Even though the Wasatch County Council on Wednesday night passed The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ plans to build the Heber Valley temple unanimously, the battle isn’t over.
Community members opposed to the building design or placement have made their intent to continue fighting with litigation clear.
The meeting was held in the Wasatch County Senior Citizens Building, where more people would fit. Even so, seats were hard to find by 5:30 p.m. and available only in overflows by the time the meeting began at 6.
Reporters donning video cameras, notebooks, DSLRs and handheld recorders staked out locations and positions around the room they hoped would best capture the emotion, contention and tense discussions of the meeting. Several similar meetings had been held on this same subject with these same attendees, each session bearing more passion than the last.
Late last month, the Wasatch County Planning Commission recommended the council approve the temple plans. The County Council session was the final chapter in the county’s legislative deliberation.
In the front of the room, two screens displaying proper meeting procedure reminded everyone that “attendees should refrain from actions that disrupt the meeting” and identified yelling, clapping and speaking out of turn as such actions.
At 5:48, a man in the back half of the room held up a sign. “Too big! Too tall!” it read. “Compromise!”
Eventually, the seven council members took their seats. Conversation among the crowd turned to murmurs and then whispers as the gavel was dropped and the meeting began.
Council Chair Spencer Park reminded everyone to be civil and introduced the three items on the agenda: the temple project’s legislative development agreement, final plat approval, and site plan approval.
Wasatch County Deputy Attorney Jon Woodard launched into a presentation defending the county’s decision to work with the church in approving the project as a legislative development agreement rather than requiring the institution to go through the regular administrative steps to receive a conditional use permit.
Though the process is allowed as an option within Utah Code, it has been widely criticized by community members and their lawyers.
The Religious Land Use and Instiutionalized Persons Act, he said, prevents municipalities from limiting religious freedoms as much as possible.
“No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a religious assembly or institution” he quoted from the law.
If the project were approached administratively and declined, he said the county would need to prove they used the least restrictive means to achieve what they would need to prove was a “compelling interest.”
The legislative agreement, he said, allowed for more elbow room for the church and county to make agreements outside of code stipulations.
“In the past we have used them, but we haven’t used them in the recent past,” Woodard said. “If you’ve got a super unique project, sometimes a legislative development agreement’s going to make a lot more sense.”
An administrative approach would leave the county needing to pinpoint where the act would or would not supersede local code, a tricky line to toe with fiscally damaging consequences for missteps.
“This is a process that’s allowed under Utah Code,” Woodard said. “This is not blowing off all of the land-use laws of the county.”
Later in the meeting, Wasatch County Planning Director Doug Smith talked about which parts of the temple as currently proposed would meet code requirements and which would not.
He determined the building’s height, lighting and size would all likely be acceptable under code, given there is no specified height limit for churches and the county’s updated lighting code had passed, controversial as it may be.
Road connectivity and trail regulations, however, would likely require plan alterations that could result in a road cutting through the project site and separating the temple from its parking lot. A proposed sign planned for the temple would also be contrary to code as it is currently written.
Smith also readdressed several issues he covered in the meeting last month, with a few additions.
Since that meeting, Heber City Engineer Russ Funk and a firm hired by the church had looked further into the dewatering plan’s effects on a local spring.
Funk found the site’s water and the spring in question are “separated by a shallow layer of bedrock” and thus do not affect each other.
Smith also mentioned that although the project would create the same traffic as 200 houses, the church commissioned a traffic impact study to make sure the roads surrounding the site are prepared for the influx. Heber City hired an engineering firm to check the study and found it met industry standards.
Curtis Miner, an architect employed by the church, explained that church members believe that temples are only locations on Earth where they can be bound to their families for eternity.
In designing the Heber Valley temple, he said architects took inspiration from the surrounding trees and flowers, the Heber City Tabernacle and other local influences.
While the code allows 27 candelas per square-meter, the brightest spot on the temple will be only 22. Rather than being lit as most LDS temples where the entire structure is washed in light, the architects planned for the Heber Valley temple to be only highlighted to show some of its features.
“This building,” he said, “will be one of the dimmest temples in the world.”
This was met with laughter.
“I know more about FAA lighting than I ever wanted to know,” he said, invoking a friendlier chuckle.
He referenced a letter from the FAA stating a single steady red light will bring the building into compliance.
Addressing the size and height of the temple, he showed images devised from google satellite and photo editing to show how the temple will look from various positions in the county. From Memorial Hill, the structure only appears as a dot. From the intersection of Main Street and Center, trees would obscure the view.
He showed the temple as it would be seen from nearby neighborhoods, saying it would not look significantly taller than the homes.
Several upset members of the crowd didn’t buy it.
“Where did the mountains go?” Someone quietly protested.
Miner listed other “improvements and concessions” the church has made: lowering the building from its original plans, changing the stone color and texture, reduced lighting from 4000 kelvin to 3000 kelvin, and planning to pay for a community roundabout.
“We’ve made what we believe is a good effort hopefully to balance the design standards with the reasonable concerns of the community,” he said. “This building will be beautiful. The garden will be beautiful.”
Councilor Steve Farrell asked how much lower the western steeple needs to be to avoid the FAA’s required red light.
Miner said he had spoken with an FAA representative who said the height would likely need to be halved, and even then the decision would need to go before a handful of federal committees .
At the thought of halving the temple’s height, crowd members applauded and were reminded by Park to be respectful.
Then he opened a public comment period, inadvertently setting off a race to the pulpit at the front. The winner quickly made the short trip from his seat by the aisle to the stand, and a long line formed behind him.
He spoke in support of the temple. Roughly half the room applauded. The next speaker spoke against it, and the other half expressed their support. There were no assigned seats or well-defined boundaries, but the two groups mostly congregated on opposite sides of the aisle.
“I’ve been in the valley off and on through my whole life,” one woman said, hinting that she might have a solution to the controversial plan.
Her proposed solution, however, was to entirely relocate the project to land for sale towards the north end of the valley, an idea that has been thoroughly discussed and dismissed several times.
Another commenter expressed his disappointment in community members for taking divisive positions on the issue. No matter how small or where the temple would be placed, he said, people would still be opposed to the development. What’s important is the public has been heard, concessions have been made and processes of due diligence have been completed, he said.
“It’s now time for the County Council to approve the recommendations,” he said.
Someone mentioned a letter the county received from an attorney that ended with all but a promise that if the plans are approved, the county will be sued. The man said the county’s lawyer was misleading the council in his conclusions about federal regulations and accused the officials as biased.
“If you are a tithe paying card carrying member of the church,” he said. “You are in conflict.”
The side of the room supporting the temple audibly groaned.
One man who identified himself as a long-time resident thanked the council and boiled the issue down to one question: “Are we going to honor the applicant’s property rights, or are we not?”
Heber City Council candidate Vaughn Eric Hokanson stood up, admitted he is a “card-carrying member of the church” and offered his take.
“I’m running on a platform of unity,” he said.
The project as proposed does not support unity, he said. While some may see it as a proud sign of pioneer heritage, he said others see it and feel powerless. He urged the council to better address some of the issues discussed rather than approving the plans. The crowd seemed unsure which half was responsible for cheering for him, but at least a few people gave him a hand.
Another man said a Mormon building in a Mormon place makes sense, and the church should be able to build what they want so long as they are legally compliant.
One long-time Wasatch County resident declared that if landowners can build anything on their land, he should have bought the site and built a Hilton.
He said he doesn’t believe limiting the design equates to limiting the church’s religious freedom and encouraged the council to pursue further concessions from the church.
Thus, the pattern continued, praise for the church’s compromises and demands for more, praise for the temple’s design and criticism about its size, praise for the temple’s proposed location and ideas of where else it could go.
Other arguments were more unique. One man addressed the pleas for the temple site to be relocated, saying that by the same thought process the Red Ledges subdivision should be moved westward. Another man said his comments didn’t matter as the discussion was over before it even began.
“To try to pretend you’re impartial,” he told the council, “is a joke. You should be embarrassed and ashamed if you vote on this.”
“Come to church!” someone yelled to him as he made his way to his seat.
Another man argued that no public office comes with a religious test and the elected officials are qualified to make the decision.
One online participant suggested making the temple bigger, adding a second red light and including a light to shine directly toward Red Ledges. He wanted to make sure all options were explored, he said.
Eventually — after the book of Genesis, Helen Keller and Mother Teresa were all quoted and both sides of the room had found plenty of opportunity to cheer one side or the other — the line of speakers ended.
After a short break, roles were reversed and the crowd listened to the council.
“I believe that this is for the general welfare of the residents’ of Wasatch County,” Councilor Mark Nelson said. “The legislative development agreement has been carefully considered in my opinion … the county council has the discretion and is the legislative body responsible for making that decision.”
With that, he said the application should be approved.
Councilor Kendall Crittenden added that the council takes their responsibility with hours of research and consideration.
“If I was an attorney and keeping track of my billable hours, I’d be a rich man right now,” Kendall Crittenden added, “I’ve done the due diligence. I’ve studied.”
No matter where the temple is put, he said, someone will oppose it. It will always be in someone’s backyard.
“Compromises have been made,” he said. “I think it’s time to move this forward.”
Councilor Erik Rowland said he recently decided to reread every email he’s received about the temple, over 1,200.
Cruel comments, he said, are often rooted in good intentions but lead to people claiming they support the temple but specifying they don’t support it near them.
“‘This is the place,’ means something to those in the LDS faith,” he said. “It’s why we’re here.”
Park made it clear he did not appreciate the comments suggesting he recuse himself. He was more than a church member, he said, and he was voted onto the council to make these decisions.
Councilors Farrell, Luke Searle and Karl McMillan shared similar sentiments.
“I’m ready to move on,” Farrell said.
The passing votes for the site plan, plat approval and legislative development agreement were unanimous. One side of the room cheered and clapped and smiled.
The other remained almost silent.
Editor’s note: A previous version of this story said Wasatch County Attorney Scott Sweat presented at the meeting. This has been corrected, as Deputy Attorney Jon Woodard was the presenter.