Permit Denied for McKinney Temple

[Amulek]

22 hours ago, the narrator said:

Another big thing is the size of the grounds separating the temple from the surrounding area. I don't know what's going on in Fairview and elsewhere, but having a surrounding area that separates the temples from other buildings and roads makes a big difference.

The proposed temple in Fairview more than exceeds the setback requirements outlined in the town's zoning ordinances - even for commercial buildings.

And here in Texas, it is not at all out of place to find large churches built in and around surrounding neighborhoods. If you want to see several examples, you can look through the pictures supplied by the local land use attorney hired to represent the Church in this case. You can find them, beginning on page 13, of the letter submitted to the Town Council outlining the Church's position.

See here: https://mckinneytexastemple.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-08-05-Letter-Re-Conditional-Use-Permit-for-LDS-CUP2024-04.pdf

I wasn't particularly impressed with local counsel's oral presentation skills, but his written letter (while long) is actually quite good and will likely be instrumental as things go to the next phase.

We received a message from our Stake President the other night suggesting, though not actually stating, that litigation may be in the cards (i.e., "Due to the outcome of the vote, the Church will explore other avenues to ensure the temple proposal receives the due process it is entitled to under the law.").

 

[Amulek]

On 8/9/2024 at 8:01 AM, Peacefully said:

I hope this is not behind a paywall for everyone. I can definitely see both sides. I lived in a rural community with nice views that became obstructed by a commercial build. So I feel for the couple who would have the temple in their direct line of site, but the land isn’t theirs just like the land where the commercial building was built wasn’t mine. However, if the whole town decides that isn’t the aesthetic they want for their town, then they should have that right as long as they are consistent, imo. The church has the right to build what they want on the land within the town zoning laws, I would think. 

I'm not sure I can completely get on board with the "aesthetic" angle, but I certainly agree that if a city or town wants to exclude large structures from their community - religious or otherwise - then that is their right.

The key, however, is the part you mentioned about being consistent. In this case, the town had previously approved the construction of a structure in excess of 150' for another religious denomination. It was located in the same zoning area, just a little ways down the road on the exact same street, and nobody had any problems with it. Now, it turns out that religious group never actually constructed it, but it was approved by the city without issue and the Church is simply asking for the same sort of treatment. 

 

[Amulek]

On 8/9/2024 at 9:52 AM, bluebell said:

I do think the church should be a good neighbor.  If the city is truly attempting to limit light pollution then the church needs to accommodate that in their buildings.

The proposed Fairview temple has been designed to go beyond the town's lighting ordinance requirements "by ensuring no light bleed at all onto neighboring properties while the lights are on and turning the lights off completely from 11:00 pm to 5:00 am" (August 5, 2024 Email, Page 8).

And let's get real about light pollution: none of the people living in the DFW metroplex, including but not limited to those in the Town of Fairview, are able to escape light pollution from the area. You've got to go off into the actual country if you want that.

The site for the temple is situated on Stacy Road, a 4 (planned to be 6) lane road which is within walking distance from their town hall and shopping mall (both on the same street), and is going to be located directly across from a Sonic Drive-in for crying out loud (hello Cherry Limeade!). 

So I've got a hard time accepting that light pollution is really the driving factor here. (Note: I know you don't have any major problems with the temple project personally, so please read any confrontational tone in my comments on this topic as being directed toward critics.)

[bluebell]

15 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The proposed Fairview temple has been designed to go beyond the town's lighting ordinance requirements "by ensuring no light bleed at all onto neighboring properties while the lights are on and turning the lights off completely from 11:00 pm to 5:00 am" (August 5, 2024 Email, Page 8).

And let's get real about light pollution: none of the people living in the DFW metroplex, including but not limited to those in the Town of Fairview, are able to escape light pollution from the area. You've got to go off into the actual country if you want that.

The site for the temple is situated on Stacy Road, a 4 (planned to be 6) lane road which is within walking distance from their town hall and shopping mall (both on the same street), and is going to be located directly across from a Sonic Drive-in for crying out loud (hello Cherry Limeade!). 

So I've got a hard time accepting that light pollution is really the driving factor here. (Note: I know you don't have any major problems with the temple project personally, so please read any confrontational tone in my comments on this topic as being directed toward critics.)

I completely agree with you.  There might be places where a temple is going to negatively impact a dark sky, but in most places, the impact will be minimal simply because of the population of the area.

But for those places that have already enacted dark-sky standards and are really putting in the effort to curb light pollution all across the board, then I support a temple following suit.  It's when light pollution isn't an issue until a temple is proposed that the complaint get's sketchy to me.

[bluebell]

On 8/9/2024 at 7:01 AM, Peacefully said:

https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/fairview-texas-lds-church-temple-proposal/287-0c59ab71-879a-430e-9b46-fefccd72c7a8
 

I hope this is not behind a paywall for everyone. I can definitely see both sides. I lived in a rural community with nice views that became obstructed by a commercial build. So I feel for the couple who would have the temple in their direct line of site, but the land isn’t theirs just like the land where the commercial building was built wasn’t mine. However, if the whole town decides that isn’t the aesthetic they want for their town, then they should have that right as long as they are consistent, imo. The church has the right to build what they want on the land within the town zoning laws, I would think. 

I get this and it makes sense.

I live on next to a golf course that is only a couple of miles from the wasatch mountains (we don't live on a golf course, it's nowhere near that fancy).  When I look towards the mountains I have one row of houses (those directly across the street from me) between me and the view.  Because of the hills in the area nothing else gets in the way of the scenery.  But if that golf course owner ever decided to sell and that land was developed, the views would greatly suffer.  And my neighborhood would be devastated by that.  It would be really really sad.

But like you said, my sadness at losing a view wouldn't get to dictate what people do with their own property.  So many people struggle with that concept.  Cities should be allowed to have codes that protect the interests of all of their citizens (as agreed upon by the citizens, as long as they are legal) but landowners also have rights that we can't take lightly. 

Especially when so often it's kind of a "now that I've built my house here, no one else should be allowed to" situation.  

[Peacefully]

8 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm not sure I can completely get on board with the "aesthetic" angle, but I certainly agree that if a city or town wants to exclude large structures from their community - religious or otherwise - then that is their right.

The key, however, is the part you mentioned about being consistent. In this case, the town had previously approved the construction of a structure in excess of 150' for another religious denomination. It was located in the same zoning area, just a little ways down the road on the exact same street, and nobody had any problems with it. Now, it turns out that religious group never actually constructed it, but it was approved by the city without issue and the Church is simply asking for the same sort of treatment. 

 

If that is true, then it sounds like the church has a legal leg to stand on. Now we have to decide if it is worth it. 

[Stargazer]

16 hours ago, Peacefully said:

If that is true, then it sounds like the church has a legal leg to stand on. Now we have to decide if it is worth it. 

Once the temple is built, with some exceptions, the community will probably not mind it all that much. And the Sonic Drive-in will love the new clientele which will stream into their drive-thru as a byproduct of the temple usage.

[JVW]

I served my mission in the Frisco, McKinney, Prosper, Celina, Plano, Allen area (around 3/4 of my time was spent in these areas) in the early 2010s. I know it's been a decade or more, so things will have changed, but probably the change will have been for the worse. I love the people of Texas and the culture, but the Christians down there treat the missionaries like crap and hate the church. The only Christians in these areas that were nice to us were the ones that spent personal time every day reading the Bible. It remains to be seen, but I'd bet money that the spire is an excuse and that if that grievance is resolved they will just find something else to raise issue with. Of course, take this all as a grain of salt, it's just my two cents.

[Amulek]

On 8/10/2024 at 8:04 PM, Peacefully said:

If that is true, then it sounds like the church has a legal leg to stand on.

Every person I've spoken with who actually works in city planning, city government, or real estate law seems to think so.

In fact, the only people who seem to think differently are those serving on the Town Council in Fairview. I would hate to be their attorney about now.

 

Quote

Now we have to decide if it is worth it. 

Aye, there's the rub.

Given how far apart the Church and the Town are on what they each want, I suspect it may ultimately be best to just fight for it once and be done with it.

I mean, I don't want this to sound morbid, but for all practical purposes virtually 100% of the people who stood in opposition to the temple in the PZ and Town Council meetings will be dead within fifty years.

I can understand why some who live near the site currently may be unhappy with the decision, but once the temple is built it won't be something that has changed - it will be a known quantity. And as people come and go, over time, you will see the language shift from them talking about "their temple" to "the temple" and eventually "our temple."

 

[Amulek]

23 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Once the temple is built, with some exceptions, the community will probably not mind it all that much.

That's what the Church has seen in other places, including (relevantly) the Dallas temple.

 

Quote

And the Sonic Drive-in will love the new clientele which will stream into their drive-thru as a byproduct of the temple usage.

Well, the Sonic is technically located in Allen, so that won't help anyone in Fairview that much.

And given the direction most people will be coming to the temple (i.e., from Central Expressway / US 75), Sonic would be on their way in. However, you know what they do have in Fairview, which happens to be right along the way back to the freeway? A Swig. Kudos to whoever snagged that franchise location.

 

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

That's what the Church has seen in other places, including (relevantly) the Dallas temple.

 

Well, the Sonic is technically located in Allen, so that won't help anyone in Fairview that much.

And given the direction most people will be coming to the temple (i.e., from Central Expressway / US 75), Sonic would be on their way in. However, you know what they do have in Fairview, which happens to be right along the way back to the freeway? A Swig. Kudos to whoever snagged that franchise location.

 

I’ve been to the Buc-ee’s in Melissa. Maybe that is on the way for some:) 

[Peacefully]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Every person I've spoken with who actually works in city planning, city government, or real estate law seems to think so.

In fact, the only people who seem to think differently are those serving on the Town Council in Fairview. I would hate to be their attorney about now.

 

Aye, there's the rub.

Given how far apart the Church and the Town are on what they each want, I suspect it may ultimately be best to just fight for it once and be done with it.

I mean, I don't want this to sound morbid, but for all practical purposes virtually 100% of the people who stood in opposition to the temple in the PZ and Town Council meetings will be dead within fifty years.

I can understand why some who live near the site currently may be unhappy with the decision, but once the temple is built it won't be something that has changed - it will be a known quantity. And as people come and go, over time, you will see the language shift from them talking about "their temple" to "the temple" and eventually "our temple."

 

That does sound pretty morbid:(

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I’ve been to the Buc-ee’s in Melissa. Maybe that is on the way for some:) 

If you're coming south from one of the girl-cities (e.g., Melissa / Anna) or from farther up north on 75, say from Van Alstyne or Sherman, then that could be an option. Still, with it being on the east side of the freeway, it would probably make more sense to stop on the way back rather than on the way there, but hey - if you need to stop somewhere, might as well be someplace with the cleanest bathrooms in America. Their beef jerky and brisket sandwiches aren't half bad either.  

 

[Peacefully]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

If you're coming south from one of the girl-cities (e.g., Melissa / Anna) or from farther up north on 75, say from Van Alstyne or Sherman, then that could be an option. Still, with it being on the east side of the freeway, it would probably make more sense to stop on the way back rather than on the way there, but hey - if you need to stop somewhere, might as well be someplace with the cleanest bathrooms in America. Their beef jerky and brisket sandwiches aren't half bad either.  

 

I love the barbecue sandwiches! 

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

Well, the Sonic is technically located in Allen, so that won't help anyone in Fairview that much.

One poster said that the Sonic is right across the street from the temple. Maybe on the wrong side?

The London temple is not far from a restaurant called "Smith and Western" that has American Southwest decor and features a lot of American-style food. Their chili isn't as good as mine, of course, nor spicy enough (IMHO), but it's not bad. A lot of temple goers and temple staff eat there, naturally. Especially since the temple cafeteria closed. This "Smith and Western" is not a one-off, though. It's actually a small chain of restaurants in the south of England.

7 hours ago, Amulek said:

And given the direction most people will be coming to the temple (i.e., from Central Expressway / US 75), Sonic would be on their way in. However, you know what they do have in Fairview, which happens to be right along the way back to the freeway? A Swig. Kudos to whoever snagged that franchise location.

 

A "Swig"? Never heard of that. From your wink, I imagine that's a bar?

Edited August 13 by Stargazer

[Calm]

46 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

One poster said that the Sonic is right across the street from the temple. Maybe on the wrong side?

The London temple is not far from a restaurant called "Smith and Western" that has American Southwest decor and features a lot of American-style food. Their chili isn't as good as mine, of course, nor spicy enough (IMHO), but it's not bad. A lot of temple goers and temple staff eat there, naturally. Especially since the temple cafeteria closed. This "Smith and Western" is not a one-off, though. It's actually a small chain of restaurants in the south of England.

A "Swig"? Never heard of that. From your wink, I imagine that's a bar?

 Ever heard of dirty sodas?  Sodalicious?
 

Swig is another version….https://swigdrinks.com/menu/

https://www.eater.com/23041658/dirty-soda-trend-tiktok-coffee-mate-creamer

Edited August 13 by Calm

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

 Ever heard of dirty sodas?  Sodalicious?
 

Swig is another version….https://swigdrinks.com/menu/

https://www.eater.com/23041658/dirty-soda-trend-tiktok-coffee-mate-creamer

It's all new to me, I'm afraid.

Ever heard of the Perky Pickle? It was a deep-fried dill pickle that had a couple of shops in the Orem-Provo area back in 1975ish. Being a lover of dill pickles it was very nice!

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It's all new to me, I'm afraid.

Ever heard of the Perky Pickle? It was a deep-fried dill pickle that had a couple of shops in the Orem-Provo area back in 1975ish. Being a lover of dill pickles it was very nice!

I remember the pickle, not the restaurants 

[Stargazer]

Just now, Calm said:

I remember the pickle, not the restaurants 

Cool! Wasn't a restaurant, per se. They sold them at the food court to take along. There was one in the Orem Mall that I remember.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Cool! Wasn't a restaurant, per se. They sold them at the food court to take along. There was one in the Orem Mall that I remember.

I am not a dill pickle fan, so never tried them.

[Amulek]

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

One poster said that the Sonic is right across the street from the temple. Maybe on the wrong side?

That was probably me. I'm local and have been posting updates for all the goings ons. 

On the east side of 75, Stacy Road serves as the boundary between Fairview and Allen. The temple is going to be located on the north side of the street (in Fairview), facing south. The Sonic is across the street directly south of the temple, so the Sonic is actually in Allen.

 

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

The London temple is not far from a restaurant called "Smith and Western" that has American Southwest decor and features a lot of American-style food. Their chili isn't as good as mine, of course, nor spicy enough (IMHO), but it's not bad. A lot of temple goers and temple staff eat there, naturally. Especially since the temple cafeteria closed. This "Smith and Western" is not a one-off, though. It's actually a small chain of restaurants in the south of England.

I have never felt a strong desire to travel internationally, but England is on my list of places I have thought about visiting before. The fact that I almost speak the same language is a big plus. 

I'm with you on the chili situation though. I've yet to find a place that makes something better than my own. 

 

52 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

A "Swig"? Never heard of that. From your wink, I imagine that's a bar?

@Calm beat me to it. Swig is kind of like the Mormon version of Starbucks - only rather than delivering caffeine in a manner prohibited by the Word of Wisdom they give it to you in a way that (unchecked) will induce diabetes instead. 

I can't get on board with it myself, but I know lots of LDS folks who do.

[Amulek]

45 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Ever heard of the Perky Pickle? It was a deep-fried dill pickle that had a couple of shops in the Orem-Provo area back in 1975ish. Being a lover of dill pickles it was very nice!

Never seen that one, but lots of restaurants around here serve fried pickles. Some places do the coins, but I tend to prefer the spears myself. In fact, I believe Sonic still has "pickle fries" on their menu currently. Their batter isn't the best though, so be sure to order them crispy.

 

[carbon dioxide]

The Church should have train as a temple.  It can travel around the country and spend a few weeks in a city before moving on to the next one.  Also they make a 500 foot long boat into a temple.  It can travel to different countries as well.  

[Stargazer]

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

I have never felt a strong desire to travel internationally, but England is on my list of places I have thought about visiting before. The fact that I almost speak the same language is a big plus. 

I know, right?   But seriously, it isn't the language, per se, but the "false friends" in the terminology department. We Yanks think it is quaint that a car's hood is a bonnet, the fenders are mudguards, and the trunk is the boot. But such "false friends" as "fanny pack" and "pants" mean something rather more different over here. Consider that "pants" is what we would call "panties". As for "fanny" -- well, look it up, I shall not tell you here.

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

I'm with you on the chili situation though. I've yet to find a place that makes something better than my own. 

I think most places buy canned chili. And I've never had a canned chili that is adequate. Better than nothing, normally, but not that much better than nothing. 

I wish you and I could have a chili cookoff! But I put my standard chili recipe in the Social Hall recipe topic, so we could have a virtual chili cookoff if you'd make my chili and compare it with your own.  

As far as England is concerned, they insist upon spelling chili with two Ls: "Chilli." This is completely wrong of course, since the name is Spanish, and two Ls together are NOT pronounced L. I don't think I can get the country on my side on this, however. My wife is tired of hearing me complain about it.

13 hours ago, Amulek said:

 

@Calm beat me to it. Swig is kind of like the Mormon version of Starbucks - only rather than delivering caffeine in a manner prohibited by the Word of Wisdom they give it to you in a way that (unchecked) will induce diabetes instead. 

I can't get on board with it myself, but I know lots of LDS folks who do.

Hmmm. Maybe I'll try it if I ever get near one. 

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I know, right?   But seriously, it isn't the language, per se, but the "false friends" in the terminology department. We Yanks think it is quaint that a car's hood is a bonnet, the fenders are mudguards, and the trunk is the boot. But such "false friends" as "fanny pack" and "pants" mean something rather more different over here. Consider that "pants" is what we would call "panties". As for "fanny" -- well, look it up, I shall not tell you here.

I think most places buy canned chili. And I've never had a canned chili that is adequate. Better than nothing, normally, but not that much better than nothing. 

I wish you and I could have a chili cookoff! But I put my standard chili recipe in the Social Hall recipe topic, so we could have a virtual chili cookoff if you'd make my chili and compare it with your own.  

As far as England is concerned, they insist upon spelling chili with two Ls: "Chilli." This is completely wrong of course, since the name is Spanish, and two Ls together are NOT pronounced L. I don't think I can get the country on my side on this, however. My wife is tired of hearing me complain about it.

Hmmm. Maybe I'll try it if I ever get near one. 

For the record, Fiiz is way better than Swig. Go there if you get to Utah. 😁