Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 Public hearing opening up now. 3-minute time limit. 1
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 Bad argument about 'up to 120 feet' not meaning up to 120 feet. Lots of puzzled faces. 1
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 More confusion over zoning laws. They still seem to be under the impression that churches have to be the same size as houses. I'm very disappointed that nobody from the town in any of these meetings has taken the opportunity to make the distinction between different zoning rules. 1
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 Much better comments from church members this time. 2
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 Holy crap-for-crap. I'm sitting next to one of the ladies who's heading up the communication / organization side of things, and she texted my snarky "everything's bigger in Texas, but not in Fairview" comment and it made it into one of the comments! 2
bluebell Posted April 25, 2025 Posted April 25, 2025 7 minutes ago, Amulek said: Holy crap-for-crap. I'm sitting next to one of the ladies who's heading up the communication / organization side of things, and she texted my snarky "everything's bigger in Texas, but not in Fairview" comment and it made it into one of the comments! Wait. Did you make a public comment at the meeting or was it a comment somewhere else? 1
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 Sounds like we're coming up on the last few comments. I'm going to resist the urge to say anything that might detract from the overall (generally positive) vibe. My guess is that they may still vote against it, but we'll see. 2
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: Wait. Did you make a public comment at the meeting or was it a comment somewhere else? No, she texted it to someone else who was on the list of people they arranged to speak. 2
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 (edited) Looks like they are going to recommend approval with some silly conditions. Not sure we'll go for that. Will summarize and comment later. Edited April 25, 2025 by Amulek 3
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 Final result was to recommend approval with a litany of conditions. I should be able to pull the full list after they post it, but (going from memory), they wanted us to - Bring the structure height down a couple more feet (from 44 to 42 feet). - Redesign the building again to get to a maximum height no greater than 68' (identical to the stake center). - Rename it the Fairview Texas Temple.* - Connect sewer to Allen. - Turn the lights off outside operating hours, including all hours when the temple is closed (Sundays / holidays). - Couple more light restrictions (3K kelvin max, height / position / direction requirements, etc.) - Adjust some of the runoff direction more toward the side with extra capacity. - Not to exceed proposed square footage / space as set out on current proposal. Might be missing some. Getting tired and going to hit the bed now. Will write more tomorrow. *I almost fell out of my chair when they rattled that off as a condition. The idea of a government body dictating to a religious group what they need to call themselves is shockingly offensive. 4
ZealouslyStriving Posted April 25, 2025 Posted April 25, 2025 7 hours ago, Amulek said: Redesign the building again to get to a maximum height no greater than 68' (identical to the stake center). Looks like the lawsuit will be on the table again.
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 (edited) 2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said: Looks like the lawsuit will be on the table again. Possibly. But the Town Council doesn't have to accept any of those conditions; we'll see what they do on Tuesday. In talking with some of the Church's attorney's after the meeting, they seemed to be very positive about how things went. Edit to add: One of the attorney's I was talking with after the meeting mentioned how some of the conditions tacked on by P&Z are actually in violation of the Town's existing laws. I didn't press him for details - they were happy to just get through this phase and on to the Town Council, which matters more. Edited April 25, 2025 by Amulek 4
webbles Posted April 25, 2025 Posted April 25, 2025 So what was the point of the mediation if the city didn't do anything with it? And how does approving the plan work if the church is told to redesign it? What are they approving? 1
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 For those so interested, meeting files can be located here: https://fairviewtx.portal.civicclerk.com/event/924/files/attachment/774 I didn't see the motion that was passed, but I believe it should be available w/in 72 hours - possibly sooner, if I remember to look for it again. 1
Popular Post Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Popular Post Posted April 25, 2025 (edited) 11 minutes ago, webbles said: So what was the point of the mediation if the city didn't do anything with it? And how does approving the plan work if the church is told to redesign it? What are they approving? P&Z doesn't approve anything themselves - they just make recommendations to the Town Council. In this case, they recommended the Town Council approve the application with significant conditions. They don't have to accept any of those conditions though. And with a recommendation for approval (albeit, with conditions), I believe that means they will just need to have a simple majority for the proposal to pass. They had expressed unanimous support for the mediated design previously. When we go before the Town Council next week, I assume the attorneys will be asking the Mayor and Town Council to put that commitment to the test. Edited April 25, 2025 by Amulek 5
Amulek Posted April 25, 2025 Author Posted April 25, 2025 Couple of things that I found interesting this go around: The Church changed its lighting plans. Originally, the Church had said we would turn the lights off outside operating hours (e.g., 11 PM - 5 AM). In the current proposal, we said we would be lowering the lumens to produce zero foot-lamberts at the edge of our property, thus ensuring no light trespass onto neighboring properties - thereby enabling us to leave the lights on around the clock. I couldn't help but wondering if this was a baiting tactic to give them something new and excessive to focus on in order to give us a bit of wiggle room to 'give' in concession. Temple Name One of the P&Z members asked if we would be willing to change the name to Fairview instead of McKinney. The attorney at the stand was pretty quick to say yes but was then flagged down by one of the SCL attorneys and told 'no.' Again, I couldn't help but wonder if he was so quick to say yes because that was something that (internally) they had already decided was a concession they were willing to make. I know that when the Area 70 who attended the meetings associated with version 1.0 was present, he was also amenable to changing the name if that's what it took to get the deal done. I sincerely hope this is something the Church is unwilling to bend on. A city trying to dictate the name of a house of worship isn’t just overreach, it’s anathema to the very bedrock of what this country stands for. 2
helix Posted April 26, 2025 Posted April 26, 2025 5 hours ago, Amulek said: A city trying to dictate the name of a house of worship isn’t just overreach, it’s anathema to the very bedrock of what this country stands for. Precisely.
Calm Posted April 26, 2025 Posted April 26, 2025 (edited) 2 hours ago, helix said: Precisely. But it’s not like it’s a religious principle or practice in the name that they are requiring or even demanding a certain form. The Church chose to name the temple after the town the temple was going to be in, but then the temple ended up being in a different town. Isn’t all the board is asking for is to abide by the standard the Church originally chose for the name, just to update it for the current situation rather than stick with the now outdated label? Edited April 26, 2025 by Calm
longview Posted April 26, 2025 Posted April 26, 2025 8 hours ago, Calm said: But it’s not like it’s a religious principle or practice in the name that they are requiring or even demanding a certain form. The Church chose to name the temple after the town the temple was going to be in, but then the temple ended up being in a different town. Isn’t all the board is asking for is to abide by the standard the Church originally chose for the name, just to update it for the current situation rather than stick with the now outdated label? It is bureaucratic arrogance to dictate the naming of independent religious shrines. It is like controlling the "free speech" rights of the Church. What business is it for government, for example, to mandate the Roman Catholic Church to name a cathedral to be "Matthew Shepard Memorial" instead of their normal designations such as "Our Lady of Guadalupe" or "Basilica of the Twenty-Six Holy Martyrs" ? So much pettiness among the P&Z committee and the local citizens!
webbles Posted April 26, 2025 Posted April 26, 2025 9 hours ago, Calm said: But it’s not like it’s a religious principle or practice in the name that they are requiring or even demanding a certain form. The Church chose to name the temple after the town the temple was going to be in, but then the temple ended up being in a different town. Isn’t all the board is asking for is to abide by the standard the Church originally chose for the name, just to update it for the current situation rather than stick with the now outdated label? I thought the church had said that it was always going to be built in Fairview.
Amulek Posted April 26, 2025 Author Posted April 26, 2025 9 hours ago, Calm said: But it’s not like it’s a religious principle or practice in the name that they are requiring or even demanding a certain form. The Church chose to name the temple after the town the temple was going to be in, but then the temple ended up being in a different town. Isn’t all the board is asking for is to abide by the standard the Church originally chose for the name, just to update it for the current situation rather than stick with the now outdated label? In my opinion, no. It's more about them looking down their noses at their larger, adjacent neighbors (i.e., McKinney and Allen). 1
Amulek Posted April 26, 2025 Author Posted April 26, 2025 (edited) 57 minutes ago, webbles said: I thought the church had said that it was always going to be built in Fairview. The original announcement in Conference was that a temple would be built in Prosper, which is also adjacent to McKinney. Subsequently, the First Presidency released the location and a name change (see, e.g., here). The Church never purchased a site in Prosper, so I believe it's technically accurate to say that this physical location is were the temple was always going to be built. But the way the article is written - suggesting a name change - implies that it may have originally been planned to be named the Prosper Texas Temple. But they very well may have ultimately decided to call it McKinney even if it had been constructed in Prosper - there's no way to know though. Edited April 26, 2025 by Amulek 2
Chum Posted April 26, 2025 Posted April 26, 2025 20 hours ago, Amulek said: thus ensuring no light trespass onto neighboring properties I support this all over. 2x for residential properties. 2
Chum Posted April 26, 2025 Posted April 26, 2025 20 hours ago, Amulek said: I sincerely hope this is something the Church is unwilling to bend on. A city trying to dictate the name of a house of worship isn’t just overreach, it’s anathema to the very bedrock of what this country stands for. What about positive pressure - say, offering to trade-off another requirement for it?
Recommended Posts