Permit Denied for McKinney Temple

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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. 

Pretty much like every HOA board then. 

Quote

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

Good point.  It could be an example of their level of defensiveness and worry about the church.  The pope does not seem at all concerned that the presence of a temple in Rome will lessen the Catholic church's influence there.  He's probably secure in his beliefs and in God's ability to lead people to Him (and the Catholic church) even in a competitive environment.

I would guess that the Fairview government (who I'm assuming--maybe incorrectly--is largely non latter-day saint Christian) is very much concerned about it and not at all secure.  So stacking the deck in their favor seems like a valid option.

[Amulek]

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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. 

Sure. And I don't disagree. My point, however, was mainly about how can a city go about controlling its skyline, and it isn't as though they are powerless to do so.

However, once a location has been selected for a temple, the design process surveys all of the local rules/ regulations and then puts together a plan which will fit the site.

And if the D.C. temple were physically located in the District proper, it would almost certainly have a different design, because unlike Fairview (and many other places) D.C. has a long-standing statute governing maximum building height.

 

21 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

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.

From what I can gather, the Church is able to afford pretty much any piece of land they want to acquire. If the prophet were inspired to purchase an entire city block in downtown Seattle (say, Rainier Square @ > $600M) then we could do that.

It would probably take awhile, and the commute would be a lot crummier for most folks than going to Bellevue, but it could be done. 

 

[Stargazer]

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

From what I can gather, the Church is able to afford pretty much any piece of land they want to acquire. If the prophet were inspired to purchase an entire city block in downtown Seattle (say, Rainier Square @ > $600M) then we could do that.

And of course the Church's critics would be grumbling like there were no tomorrow.

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

It would probably take awhile, and the commute would be a lot crummier for most folks than going to Bellevue, but it could be done. 

It could be, but it should not be. I'm from Washington state, and Seattle is definitely a place one wants to stay away from. Traffic is bad at the best of times. But the temple located in Bellevue is really quite easily gotten to. It's visible from Interstate 5, and smooth as butter to access from the freeway. It is my favorite temple, even though I am now in the London Temple district.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

those in power want to have their hands in every single decision that takes place. 

It is also an attitude that can screw you up in other ways.  One of the reasons entrepreneurs fail, according to my husband’s research (entrepreneurship was his field), was their insistence to keep control and make all the decisions.  It was their baby after all.  Hiring experts to cover the gaps in their skill set is the way to go, but one still has to be willing to listen to them.  Development and growth invariably stalled out if the entrepreneur insisted on micromanaging everything.

[Amulek]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Pretty much like every HOA board then. 

Fair.  

 

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Good point.  It could be an example of their level of defensiveness and worry about the church.  The pope does not seem at all concerned that the presence of a temple in Rome will lessen the Catholic church's influence there.  He's probably secure in his beliefs and in God's ability to lead people to Him (and the Catholic church) even in a competitive environment.

I would guess that the Fairview government (who I'm assuming--maybe incorrectly--is largely non latter-day saint Christian) is very much concerned about it and not at all secure.  So stacking the deck in their favor seems like a valid option.

I think there could be a very small worry that the temple may lead to an influx of members in the community. In fact, my wife and I discovered during the P&Z meeting that one of our wealthy friends has already purchased property in Fairview and plans to build there. 

But, for most folks in the community, I really do think it's mostly about the size of the building. They want us to build something much smaller than what we want.*

We believe we are within our rights to build the temple as designed; they don't like the size and believe they are within their rights to prevent us from building it. 

Now that they have denied our permit application, the next step will likely be to get the courts involved and see which side is right. From everything I have seen, it appears as though the Church has the stronger legal position - like, considerably stronger, so I suspect we will likely prevail if that's the route we go. 

*There was a time when I think the Church would have acquiesced to local sentiment about such things, but I think we are more willing to stand up for ourselves now - even if it means generating a small amount of animus in the short-run. 

 

[Amulek]

49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

And of course the Church's critics would be grumbling like there were no tomorrow.

Oh my goodness, yes. We would never hear the end of it.

 

49 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

It could be, but it should not be. I'm from Washington state, and Seattle is definitely a place one wants to stay away from. Traffic is bad at the best of times. But the temple located in Bellevue is really quite easily gotten to. It's visible from Interstate 5, and smooth as butter to access from the freeway. It is my favorite temple, even though I am now in the London Temple district.

100% agree. I was married in the Seattle temple, and while I wouldn't object to struggling with traffic to get downtown on occasion - say for a Mariner's game or a visit down to Pike Place Market (Ivar's on the waterfront is great) - there's no way on earth I would want to deal with that mess every time I wanted to go to the temple.  

I believe the location were it resides was truly inspired. That being said, let's not forget that when the Church was trying to build the temple there, people were literally chaining themselves to trees in protest. What the Church has to deal with now in terms of pushback is pretty insignificant in comparison to what we used to put up with.

 

Edited August 17, 2024 by Amulek

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

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.

Lake Oswego is a higher end community- I'm sure the land wasn't cheap.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

From what I can gather, the Church is able to afford pretty much any piece of land they want to acquire. If the prophet were inspired to purchase an entire city block in downtown Seattle (say, Rainier Square @ > $600M) then we could do that.

It would probably take awhile, and the commute would be a lot crummier for most folks than going to Bellevue, but it could be done

But this is likely a relatively recent development, last 15, maybe 20 years, so should only be applied in cases of analyzing location choice of more recent temples imo. 

[smac97]

An update (Deseret News) : Church seeks fairness for plans to build McKinney Texas Temple

Quote

A town council’s vote to reject the plans for the McKinney Texas Temple filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, according to a letter to the council from the attorney representing the church.

The Fairview Town Council unanimously denied a conditional use permit for the temple after a four-hour meeting on Aug. 6. Fairview and McKinney are neighboring suburbs within the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex and the proposed temple site is in Fairview.

Fairview’s conditional use permit process is “highly subjective” and creates a “substantial burden” to the religious exercise of the church and its members that runs afoul of the First Amendment, federal and state law and court precedents, according to the letter from the church’s attorneys, Richard Abernathy and Jared Pace of McKinney law firm of Abernathy Roeder Boyd Hullet.

“Nothing in the Town of Fairview’s Code of Ordinances would justify denying the church’s application,” the attorney’s wrote in the letter, which was sent to the mayor and each member of the council. “The town’s staff report correctly concludes that the church meets all legal requirements necessary for approval.”
...
Fairview’s decision, legal or not, is a window into the intersection of zoning ordinances, federal and state religious liberty laws and the way courts have interpreted them and the First Amendment. The church says it wants to be treated fairly.

I would like to see this letter.

Quote

The church plans to build what for it is a medium-sized temple of 44,000 square feet on 8 acres. The plans call for the temple to be 65 feet and a 108-foot steeple, for a total height of 173 feet.

Fairview Mayor Henry Lessner and others on the council said the steeple is too tall and the town would not issue a permit unless the church reduced the total height to 68 feet.

Church representatives approached the town this summer and offered to rename the temple for Fairview and reduce the steeple by 15 feet. That would make it similar in total height to the 154-foot tower the Fairview Town Council approved in 2006 for the Creekwood United Methodist Church. The Methodist church so far has not erected the tower.

This could be a difficult point for the city.

Quote

Fairview’s zoning ordinances include a provision for sexually-oriented businesses but no zone in the city includes churches as a permitted use. A church cannot build a chapel or synagogue or mosque without going before the town council to seek a conditional use permit.

This is an interesting detail.

Quote

Most American cities and towns anticipate the construction of churches in neighborhoods in their zoning laws. The church applied for a conditional use permit to build the temple in an area of Fairview that is zoned “One-Acre Ranch Estate.” The zone caps building heights for homes at 35 feet, but the town has provided conditional use permits in residential zones for cell towers, water tanks and churches.

“RE-1 zoning is used for single-family homes and facilities that pertain to them, which includes churches,” the church’s attorneys wrote.

Municipalities grant conditional uses when builders agree to mitigate the effects bigger, taller structures may have. Ordinances regularly expect churches that build on land abutting residential property to provide a landscape buffer.

This is all pretty standard stuff.  The Church does not seem to be asking for any special treatment.

Quote

Church representatives said the McKinney Temple plans do that. Most neighbors won’t be able to see the temple at all due to the height of the trees surrounding the property, and those who can see it will see only a portion of the thin spire, they said. The church published images that showed how tall the temple would look from various nearby locations.

“The temple is practically invisible from the surrounding neighborhoods,” the church’s attorneys wrote. They added, “Its visibility will be reduced when the Twin Oaks Church of Christ builds its house of worship on the lot immediately to the east.”

From the church’s perspective, Fairview is a residential Dallas suburb with eight churches in an area with substantial commercial buildings. If built, the temple would sit 1.6 miles from the Fairview Town Center mall, which sits on 65 acres and includes more than 900,000 square feet in stores.

Good information and context, this.

Quote

Those opposed to the temple say Fairview is rural. Some opponents wore green T-shirts with the words “Keeping it country” to the Aug. 6 council meeting.

Town council members said their decision to deny a permit to the Church of Jesus Christ was based on Fairview’s existing zoning ordinances, not religion.

“We’d be happy to have the temple if you can compromise on the building height and steeple height,” a council member said.

The council’s decision was made “without prejudice,” which means the church can return to seek a permit again in the future, but council members told church representatives not to come back until the proposal was for a smaller temple.

One council member said the church must keep the temple to 42 feet and the steeple below 68 feet, apparently because that is the height of the Latter-day Saint meetinghouse.

That seems kinda arbitrary.

Quote

What legal reasons could Fairview use to deny a permit for the temple?

Church attorneys said Fairview’s ordinances allow it to take 10 factors into consideration when the town council votes on a conditional use permit.

Those factors include transportation and fire safety, flood concerns, noise and lighting, parking and environmental and economic impact.

The attorneys said the church satisfied all 10, leaving the town one option for denying the application: To find that the proposed temple doesn’t meet the 10th factor: “aesthetic appearance of the use, and other sensory effects that may have on the established character of the neighborhood, its property and the property within the town as a whole.”

The proposed temple is consistent with the neighborhood for five reasons, the church attorneys said.

1. Churches are inherently consistent with residential neighborhoods. The Texas Supreme Court declared in 1944 that excluding churches from residential neighborhoods “does not promote the health, the safety, the morals or the general welfare of the community.”

“Churches in residential neighborhoods are a common feature of American life and have never been considered inconsistent with the character of a neighborhood,” the attorneys wrote. “The church’s own experience confirms this. Most of the temples built by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the United States are in residential neighborhoods.”

2. The temple lot is not in the middle of a residential neighborhood but on a busy road across from a shopping center.

3. The temple’s size is consistent with the character of the neighborhood because it is similar in height to several structures in Fairview and next to other churches. The town has water towers that reach 165, 155 and 123 feet and are far larger at the top than the temple’s proposed spire, which thins as it rises. Fairview also has a cell tower that reaches 155 feet.

4. The temple’s size is consistent with other churches in residential neighborhoods in the nearby areas. For example, the steeple of the McKinney Baptist Church, which is in the same zip code, reaches 170 feet.

5. The temple would be practically invisible from surrounding neighborhoods.

“The temple could not be any more consistent with the ‘established character of the neighborhood,’” the church’s attorneys wrote.

I will be interested to see the city's justification for denying the CPU.

Quote

Does a temple need a spire? Is it legal for a town or city to restrict how tall a spire is?

Church representatives told the city that temples are where Latter-day Saints perform their highest rituals. The walls in a temple’s celestial room are taller to depict what it would be like to live with God. Spires are symbolic of reaching toward heaven and drawing closer to God.

They also said that for Latter-day Saints, the choice of a temple site is a matter of determining God’s will and that temple architecture reflects the church’s belief that the temple is literally the house of the Lord.

The church’s attorneys said that relying on the aesthetic argument is prohibited by two significant laws — the federal “Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act” passed unanimously by Congress in 2000 and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1999. They also said courts have repeatedly rejected efforts to use aesthetics and sensory effects to trump religious freedom.

Those laws and court decisions, the attorneys said, prohibit any land-use decision that imposes a “substantial burden” on religious exercise. One of those decisions said municipalities may not “second guess” a religious group’s “description of its religious exercise.”

“In short, under TRFRA and RLUIPA, a substantial burden exists when government action prevents the use of real property in a manner motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs,” the church’s attorneys wrote.

They cited 20 court decisions from across the country that supported that position. For example, a New York appellate court in 2002 reversed a city’s denial of a temple steeple in a residential district despite the steeple representing a 77% increase over permitted height. The court said the evidence did not prove the proposed temple would have a “negative visual impact on the surrounding residential area.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2014 that a decision imposes a substantial burden if it interferes with “the ability of the [church] to conduct [itself] in accordance with [its] religious beliefs.”

The more this goes on, the less this seems to be about "aesthetics" and/or "keeping it country."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

Will it be invisible immediately or after the trees are full grown?  Anyone know?

[webbles]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I would like to see this letter.

The church (or maybe the lawyer firm) has set up a website https://mckinneytexastemple.org/.  On there, they have the full letter - https://mckinneytexastemple.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/2024-08-05-Letter-Re-Conditional-Use-Permit-for-LDS-CUP2024-04.pdf

 

[BlueDreams]

46 minutes ago, Calm said:

Will it be invisible immediately or after the trees are full grown?  Anyone know?

I'm assuming not. Those trees are fully mature. The neighborhoods they're in are well established ones, which means the tree cover is established as well. At least 20-30 year growth on them depending.

I refreshed my memory of my high school hometown, which borders fairview. The street that the temple site is on is literally the border of my hometown and it's less than a 5 minute drive from the subdivision my mom lives in. 

I'm now really annoyed that they're using the "keeping it country" stick for their issues with aesthetics. That area is by no means country unless you pretend Fairview is its own thing. It's a mile away from a HUGE shopping area, across the street from sprawling subdivisions on a main road with tons of traffic passing on it daily. These are all Allen subdivisions though.  Fairview is more sparsely populated, but it isn't country, it's suburban wealthy areas, with larger properties and plots of land (I'm guessing 1-1.5 acre lots based on the closest zillow properties for sale) that's sandwiched between two bigger suburban sprawls/cities with over 100K and 200k people in them respectively. I guess it's more catchy a saying than "keeping it texas posh" though.

 I'm leaning for this being a NIMBY thing slightly over this being a religious bias thing. (though, I doubt there's not some of that. The area is why I had a massive prejudice towards Ev groups for years after leaving the place. It was not exactly kind to "the mormons").

Still the aesthetics arguments is super stretched. I wouldn't be surprised if the church doesn't have a case. 

 

Edited August 29, 2024 by BlueDreams

[webbles]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

Will it be invisible immediately or after the trees are full grown?  Anyone know?

They took several Google street images and put the temple in them to show how it would look.  You can see the examples at https://mckinneytexastemple.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/McKinney-Height-Concept-Images-07032024-Update.pdf.  A few (specifically 3, 7, and 8 ) look like trees were added but most look like the trees are already existing.  I suspect, though, that the pictures for 4, 10, and 11 were taken from the backyard of the houses, it would be a much different view.

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, webbles said:

it would be a much different view.

Yes, it likely wouldn’t affect curb appeal at all, but the backyard view likely depends a lot on what trees will go up on the temple plot as well as if the trees that line the boundary are evergreen or deciduous if I am reading it right.

We have mostly maple trees on our property, 15 to 20 years old, quite a few because I didn’t want the least look of desert and more woodland. I can keep our upstairs curtains open all summer and have total privacy except for the house across the street from a few angles, in winter there is no privacy.  Huge difference in view into everyone’s backyard and front yards except where there are evergreens.

[Amulek]

On 8/29/2024 at 7:25 PM, Calm said:

Yes, it likely wouldn’t affect curb appeal at all, but the backyard view likely depends a lot on what trees will go up on the temple plot as well as if the trees that line the boundary are evergreen or deciduous if I am reading it right.

Most of the local trees around here are not evergreen. The city of McKinney lines their public medians with magnolias, but residential neighborhoods tend to be full of things like live oak, ceder elm, chinese pistache, etc.

I don't remember the exact number that was given during the presentation, but I seem to recall thinking that the church was planning on adding a lot of new trees (as in 60-100+) as part of their proposed landscaping design, in addition to cleaning up / clearing out the existing underbrush.

I don't believe the temple will be invisible, but given the realistic sight lines from where people actually live, it won't be the monstrous eyesore some are making it out to be either. Still, they are welcome to their opinions.

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Most of the local trees around here are not evergreen. The city of McKinney lines their public medians with magnolias, but residential neighborhoods tend to be full of things like live oak, ceder elm, chinese pistache, etc.

I don't remember the exact number that was given during the presentation, but I seem to recall thinking that the church was planning on adding a lot of new trees (as in 60-100+) as part of their proposed landscaping design, in addition to cleaning up / clearing out the existing underbrush.

I don't believe the temple will be invisible, but given the realistic sight lines from where people actually live, it won't be the monstrous eyesore some are making it out to be either. Still, they are welcome to their opinions.

 

Anything that puts up masses of trees is great in my book….

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

Anything that puts up masses of trees is great in my book….

Utah is always tearing down giant trees to put up subdivisions and my heart dies a little inside every time.

[MustardSeed]

On 9/3/2024 at 12:13 PM, bluebell said:

Utah is always tearing down giant trees to put up subdivisions and my heart dies a little inside every time.

I love Utah for its mountains and outdoor sports but I missed the trees too much. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I love Utah for its mountains and outdoor sports but I missed the trees too much. 

Utah should consider its trees sacred, but I think they are under the impression that they aren't a desert and that trees are no big deal. 

Growing up in Wyoming, I'm used to wide open spaces and don't really like it when there are too many trees all the time.  I feel like there's a view that I'm missing somewhere but it's hidden. lol.  BUT, I love trees so much.  They make spaces (especially hot, dry spaces) inviting and pleasant and full of so many living things!

(I'm a little grumpy about this topic because as you know we are trying to sell our house and we have four giant, fully mature, trees surrounding the property.  They provide a ton of shade, especially in the evening because our backyard faces west and the trees block the afternoon light so the house is shaded during the hottest part of the day.  But we recently had someone look at our house and tell our realtor that our trees were 'concerning' and too big.  I really wanted to go Lorax on them but my realtor wouldn't let me.)

[Tacenda]

On 9/5/2024 at 9:59 AM, bluebell said:

Utah should consider its trees sacred, but I think they are under the impression that they aren't a desert and that trees are no big deal. 

Growing up in Wyoming, I'm used to wide open spaces and don't really like it when there are too many trees all the time.  I feel like there's a view that I'm missing somewhere but it's hidden. lol.  BUT, I love trees so much.  They make spaces (especially hot, dry spaces) inviting and pleasant and full of so many living things!

(I'm a little grumpy about this topic because as you know we are trying to sell our house and we have four giant, fully mature, trees surrounding the property.  They provide a ton of shade, especially in the evening because our backyard faces west and the trees block the afternoon light so the house is shaded during the hottest part of the day.  But we recently had someone look at our house and tell our realtor that our trees were 'concerning' and too big.  I really wanted to go Lorax on them but my realtor wouldn't let me.)

Today I went to the Valley View golf course to practice putting and driving. I loved the neighborhoods up there and up and north of the Layton Temple. They are older neighborhoods but had so much charm. Are you in the vicinity of those homes? Not to be a stalker or anything. I hope you're able to sell soon. 

[bluebell]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Today I went to the Valley View golf course to practice putting and driving. I loved the neighborhoods up there and up and north of the Layton Temple. They are older neighborhoods but had so much charm. Are you in the vicinity of those homes? Not to be a stalker or anything. I hope you're able to sell soon. 

My son worked for Valley View when he was in high school, and I love the walking trail in the ravine on the other side of nicholls across from VV (below what they used to call the castle park).

The neighborhoods up there are really nice. 

[blackstrap]

On 9/5/2024 at 9:48 AM, MustardSeed said:

I missed the trees too much. 

And the orchards. 60 years ago there were still many fruit orchards.

[The Nehor]

On 8/17/2024 at 3:07 PM, Calm said:

It is also an attitude that can screw you up in other ways.  One of the reasons entrepreneurs fail, according to my husband’s research (entrepreneurship was his field), was their insistence to keep control and make all the decisions.  It was their baby after all.  Hiring experts to cover the gaps in their skill set is the way to go, but one still has to be willing to listen to them.  Development and growth invariably stalled out if the entrepreneur insisted on micromanaging everything.

Yep, there is a lot of danger from people who know a lot about one thing assuming that means they know a lot about everything. It is why you have doctors losing everything playing dangerous stock market games and engineers thinking they are master combat strategists. The latter one sounds odd but that is how I think of Saruman from Lord of the Rings now. Smart in lore and skilled in persuasion he figured military strategy must be within his grasp too. So he designed a perfect army thinking it was an engineering challenge and created an overly complex blundering army that wasn’t good at much of anything.

These types learn to trust their instincts about their core competencies but don’t realize their instincts are powered by their knowledge and trust their instincts in areas where they have little knowledge and make horrible decisions.

[The Nehor]

Wait, the city of Fairview thinks they are going to stay rural? And that a temple will cause urbanization and not…..you know, everything else? That is a lol.

 

Edited September 11, 2024 by The Nehor

[Calm]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

engineers thinking they are master combat strategists. The latter one sounds odd but that is how I think of Saruman from Lord of the Rings now. Smart in lore and skilled in persuasion he figured military strategy must be within his grasp too. So he designed a perfect army thinking it was an engineering challenge and created an overly complex blundering army that wasn’t good at much of anything

Brilliant.