave to the ridge, then 20 feet back down to the other eave. The midpoint of that height is 10 feet, meaning the eave would be at a maximum height of 20 feet. 20 feet + 10 feet = 30 feet. The ridge would go up another 10 feet, making the ridge 40 feet above the ground.

Like I wrote earlier, I'm confident that when the codes were written, a rooftop projection that tall in a residential neighborhood wasn't considered.

I think you do, but perhaps bluebell can explain it better.

Snow loads are typically 8:12 to 12:12

They had problems in the Sierras this winter with the low pitched roofs.

bluebell · July 31, 2023

18 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Snow loads are typically 8:12 to 12:12

They had problems in the Sierras this winter with the low pitched roofs.

Good reminder.

Just for reference and not because I think it really matters in regards to the temple, Cody doesn't get much snowfall, despite only being 50 miles from Yellowstone. Their average is around 45 inches per year I think, with an average of only 20-something days where there is an inch or more on the ground (and an average of 300 days of sunshine). Roof pitches there probably don't end up where they do because of a worry of snow loads. It would be aesthetic choices more than anything else I would guess.

Their winters are more wind and frigid temps than precipitation loads. 4 inches in one storm would be unique for the area, but with the wind you'd be dealing with a blizzard and snow on the roof wouldn't really be much of a concern for most, even with that unlikely event).

It's next to the mountains but still solidly desert/badland terrain and weather.

rodheadlee · July 31, 2023

Yeah, it would serve them right if they just didn't build the temple and built some apartments instead

bluebell · July 31, 2023

5 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

Yeah, it would serve them right if they just didn't build the temple and built some apartments instead

It's kind of sad because the people who donated the land for the temple have donated millions of dollars to the city of Cody. Including the land that their hospital sits on if I understand correctly.

The Nehor · July 31, 2023

On 7/26/2023 at 10:24 PM, halconero said:

Confirms my priors that Euclidean zoning is mostly garbage.

And don’t even get me started on the joke that is Euclidean geometry.

MiserereNobis · August 1, 2023

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

And don’t even get me started on the joke that is Euclidean geometry.

Indeed. The physical world doesn’t conform to Euclidean geometry — it’s another one of those “looks correct at our scale but is ultimately wrong.”

JAHS · August 3, 2023

Yet another lawsuit filed by the Church:

LDS CHURCH FILES A SECOND LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY OF CODY

In this motion, the Church is requesting judicial review of the Planning, Zoning and Adjusting Board’s June 15 meeting and the June 27 meeting.

The items the LDS Church would like reviewed are as follows:

Whether the proposed Temple complies with applicable zoning ordinances pertaining to maximum building height and maximum number of stories.
Whether the Board had power and authority on June 27, 2023 to reconsider the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and findings that had previously been approved by the Board on June 15, 2023.
Whether the Board had power and authority on June 27, 2023 to modify
and add a condition to the findings it had made with respect to the CUP during the special meeting held on June 15, 2023.
Whether the Board had power and authority on June 27, 2023 to reconsider and table the Site Plan, which had previously been approved on June 15, 2023.
According to the document submitted by Hoopes, the Church is pursuing Civil Action against the Board claiming that “the Board was in error” with the above mentioned items.

Thinking · August 3, 2023

On 7/31/2023 at 8:34 PM, MiserereNobis said:

On 7/31/2023 at 5:24 PM, The Nehor said:

And don’t even get me started on the joke that is Euclidean geometry.

Indeed. The physical world doesn’t conform to Euclidean geometry — it’s another one of those “looks correct at our scale but is ultimately wrong.”

There are many little pieces of the world that are close enough to being flat that Euclidean geometry is useful in those situations.

The Nehor · August 3, 2023

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

There are many little pieces of the world that are close enough to being flat that Euclidean geometry is useful in those situations.

Or is that what Big Euclidean Geometry wants us to think?

JustAnAustralian · August 3, 2023

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Or is that what Big Euclidean Geometry wants us to think?

Let's go big. So big that we can swap to spherical geometry and have more than 180° in a triangle.

Name	Term Began	Term Ends
Carson Rowley (Chairman)	January 2022	December 2024
Scott Richard (Vice Chairman)	January 2021	December 2023
Andy Quick (Council liaison)	January 2021	December 2023
Kim Borer	May 2023	December 2023
Ian Morrison	January 2022	December 2024
Matt Moss	January 2023	December 2025
C. Dan Schein	January 2023	December 2025
Josh White	January 2022	December 2024

Sign In

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

Recommended Posts

bluebell

Calm

smac97

Members

Current Members and Terms

Calm

smac97

Kenngo1969

halconero

Kenngo1969

Thinking

smac97

bluebell

halconero

Thinking

Tacenda

Stormin' Mormon

rodheadlee

bluebell

rodheadlee

bluebell

The Nehor

MiserereNobis

JAHS

Thinking

The Nehor

JustAnAustralian

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in

Recently Browsing 0 members

Activity

Browse