An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of Jon Woodard, the Wasatch County deputy attorney.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints now hopes to take a legislative approach to its Heber Valley Temple Project, thus potentially allowing it certain exceptions from Wasatch County zoning codes.

The Wasatch County Council discussed the church’s proposed approach during its meeting on June 21. Though that discussion did not contain any solid plan for how the county will move forward, it marks one of the latest turns for a project that has caused ongoing concern amongst some Wasatch County residents.

---

---

At a council meeting in March, locals were able to share their concerns about the proposed temple, including about its height and size, its nighttime lighting and its inaccessibility to non-church members, as KPCW reported at the time. And a local group, Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies, has coalesced around the issue.

Jon Woodard, the county’s deputy attorney, recently explained that there are now two ways the church can get approval for its plan to build an 88,000-square-foot structure on a 17.9-acre site in Heber City. It can pursue the regular administrative route and work toward a conditional-use permit, or it can work with Wasatch County’s legislative body, the council, to establish a development agreement.

---

---

The church already has submitted a proposed development agreement, subject to edits and revisions, beginning the legislative approach.

According to Woodard as well as Loyal Hulme, a member of the church’s council who was present at the June 21 meeting, this process likely will be less strenuous due to the federal and state regulations that would come into play were the church to apply for a conditional use permit and the county denied the request.

“Generally, land use laws are a matter of state or local law,” Woodard said. “But under the supremacy clause of the constitution, federal laws can take precedence.” Woodward pointed specifically to the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), passed in 2000, which, he said, “was designed specifically to apply to state and local jurisdictions.”

“It prohibits things that — on their face — discriminate against religion,” he explained. “It also prohibits laws that have the effect of imposing a substantial burden on religious exercise.”

This would complicate the matter, as the council’s decisions and discussions could result in legal ramifications if the church proves the body is in violation of RLUIPA.

“We would have to specifically determine where RLUIPA did or did not supersede local law,” Woodard said. He warned that the process likely wouldn’t be simple, especially because the state typically leans towards the side of an applicant if the applicant is denied on grounds that are not clear in an area’s zoning code.

In the church’s draft agreement, RLUIPA as well as the Utah Religious Land Use Act are cited as “good cause” for the county to agree to the document.

If the church were to apply for a conditional use permit, such an agreement would allow the county to deny that permit if — as stated by Woodard — “there’s negative impacts or detrimental effects that can’t be mitigated.”

A June 21 letter sent to several county officials by attorneys representing Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies states the group’s opposition to the development agreement, citing three primary reasons: It “circumvents the threshold question” of whether the temple could be built under current zoning codes, it “presents opportunities for amendments to the Development Agreement” that may not be subject to public input” that the public may be unaware of, and it “incorrectly relies on provisions of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.”

The current legislative approach to the project changes the legal aspects of the process and, according to Woodard, dilutes several of the factors the county would need to weigh in each of its decisions regarding the project when faced with possible state regulations and RLUIPA claims.

The legislative approach, Woodard said, gives the council “significant discretion to legally approve or deny a legislative approval … You wouldn’t have the same level of discretion in an administrative approval.”

For most developments, he said, the county’s code should suffice in regulating plans. For special circumstances such as the temple, he said taking the route of the legislative process can meet specific needs without necessitating sweeping code amendments.

“What we want to portray is not only do we have religious liberty opportunity; we really are meeting the intent and the provisions of your code,” Hulme told the council. He stated Wasatch County ordinance 16.19.21 allows for buildings to be built “much higher” than 35 feet in RA-1 zoning if there is an additional 1 foot of setback for every 2 feet of height after 20 feet, which would mean the temple’s proposed height could be achieved either through the legislative process with the proposed development agreement or with a conditional use permit.

“We’ll supply you a letter that’s extensive that shows why in every way the temple is consistent with RLUIPA and that protection is needed,” Hulme said. “Both the spires, the size — the Supreme Court of the U.S. has ruled on many of these key issues, and we’ll provide that to you in detail.”

Speaking about the importance of a temple for members of the church, he said, “the size is significant” and “the steeples are designed to be high.” People, he said, look to the building as a source of strength and faith.

The legislative route, Hulme said, will allow more leeway for the church as well as the county in making project decisions.

“This particular religion has received significant discrimination as a result of a variety of things, but including these temples,” he said. “It is a very sensitive issue for us and we’re anxious to make sure that these symbols of our faith are protected.”

Bruce Van Dusen, a member of Save Wasatch Back Dark Skies, said later, “It was hard for me to listen to him talk about the discrimination that the LDS has experienced in the state of Utah. That was what I would call a bit of a reach. The fact that people are challenging the size and scale of the temple is not because (the builders are) Mormons. It’s because the size and scale of the building presented by anyone is inappropriate for the neighborhood. That’s all.”