Permit Denied for McKinney Temple

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

We'll be going out to Utah here in a couple of weeks to drop our daughter off at school. She loves all of that funny flavored coke stuff (Dr. Pepper mostly), so we'll probably need to give it a go.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

We'll be going out to Utah here in a couple of weeks to drop our daughter off at school. She loves all of that funny flavored coke stuff (Dr. Pepper mostly), so we'll probably need to give it a go.

I think that all those soda shops are probably about the same, really.  But I like the Fiiz names for things the best.   (Berry Good Dr. is a good Dr. Pepper option, but I like crimson splash with sprite zero, or a good Shrute Fruit or Chandler Bing if I'm ok with a little caffeine).

[Tacenda]

I don't get why the church would sue to put the steeple in according to their own dictates, it should follow the 12th article of faith stating we believe in obeying the law. 

It's disappointing for the church to go that route. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/collin-county/fairview-mayor-church-dispute-headed-court/287-c2018ffb-6376-4480-b87c-1e45ff8e3994

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't get why the church would sue to put the steeple in according to their own dictates, it should follow the 12th article of faith stating we believe in obeying the law. 

It's disappointing for the church to go that route. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/collin-county/fairview-mayor-church-dispute-headed-court/287-c2018ffb-6376-4480-b87c-1e45ff8e3994

I think the church only sues when it perceives that an injustice has been done. So like, if a town has approved other height exemptions, and then denies their request they might sue because they perceive an illegal bias against the church.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I don't get why the church would sue to put the steeple in according to their own dictates, it should follow the 12th article of faith stating we believe in obeying the law.

Well, that's kind of the issue. The Church is obeying the town's law...that applies to churches.

The town wants to pretend like the residential zoning rules apply to churches just because the temple is going to be located in an area that is currently zoned residential, but that's not what their ordinances dictate. In fact, none of the other churches on that street - including the two existing church buildings next to the temple - follow the town's residential zoning rules with respect to building height.

The city has historically granted exceptions to their building height requirements for other religious groups, including granting an exception for the Methodist church a little further down the road (on the exact same street) to build a bell tower in excess of 150 feet. As such, the Church reasonably expects to be treated similarly under the law. And if the town isn't going to treat similarly situated religious groups equally under the law, then it make sense that the church would need to sue in order to defend their right to be treated fairly.

 

Quote

It's disappointing for the church to go that route. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/collin-county/fairview-mayor-church-dispute-headed-court/287-c2018ffb-6376-4480-b87c-1e45ff8e3994

While I do think a lawsuit is coming, to date, the Church itself hasn't taken any legal action against the town. The lawsuits referenced in the article are from "two individuals," not the Church. 

Frankly, I'm surprised any individuals would take it upon themselves to try and litigate this with the town. I'm not sure what their cause of action would be (or even if they would have standing) but I guess we'll see. If something ends up coming from it I'll try to hunt down the public court records for the case so everyone can review it themselves.

 

Edited August 15, 2024 by Amulek

[blackstrap]

I wonder if all this was discussed with the town before the Church bought the land . Did the Church just assume that exemptions would be granted even if the spire was nearly 200 ft tall ? At what point would all agree that the town would be justified in saying ," this far and no further " ?

[bluebell]

57 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

I wonder if all this was discussed with the town before the Church bought the land . Did the Church just assume that exemptions would be granted even if the spire was nearly 200 ft tall ? At what point would all agree that the town would be justified in saying ," this far and no further " ?

Since the town had previously allowed a similar exemption to a Methodist church, it would be reasonable for the church to assume the city would do the same for them.

I think that city codes are important, but exemptions are a dime a dozen for a lot of them.  If a town really wants to say "this far and no further" then they need to stick with that no matter what (or who) is asking.

[blackstrap]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

they need to stick with that no matter what (or who) is asking.

Has the town considered a compromise of a 150 ft steeple? The proposed temple had a 173 ft. steeple. Just an extra 23 ft. If next year the Southern Baptists ask for a 196 ft. tower ( not that they would ) should the town say "sure, it is just an extra 23 ft. ? When would the ' camel ' be totally inside the tent, when there was a plan to build a 600 ft. tower a la the Seattle Space Needle? I think the Church would have been on much firmer ground had the design been with a total  of 145 ft. to begin with. 

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Has the town considered a compromise of a 150 ft steeple? The proposed temple had a 173 ft. steeple. Just an extra 23 ft. If next year the Southern Baptists ask for a 196 ft. tower ( not that they would ) should the town say "sure, it is just an extra 23 ft. ? When would the ' camel ' be totally inside the tent, when there was a plan to build a 600 ft. tower a la the Seattle Space Needle? I think the Church would have been on much firmer ground had the design been with a total  of 145 ft. to begin with. 

I think the issue is that they approved the methodist spire of more than 150' for being built down the same road that the church wants to build the temple on.  So it's not so much that it's an extra 23 ft (with this temple anyway) but an issue of why was it ok for the Methodist religious building but not for a latter-day saint one?

If exemptions are routinely given to others, then should the church be the only organization that is required to stay within the original code?

[Calm]

19 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Has the town considered a compromise of a 150 ft steeple?

Good question.

[webbles]

40 minutes ago, blackstrap said:

Has the town considered a compromise of a 150 ft steeple? The proposed temple had a 173 ft. steeple. Just an extra 23 ft. If next year the Southern Baptists ask for a 196 ft. tower ( not that they would ) should the town say "sure, it is just an extra 23 ft. ? When would the ' camel ' be totally inside the tent, when there was a plan to build a 600 ft. tower a la the Seattle Space Needle? I think the Church would have been on much firmer ground had the design been with a total  of 145 ft. to begin with. 

I listened to the meeting where they discussed the request.  At the very end (around 2 hours and 35 minutes) into the meeting, one of the council members proposed that the church could rework the request to have a height similar to the next door stake center (I think the height was around 80 ft).  The other council members disagreed.  It felt like the disagreement was mostly around the fact that their job is to either accept or deny, not discuss possible changes.  So, it doesn't seem like the town council has discussed any compromise.  You can listen to the entire discussion at https://fairviewtexas.org/government/agendas-and-minutes.html.  Find the Planning and Zoning meeting for May 9, 2024.  The minutes are not very useful as it just lists the people who spoke, not what they actually talked about.

[blackstrap]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

If exemptions are routinely given to others,

I am curious to know just how routine such exemptions are. Once or twice over 10 years or consistently on a yearly basis ? I am not discounting the anti Mormon bias in the least. The building height is just the biggest club currently and it would require a substantial redesign to come close to meeting the zone rules. Changing the lighting output and orientation would be much less of a problem. 

Hindsight being what it is , had the original design come in at a bit less height than the Methodist exemption, a lot of wind likely would have been taken out of the opponent's sails. 

[webbles]

Listening to the meeting, I think one of the persons on the church's team was a little too aggressive.  It didn't sound like he was a member (the council asked him if the height was a part of it beliefs and he said he was the wrong person to ask that as he isn't a member).  But he started his presentation on why the church can build the temple by stating that the 1st amendment (and some other laws) require the city to accept the plans.  It felt like he was threatening the city.  I think that might have been off putting.

One of the public comments at the meeting wondered why the McKinney Temple was going to be the largest in the state of Texas with 43,000 sq ft and 170 ft tall.  The Dallas Temple is larger with 44,000 sq ft but much shorter (~100 ft).  The Houston Temple is the next closest with 34,000 sq ft and is 160 ft tall.  Is the number of members in its area a high amount?

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, blackstrap said:

I wonder if all this was discussed with the town before the Church bought the land .

Not to my knowledge. I'm not sure why that would be necessary though.

When you buy a piece of property you generally assume that you can do pretty much whatever you want with it, so long as your actions remain within the confines of law.

 

Quote

Did the Church just assume that exemptions would be granted even if the spire was nearly 200 ft tall ?

The Church is acting in compliance with the town's ordinances, so there really shouldn't be any reason to believe they wouldn't be afforded the same sort of treatment that other similarly situated religious groups have been historically given.

 

Quote

At what point would all agree that the town would be justified in saying ," this far and no further " ?

Easy. When they do something like D.C. to enact - and then fairly, consistently enforce - clear guidelines for building height (see, e.g., here). Which is, no doubt, partly why the D.C. temple, with a spire height of 288 feet (more than 100' greater than what D.C. allows), happens to be geographically located within Kensington, Maryland.

 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, blackstrap said:

I am curious to know just how routine such exemptions are. Once or twice over 10 years or consistently on a yearly basis ? I am not discounting the anti Mormon bias in the least. The building height is just the biggest club currently and it would require a substantial redesign to come close to meeting the zone rules. Changing the lighting output and orientation would be much less of a problem. 

Hindsight being what it is , had the original design come in at a bit less height than the Methodist exemption, a lot of wind likely would have been taken out of the opponent's sails. 

It would be interesting to know how often, I agree.

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, blackstrap said:

Has the town considered a compromise of a 150 ft steeple?

I believe the Mayor may have asked something like that of the Fairview bishop at one point, but it was pretty late into the process.

Between the first and second Town Council meetings, the Church proposed a 15' decrease in steeple height and a possible name change, but the city was not satisfied that went far enough. They are set on it being much smaller.

 

Quote

The proposed temple had a 173 ft. steeple. Just an extra 23 ft. If next year the Southern Baptists ask for a 196 ft. tower ( not that they would ) should the town say "sure, it is just an extra 23 ft. ? When would the ' camel ' be totally inside the tent, when there was a plan to build a 600 ft. tower a la the Seattle Space Needle?

This is something that can easily by handled by passing neutral, generally applicable zoning laws and then enforcing them equally. There's a reason why not all cities have tall buildings - they just don't allow them (any of them) to be built in the first place.

If the town of Fairview really cares about building height, that's something they could simply put into their ordinances. Instead, they have opted to take a small town, good ol' boys approach to handling every single building on a case-by-case basis. It doesn't have to always be that way though. They could enact absolute maximum building height rules at any point - something they might seriously be considering now for the future.

 

Quote

I think the Church would have been on much firmer ground had the design been with a total  of 145 ft. to begin with. 

The members of the Town Council are under the impression that the 154' building that they previously approved doesn't count because it wasn't actually built. They believe the Church ought to be limited to the maximum height of the existing buildings in town. From everything I have seen, I don't believe a 150' steeple would have been any more acceptable to them. YMMV.

 

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, webbles said:

I listened to the meeting where they discussed the request.  At the very end (around 2 hours and 35 minutes) into the meeting, one of the council members proposed that the church could rework the request to have a height similar to the next door stake center (I think the height was around 80 ft).  The other council members disagreed.  It felt like the disagreement was mostly around the fact that their job is to either accept or deny, not discuss possible changes.  So, it doesn't seem like the town council has discussed any compromise.  You can listen to the entire discussion at https://fairviewtexas.org/government/agendas-and-minutes.html.  Find the Planning and Zoning meeting for May 9, 2024. 

That's the P&Z meeting, not the Town Council. The Town Council has never met with the Church - only the Mayor, City Attorney, and a couple of other city officials have done so, and even then only between the first and second Town Council meetings. They have been pretty clear about what they want in terms of a compromise though - 42' building height w/a 68' steeple. I don't think the Church considers that much of a compromise though.

 

[blackstrap]

17 minutes ago, Amulek said:

small town, good ol' boys approach

Yes, the goal posts on wheels approach never results in controversy.🙄

[Amulek]

12 hours ago, blackstrap said:

I am curious to know just how routine such exemptions are. Once or twice over 10 years or consistently on a yearly basis ?

I don't think it's about frequency, it's about consistency.

If, every time a church comes in and asks for an exemption (even pretty big ones) and those get granted, then the Church has the right to expect the same sort of treatment.

Or, to reverse your question on itself, I would be curious to know if you could point to a single case where a church wasn't granted an exemption?

 

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

Listening to the meeting, I think one of the persons on the church's team was a little too aggressive.  It didn't sound like he was a member (the council asked him if the height was a part of it beliefs and he said he was the wrong person to ask that as he isn't a member).  But he started his presentation on why the church can build the temple by stating that the 1st amendment (and some other laws) require the city to accept the plans.  It felt like he was threatening the city.  I think that might have been off putting.

That would be Richard Abernathy. He's the local council hired by the Church to represent them in this case. He's a land use attorney who does a lot of work representing religious organizations. He's not a member of the church; in fact, I believe he happens to be Methodist. Personally, I didn't think his oral remarks - either to the PZ board or to the Town Council - were especially good, but the letter he assembled and provided to the Town Council prior to representing the proposal was quite good (see, e.g., here).

 

Quote

One of the public comments at the meeting wondered why the McKinney Temple was going to be the largest in the state of Texas with 43,000 sq ft and 170 ft tall.  The Dallas Temple is larger with 44,000 sq ft but much shorter (~100 ft).  The Houston Temple is the next closest with 34,000 sq ft and is 160 ft tall.  Is the number of members in its area a high amount?

For Texas, definitely. McKinney is growing rapidly, and there are quite a few members both in and moving to the area. Part of the reason for the design will be to accommodate both current and future need.

 

[webbles]

10 hours ago, Amulek said:

That's the P&Z meeting, not the Town Council. The Town Council has never met with the Church - only the Mayor, City Attorney, and a couple of other city officials have done so, and even then only between the first and second Town Council meetings. They have been pretty clear about what they want in terms of a compromise though - 42' building height w/a 68' steeple. I don't think the Church considers that much of a compromise though.

 

Thanks.  I found the Town Council meeting on Aug 6.  A 4 hour meeting!  I listened to the start and the end.  And yeah, the city will only accept a 42' building height w/a 68' steeple.  They are pretty adamant about that.  They also want a much, much smaller building in sq footage.  Even if the temple was redesigned to be a 68' steeple but still contained 44,000 sq ft, it felt like they would still deny it.  They want a stake center size building, nothing bigger.

It was also interesting to learn that the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) isn't for the steeple.  It is for the building.  Any church in Fairview requires a CUP, no matter the size.  That's weird.  They have absolutely no ordinances on the sizes or designs of a church building.

[Amulek]

11 hours ago, webbles said:

Thanks.  I found the Town Council meeting on Aug 6.  A 4 hour meeting! 

Yeah, it was a long meeting. And that was just the second part.

For those who are interested, here are direct audio links for the three public meetings which have been held thus far pertaining to the temple:

• 05/09/2024 - Planning and Zoning - Audio (2:41) - Result: Denied
• 06/24/2024 - Town Council (Part I) - Audio (3:02) - Result: Continued
• 08/06/2024 - Town Council (Part II) - Audio (4:07) - Result: Denied w/o Prejudice

That clocks in a just under 10 hours total, not including any of the travel / wait time for those who attended in person. To put that in perspective, that's longer than all four of the original Hunger Games movies combined. /phew

 

11 hours ago, webbles said:

I listened to the start and the end.  And yeah, the city will only accept a 42' building height w/a 68' steeple.  They are pretty adamant about that.  They also want a much, much smaller building in sq footage.  Even if the temple was redesigned to be a 68' steeple but still contained 44,000 sq ft, it felt like they would still deny it.  They want a stake center size building, nothing bigger.

They want something more like the Dallas temple, but even then they suggest that such a design would only be "closer" to their so-called guidelines. 

 

11 hours ago, webbles said:

It was also interesting to learn that the CUP (Conditional Use Permit) isn't for the steeple.  It is for the building.  Any church in Fairview requires a CUP, no matter the size.  That's weird.  They have absolutely no ordinances on the sizes or designs of a church building.

Correct. But this is exactly the sort of thing you see in small government (and small businesses for that matter) all the time. Rather than creating rules and/or policies that can be applied evenly across the board, those in power want to have their hands in every single decision that takes place. 

The problem with that practice, however, is that it invariably results in disparate treatment and somebody will eventually call you out on it. For the Town of Fairview, it looks like that time may be close at hand. 

I remember listening to the mayor's remarks where, on the public record, he referred to the Church as "arrogant" and just thought to myself - as I've done multiple times throughout this process - how much I would hate to be the poor lawyer stuck with defending the town when this ultimately goes before a federal judge. 

 

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Yeah, it was a long meeting. And that was just the second part.

For those who are interested, here are direct audio links for the three public meetings which have been held thus far pertaining to the temple:

• 05/09/2024 - Planning and Zoning - Audio (2:41) - Result: Denied
• 06/24/2024 - Town Council (Part I) - Audio (3:02) - Result: Continued
• 08/06/2024 - Town Council (Part II) - Audio (4:07) - Result: Denied w/o Prejudice

That clocks in a just under 10 hours total, not including any of the travel / wait time for those who attended in person. To put that in perspective, that's longer than all four of the original Hunger Games movies combined. /phew

 

They want something more like the Dallas temple, but even then they suggest that such a design would only be "closer" to their so-called guidelines. 

 

Correct. But this is exactly the sort of thing you see in small government (and small businesses for that matter) all the time. Rather than creating rules and/or policies that can be applied evenly across the board, those in power want to have their hands in every single decision that takes place. 

The problem with that practice, however, is that it invariably results in disparate treatment and somebody will eventually call you out on it. For the Town of Fairview, it looks like that time may be close at hand. 

I remember listening to the mayor's remarks where, on the public record, he referred to the Church as "arrogant" and just thought to myself - as I've done multiple times throughout this process - how much I would hate to be the poor lawyer stuck with defending the town when this ultimately goes before a federal judge. 

 

They sound like a really controlling and power hungry HOA.

[Stargazer]

On 8/16/2024 at 2:27 PM, Amulek said:

Easy. When they do something like D.C. to enact - and then fairly, consistently enforce - clear guidelines for building height (see, e.g., here). Which is, no doubt, partly why the D.C. temple, with a spire height of 288 feet (more than 100' greater than what D.C. allows), happens to be geographically located within Kensington, Maryland.

Many temples are not built within the city limits of the city the temple is named for. This may or may not have to do with zoning issues, but can you imagine someone talking about the Kensington Temple? Or the Bellevue and Lake Oswego temples? All of which are named after big cities they are close to, but not inside. 

Additionally, there may not be easily obtainable land within some very large cities. Undeveloped land suitable for a temple in Seattle and Portland, for example, would be quite scarce and thus very pricey. So these two temples stand in Bellevue, WA and Lake Oswego, OR.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

They sound like a really controlling and power hungry HOA.

I'm sure they don't think of themselves that way. They likey perceive themselves as being wise curators who are carefully crafting every tiny aspect of their town's character. 

And, to be fair, I think they are doing precisely what most of the residents want them to be doing. I just think it's sad that they are putting aside what I consider to be their fiduciary duty in order to appease their constituents and maintain their political positions.

Sometimes you have to be the grown up in the room and tell the children 'no.' But that's not what they have elected to do. Instead, they have made the political decision to join in with the crowd and play the victim card.

Yes, those mean, arrogant Mormons are going to barge into our quiet little town with their big money and smooth lawyers and try to force us to respect their rights guaranteed under state and federal law. How dare they!

Oh, and if you won't kowtow to the arbitrary (not to mention skimpy*) guidelines we have given you, then I guess we'll just try to guilt you into submission by making it crystal clear that, should you stand up for yourselves, we plan on resenting you for doing so. Like forever. 

Classy.

*Seriously, even the Pope in Rome was cool with us building a bigger temple than what they will allow in Fairview. 

 

Edited August 17, 2024 by Amulek