Permit Denied for McKinney Temple

[Amulek]

After listening to over two and a half hours worth of comments, the planning and zoning commission for the town of Fairview recommended to deny the Church's application for a conditional use permit.

Here's a short news clip on the results: link

I watched the entire meeting and will try to remember to come back and update this post with a link to the audio recording when it becomes available. It's somewhere around three hours long so it makes for a pretty boring listen. I know that some of you are into podcasts though, so there might be a few masochists out there who would be willing to suffer through it.  

There were a couple of things that stood out to me. I was pleasantly surprised to see formal support from other religious groups in the area. There was woman there representing the Salvation Army (from the McKinney location) who spoke in favor of the Church and a regional Muslim leader who did the same. 

I felt like those who were in opposition to the current proposal did their best, with varying degrees of success, to express that they merely take issue with the size / design of the temple and not with it's existence.

There was a lot of commentary about building heights, church heights, and how they just want the Church to follow the zoning rules, and not one inch more. One of the Church's representatives made a comment about that very sentiment and indicated how the Church more or less agrees with them. 

The Church isn't asking for anything that is inconsistent with what has been allowed historically. While it is true that other religious structures aren't comparably large, it is also true that the town has granted variances to other religious groups for comparably tall religious structures situated in similar areas (i.e., exact same zoning, on the exact same street). 

The town is perfectly within their rights to regulate the construction of new buildings (even religious buildings) in a neutral manner. However, if they are going to grant an exception to those codes for the Methodists down the street to build a bell tower in excess of 150', then they don't get to turn around and tell the Mormons to pound sand. And no, it doesn't matter that the Methodists ultimately abandoned constructing their building. The fact that the variance was given to one needs it needs to be given here as well.

Ultimately, I got kind of fed up with hearing so many people harp on how the Church doesn't need to have a steeple and how we should be good neighbors and compromise. I can only imagine someone saying to Rosa Parks, 'I'm sorry ma'am, but do you really need to sit in the font row of the bus? Couldn't you just be a good neighbor and move a little more toward the back?' Sorry, that's simply not how freedom works.

 

Edited May 10 by Amulek

[the narrator]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

I can only imagine someone saying to Rosa Parks, 'I'm sorry ma'am, but do you really need to sit in the font row of the bus? Couldn't you just be a good neighbor and move a little more toward the back?'

Wow. Because people not wanting a big, bright, and tall building that is specifically designed to stick out is just like racists demanding that black people be second-class citizens.

Edited May 10 by the narrator

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

The town is perfectly within their rights to regulate the construction of new buildings (even religious buildings) in a neutral manner. However, if they are going to grant an exception to those codes for the Methodists down the street to build a bell tower in excess of 150', then they don't get to turn around and tell the Mormons to pound sand. And no, it doesn't matter that the Methodists ultimately abandoned constructing their building. The fact that the variance was given to one needs it needs to be given here as well.

How long ago was the Methodist application?  The commission may have been changed enough this group would also deny it to the Methodists now.  Or they have just changed their minds. They might have received enough complaints after granting variance that they intend to be stricter now.

Now if in the future they grant variance to another group…

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, the narrator said:

Wow. Because people not wanting a big, bright, and tall building that is specifically designed to stick out is just like racists demanding that black people be second-class citizens.

When the people who don't want it just happen to be the government, and they exercise their power to grant exceptions for religious groups to build tall building - but only certain religious groups - then yes, that's very much a discrimination issue. 

The church doesn't want anything more than what Rosa Parks demanded - and which our Constitution expressly protects - the right to be treated equally.

 

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

How long ago was the Methodist application?  

It was in 2006 and was part of a multi-stage building expansion. Ultimately, the Methodists never built the bell tower - though they still have a permit to do so. 

 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

The commission may have been changed enough this group would also deny it to the Methodists now.  Or they have just changed their minds. They might have received enough complaints after granting variance that they intend to be stricter now.

Perhaps, but none of that really matters at this point. Now that they have set the precedent they have to live with it. It's not the Church's fault that the town didn't have the presence of mind to think about the consequences of their actions. 

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Now that they have set the precedent they have to live with it. It's not the Church's fault that the town didn't have the presence of mind to think about the consequences of their actions. 

If the Church wants to take them to court sure, the precedent matters…maybe. But 20 years almost…a community has the right imo to try and change its direction, to become more green, for example. I don’t think much of an argument for a factory to get placed in an area that is now a park because once a factory was approved to be built there before the community decided they wanted more green spaces.  It is possible the Methodist church would have been rejected now as well with the changes in attitudes over the past 20 years. Unless it can be shown that recent approvals (within 5 to 10 years) similar to what the Church wants have been made, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call out bigotry as the obvious cause. 
 
For me the question is more if they will approve the temple with flying colors if the temple passes the current zoning requirements.  If there is hemming and hawing then, that is an issue to me.  Us not having the privileges of the extra bells and whistles because someone doesn’t like us is not the same thing as sitting in the back of the bus.  Being able to sit anywhere on the bus is basic service, not the extras. 

 

Edited May 11 by Calm

[Malc]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

If the Church wants to take them to court sure, the precedent matters…maybe. But 20 years almost…a community has the right imo to try and change its direction, to become more green, for example. I don’t think much of an argument for a factory to get placed in an area that is now a park because once a factory was approved to be built there before the community decided they wanted more green spaces.  It is possible the Methodist church would have been rejected now as well with the changes in attitudes over the past 20 years. Unless it can be shown that recent approvals (within 5 to 10 years) similar to what the Church wants have been made, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call out bigotry as the obvious cause. 
 
For me the question is more if they will approve the temple with flying colors if the temple passes the current zoning requirements.  If there is hemming and hawing then, that is an issue to me.  Us not having the privileges of the extra bells and whistles because someone doesn’t like us is not the same thing as sitting in the back of the bus, being able to sit anywhere on the bus is basic service, not the extras.

 

Emmmmm - isn't it normally a trumpet, rather than a whistle?

(sorry - couldn't resist)

[Amulek]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the Church wants to take them to court sure, the precedent matters…maybe.

When it comes to the application of law, precedent matters. A lot.

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

But 20 years almost…a community has the right imo to try and change its direction, to become more green, for example. I don’t think much of an argument for a factory to get placed in an area that is now a park because once a factory was approved to be built there before the community decided they wanted more green spaces.  

How do you determine when something is a legitimate "change [in] direction" as opposed merely a pretext? Because I've lived in the area for most of the last 20 years, and they have manifestly not been working to make their town more rural. Quite the opposite in fact. 

Humorously, there was an 80 year old member who commented on the fact that the opposition were wearing shirts with language from the town's old town sign: Keeping it Country. She had been a resident since before the town was incorporated, and she remembered when the city tore down the sign which bore that motto in order to build a McDonalds. The city hasn't been 'country' in a long time.

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is possible the Methodist church would have been rejected now as well with the changes in attitudes over the past 20 years.

But the Methodist church wouldn't have to apply for a permit under the current regime - they have an existing zoning exception. They can build their bell tower whenever they want without having to go through the process again.

The Church just wants to receive the same sort of variance that other religious organizations currently enjoy.

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless it can be shown that recent approvals (within 5 to 10 years) similar to what the Church wants have been made, I don’t think it’s appropriate to call out bigotry as the obvious cause. 

I agree that the charge of bigotry carries an implication of intent that certainly doesn't apply to everyone who objects to the current plan. 

I'm perfectly content to simply refer to what the city is doing as "disparate treatment under the law."

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

For me the question is more if they will approve the temple with flying colors if the temple passes the current zoning requirements. If there is hemming and hawing then, that is an issue to me.

The area is currently zoned for single-family homes with a maximum height of 35'. The church would have to completely redesign the temple in order to satisfy those height requirements, making it the smallest temple in the entire world. 

I don't believe that is a reasonable constraint. 

 

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Us not having the privileges of the extra bells and whistles because someone doesn’t like us is not the same thing as sitting in the back of the bus, being able to sit anywhere on the bus is basic service, not the extras.

And being able to construct our temple in a manner consistent with what the city has already allowed for similarly situated applicants is what I consider basic service as well.

 

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Because I've lived in the area for most of the last 20 years, and they have manifestly not been working to make their town more rural. Quite the opposite in fact. 

I value your personal experience. It makes your claim that it’s about it being LDS and not just any building asking for similar variances reliable for me. I had forgotten to take that into account, that you were a local. 

Edited May 11 by Calm

[blackstrap]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

redesign the temple in order to satisfy those height requirements

A good architect could produce a two story temple with a footprint of 40,000 sqft. and interior space of 80,000 sqft in about a week. 

This would occupy only 5 % of the lot and be much more residential friendly. Of course , it might not look much like a temple and maybe that is the point anyway. 

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

I value your personal experience. It makes your claim that it’s about it being LDS and not just any building asking for similar variances reliable for me. I had forgotten to take that into account, that you were a local. 

I believe there are citizens in town who sincerely do not want any large structures whatsoever - regardless of whether they are being used for a religious purpose or by any particular religious group. 

Those people are fine, and I understand where they are coming from. They might not end up getting what they would prefer, but I get it.

But there are also a significant contingent of folks whose anti-Mormon sentiment is, at best, only very thinly veiled. 

 

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, blackstrap said:

A good architect could produce a two story temple with a footprint of 40,000 sqft. and interior space of 80,000 sqft in about a week. 

This would occupy only 5 % of the lot and be much more residential friendly. Of course , it might not look much like a temple and maybe that is the point anyway. 

Or maybe we could build it completely underground and just use the surface level for parking. Then they can pretend like the Mormons aren't even there. 

 

[blackstrap]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

build it completely underground

From an energy efficient point of view for heating and cooling, that is not a bad idea. Also, from a religious symbolism view it would make sense if the entire baptistry was underground. 😇

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Or maybe we could build it completely underground and just use the surface level for parking. Then they can pretend like the Mormons aren't even there. 

 

But then there would be some random parking lot... What an eyesore!

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

From an energy efficient point of view for heating and cooling, that is not a bad idea. Also, from a religious symbolism view it would make sense if the entire baptistry was underground. 😇

Sure, it all sounds great...until somebody wakes the Balrog.  

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

25 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Sure, it all sounds great...until somebody wakes the Balrog.  

 

Or one of the Great Old Ones.... 🫣

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Or maybe we could build it completely underground and just use the surface level for parking. Then they can pretend like the Mormons aren't even there. 

 

We can be the Harry Potter of the religious world, sitting in our underground temples "...making no noise and pretending like we don't exist."

[blackstrap]

" Stranger Things " can happen !

[sunstoned]

On 5/10/2024 at 10:17 PM, blackstrap said:

A good architect could produce a two story temple with a footprint of 40,000 sqft. and interior space of 80,000 sqft in about a week. 

This would occupy only 5 % of the lot and be much more residential friendly. Of course , it might not look much like a temple and maybe that is the point anyway. 

I have always liked the look of the Laie Hawaii Temple.  I just looked this up.  It is 50 feet tall at its highest point.  It seems a lot of controversy could be avoided with a more conservative design like this.

[Amulek]

Town council meets tomorrow at 7:30 PM, Central.

Based on the Planning and Zoning department's recommendation to deny the permit last month, it will take a supermajority (75%) to approve the permit at this stage, which is pretty unlikely.

The council consists of the mayor and six council members, so that means you would need six votes to push it through. The mayor has already stated his opposition, so it will only take one additional vote to kill it (which is pretty much guaranteed since half the council will be up for reelection next term).

Assuming the permit is denied, the next step will likely be litigation. I know the Church is hoping to avoid that because it will (1) push the timeline back 6-9 months, and (2) be costly for the town (which is unlikely to prevail in federal court and will end up being forced to pay legal fees for both sides). 

If you are interested in watching, it will be broadcast online here.

Agenda available as a PDF here.

 

[The Nehor]

The area authorities are trying to generate a big member turnout at the meeting. I doubt it will help but I guess it might. There are also other moves to up visibility.

We’ll see.

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The area authorities are trying to generate a big member turnout at the meeting. I doubt it will help but I guess it might. There are also other moves to up visibility.

We’ll see.

It might not, but they could definitely get a good turnout. The area has a good size church presence for being outside the mountain west. (I lived near there as a teen and my family still lives in Allen)

[Amulek]

If I was in town that's where I would be tonight. Hopefully the WiFi here will be good enough for me to watch at least. 

[The Nehor]

Someone posted the Area Authority’s email to all the Stake Presidents in the area:

https://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/2024/06/03/build-the-mckinney-temple-according-to-fairviews-ordinance-or-no-i-wont-help-deluge-the-city-planner-with-15000-emails/

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Someone posted the Area Authority’s email to all the Stake Presidents in the area:

https://outsidethebookofmormonbelt.com/2024/06/03/build-the-mckinney-temple-according-to-fairviews-ordinance-or-no-i-wont-help-deluge-the-city-planner-with-15000-emails/

Bleh.  His editorializing of the email (that he shouldn't even have, though he has no moral issues about that) and how he believes it should have been written and his ideas on why members are being asked to write them aren't very impressive.

There's nothing nefarious with the church wanting it's members to support the building of the temple in a similar magnitude as the opposition against it being built is being supported.