The state’s highest court is now taking the case of the Heber Valley Utah Temple under advisement.
On Monday, the Utah Supreme Court heard oral arguments from attorneys regarding the ruling that is stalling construction by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on the Heber City temple.
Temple construction began after Fourth District Court Judge Jennifer Mabey ruled in favor of the Church on July 23. The petitioners — a group of Heber City residents from the Red Ledges neighborhood where the temple is to be built — were granted an emergency stop on the construction in September.
Bruce Van Dusen, Bruce Quade, Shawn Savarino and Domonic Savarino first took umbrage with the church’s plan to construct a temple in their neighborhood and, in turn, Wasatch County, which approved the Heber City temple despite its location in a residential zone where new developments may be 35 feet from the natural grade.
Robert Mansfield, attorney for the petitioners, argued in July that the extremely well-lit temple has no right to be 210-feet tall in a neighborhood where such plans would ordinarily be denied. He claimed the Wasatch County Council acted illegally when it approved development plans for the church.
After Mabey’s July ruling allowing construction, the petitioners appealed the case to the state’s highest court, which heard oral arguments on Monday.
Utah Supreme Court Justice Paige Petersen presided over the court and asked: What will the Church do if construction continues and then permission to build is later revoked? She and her fellow justices analyzed what she called a “balancing of the harms.”
David Jordan, who argued for the Church, said that if the temple did not align with the County Land Use, Development and Management Act, it would be demolished later.
“But if that were the ruling of the court, and ultimately it went back to the county, they could fix whatever your honors thought needed to be fixed. But even if they decided, no, you can’t build the temple on that site. Well, then the temple would just have to be demolished, whatever state of construction it was in,” Jordan said. “But that’s not irreparable. Buildings get torn down all the time.”
That, he said, is the “Church’s risk,” and one that it’s willing to bear.
“So I don’t think there’s any irreparable harm here,” Jordan said.
However, Jordan said that if construction does not continue, it will harm the Church’s coffers. If the project stalled for 12 months, Jordan said the harm would be $7.8 million. Up that to $11.4 million if it’s 18 months.
“It’s that straightforward because, not surprisingly, and we submitted an affidavit by both someone who has personal knowledge and expertise in the area to say construction costs are inflating,” Jordan said.
Mansfield said there would be unavoidable impacts to the community, including traffic problems during the construction process. He added that it will not be so simple for the Church to reverse its course of action should construction continue.
“The first step is not going to be okay, we admit we are wrong, let’s tear it down. Let’s start the process over,” Mansfield said. “They’re going to keep it there as long as they can to obtain whatever approvals may be necessary to keep the temple going.”
Despite Judge Camille Neider’s question of environmental impacts and Mansfield’s statement that there would be damage to the environment with the temple’s location on a floodplain, Jordan said the Wasatch County Council found there would “not be any damage to the environment.” Attorney Jonathan Woodard represented Wasatch County.
“They found that there would not be unacceptable light pollution that in any way violates any city ordinance, that it wouldn’t cause undue traffic,” Jordan said. “The factual findings come to you from the county council, and they are the legislative body, and they are the body that your precedent says should be entitled to make those kinds of decisions, about traffic, about light, about water. They’re the ones who make those kinds of decisions.”
Next, the Utah Supreme Court will rule on whether or not construction should continue to be stalled. No further dates for hearings have been set.