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

[helix]

On 9/10/2023 at 10:14 AM, Tacenda said:

Another temple having controversy:

https://www.kpcw.org/wasatch-county/2023-09-07/lds-temple-may-need-to-dewater-hundreds-of-thousands-of-gallons-of-groundwater-daily

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.

[Thinking]

Years ago I went on a tour of the conference center. While on the roof, the guide explained that gardens were planted so that the residents above the roof would have a pleasant view of the roof and not just typical "roof stuff." If you haven't been on a tour and seen the roof, go. It's impressive.

Quote

On the north and east sides of the building, however, nearby residents see terraces with planted trees and flowers. Apartments and homes uphill from the building overlook four acres of roof gardens that help the Conference Center blend into the landscape. The Conference Center: This New and Wonderful Hall

Emphasis mine.

It seems that in the case of the conference center, the Church tried very hard to be good neighbors.

[rodheadlee]

On 8/24/2023 at 10:18 AM, smac97 said:

Oi: Those against the LDS Temple sue the City of Cody

I will be interested to see how this pans out (though I'm personally bummed that things are turning out this way).

I suspect this lawsuit will not be successful.  From what I've read of the city code, the steeple is a "roof projection."  It's not habitable space, and such projections are frequently allowed to exceed the normative height limitations (apparently several houses near the temple site have roofs that also have projections which exceed the height restriction).

NIMBYism is not a very good legal argument, particularly when it comes to religious edifices.

Thanks,

-Smac

This kind of stuff is why construction costs are so high. Any body and his brother can stop construction on anything. They can get permits yanked after millions have been spent on a project. It really iritates me, it's a waste of financial resources. A good example is the twin tunnels or the pipeline Biden pulled the permit on.

[smac97]

An update: Is this Wyoming LDS temple now a go? Cody issues building permit after church threatens a second lawsuit.

Quote

Although there remain unresolved lawsuits over the construction of a Latter-day Saint temple in Cody, the Wyoming city has issued a building permit for the structure after the Utah-based church threatened to file another legal action.

The city’s planning and zoning board approved a site plan for the temple and then later rescinded its approval in July, prompting attorneys for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to sue in a Wyoming district court, arguing that the panel violated its own rules.

The board subsequently approved the site plan again, with some restrictions.

In August, a grassroots group opposed to the construction plan of the temple went to court to try to block it. Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods filed the petition in district court as a “last line of defense against an LDS corporation that has threatened and intimidated our community” by going to court.

Cody Mayor Matt Hall, meanwhile, ordered the city’s Community Development Department to withhold a building permit for the temple — a demand he has now lifted because, he said, the church threatened to file a federal suit.

Although the city “dedicated its efforts toward easing tensions and fostering collaboration among these groups to seek a resolution,” he said in a statement, “… the LDS Church representatives from Salt Lake City expressed that any further delay in the permit issuance would result in construction setbacks and significant financial losses, necessitating them to take legal action in federal court to recover damages and legal expenses.”

The church did not immediately reply Monday to a request for comment. The faith’s federal lawsuit would have been separate from the ongoing legal actions in Wyoming’s state court.

It remains unclear when or if the construction of the temple will take place. The mayor is stepping back and leaving that in the hands of the courts.

“We believe it is prudent,” Hall said in the statement, “to allow the district court to decide the future of this project through the appeals that have been filed.”

He said the city has no intention of getting in the middle of the legal battle between the church and the neighborhood group that opposes the temple plan.

“Cody has always been committed to fiscal responsibility and safeguarding the interests of our residents,” he said. “Engaging in a protracted legal battle does not align with our values, and we have a responsibility to be prudent stewards of taxpayer dollars.”

In his statement, Hall acknowledged he did not have the authority to stop the building permit from being issued because, according to city code, the City Council “does not have the authority to overturn decisions by the planning and zoning board to approve a conditional use permit or site plan.”

In early August, the Cody planning, zoning and adjustment board OK’d plans for the nearly 10,000-square-foot temple on a 4.69-acre site in a Cody neighborhood, at the same time imposing restrictions on how bright the outdoor lighting on the structure and in the parking lot could be, and what hours the lights could be shining.

The other major point of contention is the height of the temple’s steeple. Zoning rules for the area where the temple would be built restrict structures to no more than 30 feet in height. The building itself would be 25 feet to 26 feet tall, but the steeple would soar to 101 feet, according to the original plans. At one point, the church proposed shortening that to 85 feet, but the neighborhood group did not find that acceptable.

The mayor did offer to act as a go-between between the church and the neighborhood group: “Cody remains open to facilitating discussions between both parties to reach a solution that respects the rights of all involved.”

I think this was a sensible step for the mayor to take, but substantively and as a matter of law.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JAHS]

This article says it is a go.

Cody issues building permit for proposed LDS temple

"The city of Cody has issued a building permit to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a proposed temple. 

The decision follows a summer-long fight between residents of Cody and the church. Those against the building of the temple say that they are not against a temple itself, but its planned location within a rural residential zone, the only house of worship in the city to be built in such a zone. "

[Malc]

4 hours ago, JAHS said:

This article says it is a go.

Cody issues building permit for proposed LDS temple

"The city of Cody has issued a building permit to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for a proposed temple. 

The decision follows a summer-long fight between residents of Cody and the church. Those against the building of the temple say that they are not against a temple itself, but its planned location within a rural residential zone, the only house of worship in the city to be built in such a zone. "

"... LDS Church representatives from Salt Lake City expressed that any further delay in the permit issuance would result in construction setbacks and significant financial losses, necessitating them to take legal action in federal court to recover damages and legal expenses. This federal lawsuit would be separate from the ongoing appeals in District Court."

Exactly what a small town needs - threats of further lawsuits from an organization with pockets that are billions of dollars deep - to make it back off.

No doubt the church has also made a lot of friends, and garnered a great amount of goodwill in the process. [/sarcasm]

[Stormin' Mormon]

32 minutes ago, Malc said:

"... LDS Church representatives from Salt Lake City expressed that any further delay in the permit issuance would result in construction setbacks and significant financial losses, necessitating them to take legal action in federal court to recover damages and legal expenses. This federal lawsuit would be separate from the ongoing appeals in District Court."

Exactly what a small town needs - threats of further lawsuits from an organization with pockets that are billions of dollars deep - to make it back off.

No doubt the church has also made a lot of friends, and garnered a great amount of goodwill in the process. [/sarcasm]

What a small town doesn't need is a development process that is unevenly and arbitrarily applied. That's death for economic development, which is death for a small town. So it's not really a bad thing for the community as a whole when a developer, any developer, calls the Town on their shenanigans.

Edited to add: as a reminder, this lawsuit wasn't threatened because the Church didn't get its way, but because the Church engaged in the process, got the required approvals, and then had those approvals rescinded in a way that did not follow the established process. 

As we like to teach our kids: follow the process, follow the process, follow the process, it shows the way!

Edited September 19, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[Malc]

12 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

What a small town doesn't need is a development process that is unevenly and arbitrarily applied. That's death for economic development, which is death for a small town. So it's not really a bad thing for the community as a whole when a developer, any developer, calls the Town on their shenanigans.

Perhaps that should be pointed out to the town. It would likely convert any ill feelings into feelings of gratitude.

[bluebell]

On 9/18/2023 at 10:01 PM, Malc said:

Perhaps that should be pointed out to the town. It would likely convert any ill feelings into feelings of gratitude.

If the city did something illegal, then it really doesn't matter if some citizens have ill-will after being called on it.  The church shouldn't just accept their rights being trampled on because they have more money than the guy doing the trampling. 

And I say that as someone who used to live there, who's parents are still in the area, and who has very fond feelings for the place.

[Malc]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the city did something illegal, then it really doesn't matter if some citizens have ill-will after being called on it.  The church shouldn't just accept their rights being trampled on because they have more money than the guy doing the trampling. 

And I say that as someone who used to live there, who's parents are still in the area, and who has very fond feelings for the place.

Agreed, bluebell.

All I'm really saying is that in cases like this, it's likely that feelings will take precedence in the minds of many over the legalities. Sometimes it's better to be kind than to be right - or to assert your rights.

I saw it suggested somewhere (please, no CFR, as I'll almost certainly never be able to find it) that the council and its committees may not be the best at what they do, and should be expected to make mistakes. If that is the case, it may not be unreasonable for them to hope for a bit of leeway to sort themselves out. As we saw, there even seemed to be some confusion in people's minds over who had the final say, and what constituted a majority in a decision-making process.

The idea that a multi-billion organization threatening them with lawsuits might be a good thing strikes me as a bit off.

I don't claim that it is "right" for people to feel beaten down in these circumstances, but I expect that the ill feelings will long outlast the building of the structure, and that its existence will be a constant reminder of how the big rich guys threw their weight around and got their way.

Personal and partially relevant experience: a couple of years after it happened, I'm still upset about having been scammed out of several thousand dollars by a contractor. What makes it really hurt, though, is that I could not, and still cannot, afford to go after him. So in spite of feeling that I am right, I have to swallow the loss because the cost of pursuing him, and the low likelihood of recovering anything, make it a losing proposition.

Some Cody folks may feel that the only thing that prevented them from pursuing their "righteous" objections is the fact that the church, right or wrong, could afford to sue them into bankruptcy. It's a technique that is successful for businesses with deep pockets.

Once again, people may be more inclined to feel that they are in the right, than admit that they may be wrong.

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, Malc said:

Agreed, bluebell.

All I'm really saying is that in cases like this, it's likely that feelings will take precedence in the minds of many over the legalities. Sometimes it's better to be kind than to be right - or to assert your rights.

I saw it suggested somewhere (please, no CFR, as I'll almost certainly never be able to find it) that the council and its committees may not be the best at what they do, and should be expected to make mistakes. If that is the case, it may not be unreasonable for them to hope for a bit of leeway to sort themselves out. As we saw, there even seemed to be some confusion in people's minds over who had the final say, and what constituted a majority in a decision-making process.

The idea that a multi-billion organization threatening them with lawsuits might be a good thing strikes me as a bit off.

I don't claim that it is "right" for people to feel beaten down in these circumstances, but I expect that the ill feelings will long outlast the building of the structure, and that its existence will be a constant reminder of how the big rich guys threw their weight around and got their way.

Personal and partially relevant experience: a couple of years after it happened, I'm still upset about having been scammed out of several thousand dollars by a contractor. What makes it really hurt, though, is that I could not, and still cannot, afford to go after him. So in spite of feeling that I am right, I have to swallow the loss because the cost of pursuing him, and the low likelihood of recovering anything, make it a losing proposition.

Some Cody folks may feel that the only thing that prevented them from pursuing their "righteous" objections is the fact that the church, right or wrong, could afford to sue them into bankruptcy. It's a technique that is successful for businesses with deep pockets.

Once again, people may be more inclined to feel that they are in the right, than admit that they may be wrong.

I get what you are saying, and I actually brought up that same concern earlier in the thread. I don’t think it’s a great optics, and I think it will create ill will. But at the same time I support any church’s use of the law to protect their religious rights. And I don’t think that ill will is a big enough reason to allow a group of citizens, no matter how righteous they believe their cause to be, to illegally restrict the rights of a minority group in their community.

That’s not a Cody that I could be proud of. And as a former citizen and someone who is still there multiple times a year I would be ashamed if they got away with doing something illegal just because pursuing justice looked bad and made some people angry.

But I do wish there had been a better way to handle it, that did not require the use of lawsuits.  I wish the church had not gone there so quickly.

[bluebell]

https://www.codyenterprise.com/news/opinion/article_449ea8d2-57f5-11ee-b813-83ab948947b5.html?fbclid=IwAR2ICJEWb0a-T61tTlxdMbpyaNpgxwOIMKAvS3OClwd2grBstU_u4uz_71I

A kind letter to the editor printed in the Cody Newspaper from a non-member.

 

Quote

 

To the editor:

I was pleased to see that the city has issued the building permit for the LDS temple at last. It is long overdue and time for all to come together and reflect as a community on what we have been through.

What is a Mormon? Well, Mormons patrol our streets, heal us when we are sick, take care of our elderly, teach our children in school, and I discovered that even Tyler the Plumber who came to my home to unplug my drain is too a Mormon.

I was saddened to witness some of the commentary over the course of this debate both written and spoken. Adam Peters is my physician, and Ed Webster was my attorney. U.S. Senator Paula Hawkins (R-Fla.) was my closest political friend along with U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah). All of them Mormons, always there and never questioning my Episcopal faith, knowing that I would not question theirs.

Religious freedom is one of the Pillars of American Life. The debate in my view was not about lights shining at night or a location; rather religious intolerance that the law prohibits and that none of us should embrace. Instead of finding fault and talking behind the backs of these good people, how about a trip to the Park County Library or on the internet in the comfort of your home and learn about them and their religion?

When the people of the world understand each other, then there will be peace on earth.

(s) Rex Ford

 

 

[smac97]

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/09/26/lds-church-doesnt-have-to-wait-on-court-to-start-building-cody-temple/

Quote

Now that a building permit has been approved for a controversial Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints temple in Cody, the church can start construction on the 101-foot-tall building despite an ongoing legal effort to halt the project.

Preserve Our Cody Neighborhoods (POCN), a local group opposing the location of the proposed temple, has filed preliminary injunction requests in Park County District Court to prevent its construction, but until those requests are addressed by the court, they have no legal standing to block the project.

The ultimate question at this juncture is, will the church wait until the legal challenge has been heard, or will it break ground and go forward with building the temple regardless?
...

The church said any permit delay “would adversely affect the public’s interest” and would result in “construction setbacks and significant financial losses.” 

“The harm caused to the church by continued delay outweighs any injury to the neighborhood group,” it states in one filing.

The church estimates it’s losing $200,000 each month the project is delayed because of inflation and other related construction costs. It has determined the value of the property and the temple itself at $41 million.

The church has said the neighborhood group doesn’t have legal standing to bring its appeals or that the city’s Planning and Zoning Board’s approval of the temple were “arbitrary or capricious.” 

I'm sort of torn on this, but I think the Church should proceed.  It's losing lots of money in delaying, and because those opposing construction "have no legal standing to block the project," I don't think the Church should act as if they do.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Thinking]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

https://cowboystatedaily.com/2023/09/26/lds-church-doesnt-have-to-wait-on-court-to-start-building-cody-temple/

Quote

The church said any permit delay “would adversely affect the public’s interest” and would result in “construction setbacks and significant financial losses.” 

“The harm caused to the church by continued delay outweighs any injury to the neighborhood group,” it states in one filing.

The church estimates it’s losing $200,000 each month the project is delayed because of inflation and other related construction costs. It has determined the value of the property and the temple itself at $41 million.

I'm sort of torn on this, but I think the Church should proceed.  It's losing lots of money in delaying, and because those opposing construction "have no legal standing to block the project," I don't think the Church should act as if they do.

I don't think the Church should use money to justify its case.

If the Church earns a modest 5% annual return on its $100 billion, that's $5 billion. Divide that by 12 and the monthly interest earned is over $416 million. The lost $200,000 is not even a drop in the bucket of the monthly return. It would take 2,083 months (173+ years) for the $200,000 monthly loss to equal one month of interest.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Thinking

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I don't think the Church should use money to justify its case.

If the Church earns a modest 5% annual return on its $100 billion, that's $5 billion. Divide that by 12 and the monthly interest earned is over $416 million. The lost $200,000 is not even a drop in the bucket of the monthly return. It would take 2,083 months (173+ years) for the $200,000 monthly loss to equal one month of interest.

I wonder if there are jobs at stake as well?  I know that in some instances, delayed construction means no paycheck.  I don't know if that's always the case though.

[Thinking]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I wonder if there are jobs at stake as well?  I know that in some instances, delayed construction means no paycheck.  I don't know if that's always the case though.

Good point.

Edited to add: In thinking about your post, I wonder if the $200,000 that the Church says it's losing per month is for paying the workers who are on standby.

Edited September 28, 2023 by Thinking

[Tacenda]

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/proposed-temple-in-heber-city-sparks-debate-over-light-pollution-regulations

Now it's Heber's residents that are feeling the pain. "Why does it have to be so big?" quoted from the below.

 

[bluebell]

48 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/proposed-temple-in-heber-city-sparks-debate-over-light-pollution-regulations

Now it's Heber's residents that are feeling the pain. "Why does it have to be so big?" quoted from the below.

 

I thought that the size of each temple was based on the number of patrons it would be serving?

[helix]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/proposed-temple-in-heber-city-sparks-debate-over-light-pollution-regulations

Now it's Heber's residents that are feeling the pain. "Why does it have to be so big?" quoted from the below.

 

I'm starting to get the impression the church has the long view on these and will perform legal fights now to get precedence to avoid fights later.

We've been here many times before. Most notably late 1990s early 2000s in Massachusetts when a very similar temple NIMBY fight occurred. It went up to the top Massachusetts court where they ruled unanimously in favor of the church.

The alternative is that if these NIMBY + ex-member fights demonstrate opponents of the church can limit or stop church and temple building merely by applying pressure, these groups absolutely will embrace this forever after.

[JustAnAustralian]

I don't think this will be as interesting as the other one.

The address is 1400 E Center St, Heber City. (It's the square that looks like a carpark).

It isn't the final field on the edge of a city. Based on google street view and sky view, the whole area apart from the proposed temple site looks like it's going to be multi-storey housing estates soon.

Quote

“It’s primarily parks and preservation land. It’s beautiful. We can still see the constellations, the stars and the galaxies at night. And we want to keep it that way,” said Lisa Bahash.

Quote

You’ll see there isn’t a building over 35 feet, it’s a rural residential area that’s agricultural and it’s just out of place,”

I think she'll be disappointed if she's expecting it to permanently maintain its country-town atmosphere.

 

Quote

“Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies does not oppose a temple in the area. Of course we know where we live and how important the faith is to the state,” she said, “We do not oppose that. We believe there’s a better location in the valley and or a better building design.”

So name the location and/or provide a better design.

[Tacenda]

I wouldn't want this in my back yard, huge. I guess it's a rendering of what it would look like from a leader that lives there. But don't quote me on this, I saw it on reddit. 

[Calm]

Maybe for the next ten to 15 years.   As weebles? Pointed out, drive a mile or so down the road and it looks like high density housing is being built (Google street view). This is happening to my community. Lots of open orchards and farm land when we moved in 20 years ago. Still some left, but we are even getting townhomes, which is kind of a shocker. 
 

They need to include landscaping in the simulation though. Most temples have quite nice landscaping around them.  They could create hills to block the view of parked cars as well as plant trees. 

Edited October 27, 2023 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Maybe for the next ten to 15 years.   As weebles? Pointed out, drive a mile or so down the road and it looks like high density housing is being built (Google street view). This is happening to my community. Lots of open orchards and farm land when we moved in 20 years ago. Still some left, but we are even getting townhomes, which is kind of a shocker. 
 

They need to include landscaping in the simulation though. Most temples have quite nice landscaping around them.  They could create hills to block the view of parked cars as well as plant trees. 

That's true. Now if the church builds houses around it.  Sorry, I'm kind of bitter about things with the church lately. I'll hopefully get better. 

And you probably already know, but my daughter works for the real estate arm of the church in property management, she started at City Creek properties and currently at a property in Riverton. So I guess I can feel good she has a good job, and the church provided it for her.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I wouldn't want this in my back yard, huge. I guess it's a rendering of what it would look like from a leader that lives there. But don't quote me on this, I saw it on reddit. 

All those vacant lots between their houses, and the temple will be full of homes and/or three-story apartment buildings in the next five years.  You can’t stop this kind of progress.

I admit, I struggle with people who have already built in a rural area and felt that it was acceptable for them to build there, but then don’t want anybody else to build there after them.

None of that means that I don’t have sympathy for their plight however. It really sucks to lose your view and the open space around you when that space begins to be developed. But that’s how growth works.  I’m lucky right now because there is a golf course across the street from me so my views of the mountain are unimpeded. But if the golf course ever sold, there would be houses there in a second and I wouldn’t really have a right to complain (Though I would 😂)

[helix]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I wouldn't want this in my back yard

Literally NIMBY.

As someone who lives near Catholic property which recently built an 80 foot tall cathedral with a 110 foot tall steeple, situated on top of an already large hill, you get used to it, fast.  And if you don't, this is America, at some level you don't get to control what another religion says and does.

Edited October 27, 2023 by helix