Wasatch County faces another lawsuit about the Heber Valley Temple project with a complaint filed Wednesday.
When The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints sought the county’s approval for the temple through a legislative development agreement rather than a conditional use permit earlier this year, residents upset about the building’s location, height, size and lighting plans began arguing the county would be unfairly bending its own rules in the process.
Despite Wasatch County Deputy Attorney Jon Woodard’s repeated arguments that state code allows for legislative development agreements in unique circumstances, opponents remained unconvinced.
On Oct. 25, the Wasatch County Planning Commission recommended the temple legislative agreement, site plan approval and plat approval to the council for passage.
On Nov. 8, the council followed their recommendation and passed the plans unanimously.
Meantime, an Oct. 24 letter from Robert Mansfield — an attorney with Mitchell Barlow and Mansfield — warned county officials that several of his clients intended to sue Wasatch County if the plans were passed.
“The Legislative Agreement improperly limits Wasatch County’s ability to engage in future legislative decisions and undertake legislative enactments,” the letter stated. “Approval of the Legislative Agreement will lead to further litigation to enjoin its enactment and to seek declarations from the Court as to its illegality.”
On Nov. 17, Mansfield assured The Park Record his words were not hollow, and Wednesday he followed through. The legal documents indicate he was hired by Bruce Van Dusen, Bruce Quade, Shawn Savarino and Dominic Savarino, four Wasatch County residential property owners with land near the temple site.
The lawsuit says the four individuals will “suffer a damage” not shared by the general community because of the project. The alleged damage includes less solitude, more noise, seeing the temple from their homes, a reduced quality view of Heber Valley’s night skies, and more traffic in their area.
“The views from Petitioners’ homes immediately overlook the Project site and Petitioners’ view of the valley will be obstructed by the Temple,” the lawsuit states. “Petitioners will also be subject to noise, light and disturbances created by the Temple’s operations.”
The lawsuit seeks for the temple plans’ to be reversed and determined “invalid, unenforceable, void, and of no force and effect,” as well as illegal under county code and state law.
During the County Council’s Nov. 8 meeting, Wasatch County Planning Director Doug Smith gave a presentation in which he showed which parts of the temple project he had determined would pass under the county’s code and which were more reliant on exceptions granted through the legislative development agreement. He addressed some of the arguments made in the lawsuit — the structure’s height, size and lighting methods — as aspects of the project that would probably be allowed if the church were to pursue a conditional use permit.
Given the pending litigation, Woodard said he is not able to provide comment on behalf of the county at this time.
The new lawsuit comes only a few weeks after law firm Ray Quinney and Nebeker P.C. petitioned the court to amend a complaint they filed against the county initially filed in May on behalf of citizen group Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies.
While that lawsuit focuses on the county’s process in passing amendments to its dark skies ordinance rather than passage of the temple plans themselves, group spokesperson Lisa Bahash said she and several others had also began a referendum process to reverse the council’s decision.
Her reasons for engaging in the process are closely related to several of the arguments in Mitchell Barlow and Mansfield’s lawsuit.
“The first question the county has to ask is does a temple fit the county definition for a public church or, as we contend, a limited public partnership,” she said at the time. “It’s not used for regular church services, which we believe is the intention behind the church definition.”