Permit Denied for McKinney Temple

[Amulek]

I received similar correspondence from our stake president on Sunday. Those who support the temple were encouraged to send a short email expressing that sentiment, and we were invited to attend the meeting if circumstances allow. 

The invitation we received included the following: "We hope our efforts will show the council the strong community backing for the temple. [...] We kindly remind all participants to remain non-defensive and kind, regardless of others' comments. As neighbors, we can hold differing views without being disagreeable. Your peaceful participation and support are greatly appreciated and will make a meaningful impact on this process."

I don't find anything objectionable about Elder Rascon's message or what were asked to do by our local leaders. I don't know why people are being so melodramatic. It's not like anybody is saying, support the temple or else! 

 

[Amulek]

So, quick recap from the meeting last night (yes, the WiFi held out!):

There were two council members missing - both on previously scheduled vacations - so it would have been impossible for a positive vote to take place (not like that was in the cards).

The Church's local representative asked for a continuance and, as such, he asked for supporters to abstain from making any comments.

They went ahead and opened the floor for public comments. Most of it was a retread of the PZ meeting - though there were a couple of new technical objections that didn't come up before.

The Kirton McConkie guys flew into town the other day and met with the local bishops / stake presidents. They also met with the city leaders yesterday during the day. The mayor suggested the meeting was productive and moved for the public meeting to be continued rather than voting then and there.

The idea of continuing was not well received by the attendees. However, the mayor was very much opposed to voting right away. Apparently a denial would have put them in a highly precarious legal position. 

So... we'll pick back up in August. It's possible the church may make some concessions in the meantime - supposedly the lawyers may have suggested that there could be some room to move. I guess we'll see.

 

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So, quick recap from the meeting last night (yes, the WiFi held out!):

There were two council members missing - both on previously scheduled vacations - so it would have been impossible for a positive vote to take place (not like that was in the cards).

The Church's local representative asked for a continuance and, as such, he asked for supporters to abstain from making any comments.

They went ahead and opened the floor for public comments. Most of it was a retread of the PZ meeting - though there were a couple of new technical objections that didn't come up before.

The Kirton McConkie guys flew into town the other day and met with the local bishops / stake presidents. They also met with the city leaders yesterday during the day. The mayor suggested the meeting was productive and moved for the public meeting to be continued rather than voting then and there.

The idea of continuing was not well received by the attendees. However, the mayor was very much opposed to voting right away. Apparently a denial would have put them in a highly precarious legal position. 

So... we'll pick back up in August. It's possible the church may make some concessions in the meantime - supposedly the lawyers may have suggested that there could be some room to move. I guess we'll see.

 

How could they legally hold a vote knowing there was never going to be enough councilmembers in attendance for the vote to be fair?  

[The Nehor]

15 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.  

I agree, his read on the email skews towards viewing everything as nefarious.

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

How could they legally hold a vote knowing there was never going to be enough councilmembers in attendance for the vote to be fair?  

In their town it only takes four members to constitute a quorum (one of whom can be the mayor), so they did have enough members to hold a vote - there just weren't enough members present to override the negative recommendation from the PZ board. 

It takes six votes to overcome a negative recommendation from zoning, but there were only five people present last night (4 council members + the mayor).

So, even if they were to have held a vote, the only possible outcome would have been a no. Even if all five of them were to have voted in favor, it would have failed to pass due to not being a supermajority.

 

Edited June 5 by Amulek

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

In their town it only takes four members to constitute a quorum (one of whom can be the mayor), so they did have enough members to hold a vote - there just weren't enough members present to override the negative recommendation from the PZ board. 

It takes six votes to overcome a negative recommendation from zoning, but there were only five people present last night (4 council members + the mayor).

So, even if they were to have held a vote, the only possible outcome would have been a no. Even if all five of them were to have voted in favor, it would have failed to pass due to not being a supermajority.

 

Yeah, that’s what I mean. If a super majority is needed, then it doesn’t seem like they should be able to hold a vote unless there are enough council members present for a super majority to exist.

Otherwise, it seems like it would be way too easy to stack the deck in a specific outcome’s favor, just by having council members absent.

[Amulek]

50 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Yeah, that’s what I mean. If a super majority is needed, then it doesn’t seem like they should be able to hold a vote unless there are enough council members present for a super majority to exist.

Otherwise, it seems like it would be way too easy to stack the deck in a specific outcome’s favor, just by having council members absent.

Oh, I agree. But this is politics: common sense need not apply. 

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

In their town it only takes four members to constitute a quorum (one of whom can be the mayor), so they did have enough members to hold a vote - there just weren't enough members present to override the negative recommendation from the PZ board. 

It takes six votes to overcome a negative recommendation from zoning, but there were only five people present last night (4 council members + the mayor).

So, even if they were to have held a vote, the only possible outcome would have been a no. Even if all five of them were to have voted in favor, it would have failed to pass due to not being a supermajority.

 

Are you sure it has to be a supermajority of the whole council or is it just a supermajority of those present?

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Oh, I agree. But this is politics: common sense need not apply. 

This also could apply. This rule might not have considered this kind of a vote when deciding what constitutes a quorum or it might have been created for political advantage of some other sort that doesn’t work anymore or any number of other weird cases.

I once did a deep dive into congressional rules and wow they could do with an overhaul but at the same time if you flip the apple cart to do that who knows what new and exciting abuses would open up.

[Amulek]

My understanding is that it has to be a supermajority of the entire council. I believe the mayor said something to that effect as well (if I remember right).

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/5/2024 at 9:59 PM, Amulek said:

My understanding is that it has to be a supermajority of the entire council. I believe the mayor said something to that effect as well (if I remember right).

One wonders if, potentially, litigation is in the offing, then.  (And no, I don't favor anything that would lead to a perception of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as overly litigious, but past history, some of which my ancestors were involved in, has given me quite my fill of Latter-day Saints being treated as doormats by a more numerous opposing population.)

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

One wonders if, potentially, litigation is in the offing, then.

I think that's a real possibility. 

The city basically wants the temple brought down to the height of the meetinghouse (e.g., 42' structure, 68' steeple). That's roughly a 30-40% decrease and would likely require a complete redesign. I doubt the church is willing to make those kinds of changes.

My guess is that they will come back with something more like a 5-10% reduction, the city will reject it, and then we will go to litigation (back at the original height). 

 

[blackstrap]

On 6/14/2024 at 8:25 AM, Amulek said:

would likely require a complete redesign

The Church likely has a dozen or more temple designs sitting on the shelf that could be used to fit the area. 

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, blackstrap said:

The Church likely has a dozen or more temple designs sitting on the shelf that could be used to fit the area. 

Maybe, but [over-]using them would provide fodder for the "all-the-Church-[of-Jesus-Christ]-ever-does-is-build-'cookie-cutter'-Temples" crowd.

Cain't win fer losin'!  

 

 

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 hours ago, blackstrap said:

The Church likely has a dozen or more temple designs sitting on the shelf that could be used to fit the area. 

Bring back the old Provo design, see how that fits 'em. 😄

[blackstrap]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Bring back the old Provo design,

Mesa >>?

[Amulek]

On 6/17/2024 at 4:29 PM, blackstrap said:

The Church likely has a dozen or more temple designs sitting on the shelf that could be used to fit the area. 

Sorry for taking so long to get back - I've been out of town on business for the last week.

I know there are some designs that would be pretty close, but I don't know of any full size temples that come in under 42' (and the city would actually prefer it to be shorter than that).

Also, I guess it kind of depends on what you mean by "fit the area." Architecturally, large churches with steeples fit in just fine here in the South. I've lived in Texas most of my life, and I wouldn't at all be surprised to see something like the proposed temple design - even in a smaller town. Football and church are both pretty big around here.

 

[Amulek]

Update: Representatives from the Church met with city leaders the other day to discuss options. Link:

During Thursday’s meeting, the church offered to reduce the height of the temple by 15 feet and change its name. However, those who attended the meeting said they would not support or recommend this offer to the council, the church’s release said.

“Town representatives voiced appreciation for the Church’s offer but expressed their view that reducing the building and steeple from 173 to 157 feet did not resolve the concerns regarding height,” said a Saturday news release from the town of Fairview in response to the church’s statement.

In a June interview with The Dallas Morning News, Lessner said the town will allow the temple to be built with a maximum ceiling height of 42 feet and a spire height of 68 feet.

 

We're only a few weeks away from the postponed Town Council meeting, so I doubt there will be time for yet another proposal, but I guess we'll see. 

[Amulek]

Update: In a meeting stretching over four hours last night, the Town Council unanimously voted to deny the Church's application without prejudice (link). The 'without prejudice' bit just means that the Church can present a revised plan to the Planning & Zoning committee and Town Council without any sort of time restrictions. I don't have time to provide a lengthy summary right now, but I wanted to post an update while it's hot off the presses.

I don't believe the Church has announced what it plans to do next (e.g., meet with the Town Council again and try to come to a compromise agreement, pursue litigation in federal court, etc.). If the town leaders are really planning on sticking to the height restrictions outlined in their denial then I suspect the next chapter in this story will end up playing out in court.

 

[Doctor Steuss]

On 7/19/2024 at 11:53 AM, Amulek said:

During Thursday’s meeting, the church offered to reduce the height of the temple by 15 feet and change its name.

I don't understand the underlined part.  Change the name of the temple?  Change the name of the Church?  Change the name of the steeple (call it a space compass)?  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

I don't understand the underlined part.  Change the name of the temple?  Change the name of the Church?  Change the name of the steeple (call it a space compass)?  

Isn’t it named for another town?  McKinney, instead of Fairview?

Edited August 7 by Calm

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

On 7/19/2024 at 1:53 PM, Amulek said:

During Thursday’s meeting, the church offered to reduce the height of the temple by 15 feet and change its name.

I don't understand the underlined part.  Change the name of the temple?  Change the name of the Church?  Change the name of the steeple (call it a space compass)?  

@Calm is correct: Change the proposed name of the temple from the McKinney Texas Temple to the Fairview Texas Temple. Fairview is the town where the temple is going to be constructed. 

The Church had been planning on using McKinney for the name because the temple technically resides within a McKinney zip code, and it happens to be a larger / much more recognizable city. It wasn't mean to be a slight against the locals - the Church frequently names temples in a manner that helps people identify them, even if the selected name isn't the same as the municipality where it is physically located.

 

[The Nehor]

There was a special fast on Sunday hoping to resolve this. One weird oddity was the fast was (among more obvious sentiments and desires) also for the children returning to school in an increasingly contentious environment which seems odd. Maybe things have changed but when I was in school most kids and teens were not deeply invested in city building permit disputes. Not sure if there is something specific they are worried about. This area has its share of antimormon sentiment with most of it coming from some of the churchs who really don’t like us and a little coming from people who find us ridiculous and/or hateful.

[Stargazer]

On 5/10/2024 at 4:58 PM, 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.

So, are we supposed to rank bigotry? Religious bigotry is not as bad as racial bigotry? Intersectionality for the win!

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, Amulek said:

@Calm is correct: Change the proposed name of the temple from the McKinney Texas Temple to the Fairview Texas Temple. Fairview is the town where the temple is going to be constructed. 

The Church had been planning on using McKinney for the name because the temple technically resides within a McKinney zip code, and it happens to be a larger / much more recognizable city. It wasn't mean to be a slight against the locals - the Church frequently names temples in a manner that helps people identify them, even if the selected name isn't the same as the municipality where it is physically located.

 

Some examples: 

• The Seattle Washington Temple is actually located in Bellevue, Washington, and is 6 miles away from the nearest border of Seattle, with the city of Mercer Island and Lake Washington in between.
• The Portland Oregon Temple is actually located in Lake Oswego, Oregon
• The Washington DC Temple is actually located in Kensington, Maryland 
• The Medford Oregon Temple is actually located in Central Point, Oregon

[bluebell]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Some examples: 

• The Seattle Washington Temple is actually located in Bellevue, Washington, and is 6 miles away from the nearest border of Seattle, with the city of Mercer Island and Lake Washington in between.
• The Portland Oregon Temple is actually located in Lake Oswego, Oregon
• The Washington DC Temple is actually located in Kensington, Maryland 
• The Medford Oregon Temple is actually located in Central Point, Oregon

Let's not forget the London temple.