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

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 hours ago, JAHS said:

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.

I don't have an opinion on the first allegation, but the other three don't paint the Cody PZAB in a very flattering light.  

Governing bodies must be very careful about how and when they reconsider or modify decisions that have already been made.  Such decisions become part of the "bundle of rights" that the landowner possess, and as such, they rely on those rights to be able to confidently expend resources and enter into contracts.  Revoking, reconsidering, or modifying past decisions alters the rights that the landowner has, and therefore cannot be done in an arbitrary or capricious manner.  Besides being a (possible) violation of due process, it can chill the economic development climate of a community. 

It's not just their own rights that the Church is protecting in this lawsuit.  If they prevail, other landowners and developers will have some certainty that an arbitrary revocation of prior approvals will not endanger their own projects.  

[Thinking]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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

Yeah. All those rectangular building foundations whose diagonals are the same length and corner angles measure 90 degrees are built using a mathematical system that makes no sense. It's amazing they remain standing at all.

Now when you start talking about air travel...

[Duncan]

https://mybighornbasin.com/cody-planning-and-zoning-board-approve-site-plan-for-proposed-lds-temple-with-conditions/?fbclid=IwAR3YCIC64pKkGYXWlNYKSDguoDuxlDvE9uM6ndjVrilLdbjcBkWuQUCiZpw

 

it would seem there's been a development

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, Duncan said:

https://mybighornbasin.com/cody-planning-and-zoning-board-approve-site-plan-for-proposed-lds-temple-with-conditions/?fbclid=IwAR3YCIC64pKkGYXWlNYKSDguoDuxlDvE9uM6ndjVrilLdbjcBkWuQUCiZpw

 

it would seem there's been a development

Quote

The new conditions of lighting will allow the temple to be lit up to one hour before operation hours and up to one hour after. The lights around the parking lot and site lighting will also be switched to be motion activated during the designated times that the outside illumination of the temple must be off. There was no set time for operation hours, but a “rough estimate” for the proposed temple’s hours are 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., Tuesdays through Saturdays.

I wish this was SOP for all temples unless an area is already well lit and it doesn’t make a difference, though some directed lights (no up lighting) for security is likely a good idea.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Calm

[smac97]

https://trib.com/news/state-regional/lds-church-cody-temple/article_25b20920-3647-11ee-a955-a3f69bf98072.html

Quote

 

CODY — The controversy over the proposed Cody temple for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints became more polarized last week, as LDS representatives said they would not consider another location besides Skyline Drive.

“It was a gut punch” that they never considered it, “because that would fix all the dissent,” said Carla Egelhoff, a member of the Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods. The location “is the one thing that’s not OK about this building.”

LDS representatives also said potential litigation would be costly for the city and its residents, who would likely lose in the courts, and cited a federal law protecting religious rights.

“It was clearly a threat,” said Terry Skinner, a member of the Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods. “It’s a financial threat to the citizens and city of Cody.”

 

I don't see this as a "threat," but as a hard truth.  Litigation is expensive, and the city does have a likelihood of losing at trial.  The Church not considering another location is a judgment call, and one about which outsiders and lookyloos lack information.

Nevertheless, I am bummed that this is not getting amicably sorted out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 9, 2023 by smac97

[Calm]

Quote

Before the meeting adjourned, City Planner Todd Stowell took a moment to address the packed Cody Auditorium. “We need to remember we are neighbors,” said Stowell. “I still go back to the number one rule of the [Cody] Master Plan, that we need to be a friendly community, because that’s why we exist.”

I hope it works.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The Church not considering another location is a judgment call, and one about which outsiders and lookyloos lack information.

If the land was donated and they had to buy other property to replace it, that would be a substantial difference in cost.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

don't see this as a "threat," but as a hard truth.  Litigation is expensive, and the city does have a likelihood of losing at trial.  The Church not considering another location is a judgment call, and one about which outsiders and lookyloos lack information.

 

A lot would depend on the context and how it was said.  Was there a question asked them about the reaction of the city and they responded with this meaning it was unlikely the city would go forward or was it out of the blue and spoken while twirling their mustaches (or something appropriately similar) or something else…

Edited August 9, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

https://trib.com/news/state-regional/lds-church-cody-temple/article_25b20920-3647-11ee-a955-a3f69bf98072.html

I don't see this as a "threat," but as a hard truth.  Litigation is expensive, and the city does have a likelihood of losing at trial.  The Church not considering another location is a judgment call, and one about which outsiders and lookyloos lack information.

Nevertheless, I am bummed that this is not getting amicably sorted out.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the church is right not to back down just because people don't want a temple in their neighborhood.  The church has rights and it doesn't aways need to cave to the desires of everyone at the expense of those rights.  It sets a bad precedent.

But I'm not surprised that cody citizens are responding this way to the threat of litigation; it's exactly how many people believed they would respond.  Neither am I surprised that people would see those words as a threat because I think they are clearly meant to encourage the city not to fight the church on it because they won't like what happens if they do. 

Even if it's the truth, saying it is bad optics.  

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Neither am I surprised that people would see those words as a threat because I think they are clearly meant to encourage the city not to fight the church on it because they won't like what happens if they do. 

It may not be a threat, but it feels like heavy handed persuasion….which isn’t exactly good at making friends in my experience. 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Calm said:

It may not be a threat, but it feels like heavy handed persuasion….which isn’t exactly good at making friends in my experience. 

My first thought after reading that statement made me think how unfair, just because the church can afford to pay bucco bucks for lawyers compared to the city, it should win? Doesn't feel like the spirit, or how Christ would handle it. 

Edited August 9, 2023 by Tacenda

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

My first thought after reading that statement made me think how unfair, just because the church can afford to pay bucco bucks for lawyers compared to the city, it should win? Doesn't feel like the spirit, or how Christ would handle it. 

The church would win or lose based on the laws, not on how much money they have.  But having more money means that you can take more risks, and any lawsuit is a risk.  There's not much the church can do about that, because making itself poor so that it risks the same as poorer organizations would be pretty dumb.

But pointing out how much you can withstand risk compared to the person you suing, when trying to get your way, will never be a good look.  Their lawyers (is that who said it?) should have read the room better.  

[Tacenda]

I happen to read posts and see videos of the neighborhood this is happening at and how they do mention how it would change the whole area by having a lit up temple. Someone video'd how dark it is where they want the temple built. Lots of comments of unhappy residents. I hope the church finds a better spot to put it. 

The FB group is: Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

Update:

https://www.codyenterprise.com/article_b157d538-3acd-11ee-8d8d-778eb91ba993.html

 

This article gets into some of the nitty gritty zoning details I had been wondering about. It also does a decent job of describing some of the ambiguities that are mucking up the process.

Edited August 15, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Update:

https://www.codyenterprise.com/article_b157d538-3acd-11ee-8d8d-778eb91ba993.html

 

This article gets into some of the nitty gritty zoning details I had been wondering about. It also does a decent job of describing at least one of ambiguities that's mucking up the process.

Such a mess.  Sometimes small town boards really struggle with this kind of stuff.

[Calm]

If the shorter height does not interfere with the functioning of the temple, I hope the pragmatic side of our culture wins out and they drop the height to 85 feet.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the shorter height does not interfere with the functioning of the temple, I hope the pragmatic side of our culture wins out and they drop the height to 85 feet.

I agree, though it could be that the shorter height will mess up something since the building is a modular and everything is already on site if I understand correctly.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree, though it could be that the shorter height will mess up something since the building is a modular and everything is already on site if I understand correctly.

That explains the stubbornness then.  Perhaps in the future they will ensure permits are all in order prior to shipping. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

That explains the stubbornness then.  Perhaps in the future they will ensure permits are all in order prior to shipping. 

And maybe it's not a big deal to change the height either.  I have no idea how that modular design works.

[Kenngo1969]

On 8/3/2023 at 11:30 PM, Thinking said:

Yeah. All those rectangular building foundations whose diagonals are the same length and corner angles measure 90 degrees are built using a mathematical system that makes no sense. It's amazing they remain standing at all.

Now when you start talking about air travel...

Have you ever checked out the architectural work of Catalonian Spaniard Antoni Gaudi (Gow-DEE)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antoni_Gaudí

https://tinyurl.com/5a435h5m

[Smiley McGee]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

If the shorter height does not interfere with the functioning of the temple, I hope the pragmatic side of our culture wins out and they drop the height to 85 feet.

This situation reminds me of the construction of the Newport Beach temple. Church wanted a 120 ft steeple, city said no. Local members felt like European Jews during WW2. Church lowered the steeple 30 ft and everyone went their merry little way. Not that hard. 

[Stormin' Mormon]

22 minutes ago, Smiley McGee said:

This situation reminds me of the construction of the Newport Beach temple. Church wanted a 120 ft steeple, city said no. Local members felt like European Jews during WW2. Church lowered the steeple 30 ft and everyone went their merry little way. Not that hard. 

Which would be fine if the City of Cody would just clearly say "no." What's making this such a mess is the manner in which Cody city officials and boards are acting in ambiguous and sometimes arbitrary ways. Neither the City nor the Church has any clear and unambiguous idea of what the city is actually saying.

A 3-1 vote of the board to approve the site plan included a majority of board members present that night, but the chair say that approval didn't pass because it wasn't a majority of the Board as a whole. 

The Board approves some actions, then meets 12 days later to reconsider and revoke those actions. Which Board action is legally binding?

And now the whole mess that came about by not approving a condition on the height of the steeple. Does no condition on that issue mean that the height on the application is approved? Did the Board members understand what they were approving when they removed some conditions but not others?

It's a mess. And it's not a mess because the Church isn't accepting "no" for an answer. It's a mess because the City is saying "yes," "no," and "maybe" all at the same time.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Smiley McGee said:

Local members felt like European Jews during WW2.

Huh?  I am at a complete loss in trying to understand your comment given what European Jews faced was being dragged off to camps and immense suffering, such as separation from loved ones, starvation, abuse from authority, and even death.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Huh?  I am at a complete loss in trying to understand your comment.

I think it was sarcasm at what he considered the members' overreaction to being "persecuted" because of their religion.

[Tacenda]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

Huh?  I am at a complete loss in trying to understand your comment given what European Jews faced was being dragged off to camps and immense suffering, such as separation from loved ones, starvation, abuse from authority, and even death.

I think he's quoting what a city councilman (?) said either in person or an interview. I listened to a podcast recently and they discussed how insane that was for the guy to say.

Here's a c/p of one of the posts on the Cody Neighborhood FB page that is sad to think about. If the temple lights will do what it portrays:

 

Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

  · 

In 2016, 80% of the world was estimated to live under skyglow, a term used to describe the brightening of the night sky in areas where people live. The same year, it was reported that an estimated one-third of humanity could no longer view the Milky Way Galaxy. This excess of light at night is a form of pollution that can harm wildlife and plants. Studies have shown artificial light also deters pollinators from their nightly routine, resulting in a reduction of plant pollination.

You can reduce skyglow at home by:

- Keep light indoors: close blinds or curtains drawn at night to keep the light inside.

- Color matters: use warmer colored light bulbs and minimize blue-violet light.

- Use outdoor light where and when you need it: control your lighting through motion detectors, timers or dimmers.

- Keep light where you want it: properly shield all outdoor lights to eliminate light pollution drifting into the sky.

- Plant a moon garden for nighttime pollinators.

Visit our comments and click on each picture to learn more.

Edited August 16, 2023 by Tacenda