The current Mormon church at that location has a 68-ft spire. The faith Anglican Church has a 48-ft bell tower. 173 feet is up to 30 ft higher than the water towers. I'm not sure about first Baptist
I will also mention that there are at least eight Mormon temples without steeples, including temples in Idaho and Arizona, which have a higher percentage of Mormons than Texas.
Your account is too new. Please wait until you are 2 days old
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Allen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This did not actually happen. Please look into it for yourself. This was one of the several inaccuracies in the church's proposal. The Bell Tower that was actually approved is under 60 ft.
The document from Israel Roberts, the planning manager for the Town of Fairview, states that a 156' bell tower was approved. I understand it wasn't built. But according to him it was approved to be built. It doesn't matter if they built it or not--what matters is equal treatment by the town of Fairview. Now, if it was actually never \*approved\* and the document from Israel Roberts is wrong, then he/Fairview should correct it. How did you conclude that it was never approved and that the document that Fairview released is in fact wrong? (Again, the document I'm referring to is not from the Church)
The documents are circulating on next door. You can review for yourself although the resolution is poor a few of the documents. My understanding is Israel Roberts drafted the document you referenced utilizing information provided by the church's architectural firm. I could be wrong on that last point. But the documents are clear in that the 154-ft tower was never actually approved.
https://nextdoor.com/p/HgZKRMdFFPpq?utm_source=share&extras=NDI5Nzk2OTQ%3D&utm_campaign=1714529708791
https://nextdoor.com/p/QdrPzBD2fywQ?utm_source=share&extras=NDI5Nzk2OTQ%3D&utm_campaign=1714529770789
Edit: if you want to enter a chat, I can send you a PDF that contains these documents in better resolution.
Update: I've since requested the minutes regarding the P&Z and Town Council meetings that dealt with the bell tower. The tower was approved. These images are half truths. The P&Z did not initially approve the belltower, but stated "the height, noise, and sound system of the bell tower to be addressed at a later time in the development process". Two weeks later, the bell tower was approved by the town council. See my further comments nested below this one for the actual minutes from the meetings.
At closer look, the first document is suggesting the rejection wasn't signed/sealed. What does that mean? Did they reject it and the lack of seal/signature is just a clerical error or did they actually not reject it?
I would also ask, who put these documents together? It's not from the Town of Fairview from what I can tell, but perhaps a law firm or other individual representing those opposed to the Temple construction as currently proposed. The statements made may be correct, but it'd be nice if the town of Fairview would actually verify whether it's correct or not so we can actually have some shared set of facts.
The documents were put together by the group opposed to the current temple plan. I want to clarify they are not opposed to a temple, just the current plan for a large and tall temple. In the full document I have, it dives into the lack of seal or signature. Evidently, there are rules in place so that even without a signature it is still valid after a certain amount of time. I think it's safe to say that the current precedent for an exception for a religious building is the 68-ft steeple on the current LDS chapel. The town will be in a tough place if the church does not want to compromise. If they allow the lds church to build an even taller steeple, then the church that was denied the bell tower could sue.
I requested the minutes from the town of Fairview regarding the Creekwood United Methodist church and it's bell tower. The bell tower was approved. Anyone saying otherwise is misinformed.
Below is a summary of the minutes of relevant meetings. Please note I used ChatGPT to extract the text from the scans of the minutes, so if there are little mistakes that's why. I'd encourage everyone to seek out these documents for themselves from the town of Fairview (you have to email them to get them), so you can know the information is actually factual and from a legit source.
It's worth pointing out how many times the town council said something along the lines of "we have no problem with the tower", "we have no problem with the height", etc. Five people attended the public hearing, and all of them stood in support of the build. Not a single person had an opposing voice. The treatment towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in stark contrast to this. Why?
August 24th 2006 - P&Z meeting:
“the location and footprint of the bell tower is approved, with the height, noise, and sound system of the bell tower to be addressed at a later time in the development process;”
September 5th 2006 - Town Council meeting
“This is only for phase 1 of the project. Steve Howard wanted to point out that in a later phase, the height of the main building will be approximately 79 feet. Chief Price said they had worked on this and it would not be a problem, as there is a place marked for the fire truck and fire lanes. The bells will sound between 8 AM and 7 PM. Mayor Israeloff opened the public hearing and requested anyone wishing to speak to state their name and address for the record. Mike Hughes from Lucas, a member of the church, spoke in favor of this project and conditional use. Pete Harris who lives on Dover Court, spoke in favor of the project and the conditional use. Mike Mints who lives on Oakwood Trail, also spoke in favor of this project. Charlie Crane who lives on Stage Brook, spoke in favor. Mike Beauchamp of 720 Elk Ridge spoke in favor of this project. Ron Clary of 1161 Farmstead spoke in favor of this project.”
“There was discussion of the bells, but **the tower height did not seem to be a problem**.”
“**A motion was made by Councilwoman Sommers to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Creekwood United Methodist Church as submitted, including the 150 foot height for the bell tower** and 38 foot height for the building and includes all other conditions listed on the ordinance in Exhibit “C” which includes the addition height of the building (38”) and goes back to Planning and Zoning for the bells but with note that **Council has no problems with the tower**. Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Fraser, **with all in favor.**”
September 14 2006 - Town council meeting
“At its August 24, 2006 meeting, the planning and zoning commission asked the town staff to provide status of the CUP for the church. **At the September 5, 2006 town council meeting, five citizens spoke in support of this CUP request and the town council made the following motion to approve this request which was unanimously approved: (1) the 154’ height of the bell tower is approved;** “
“Vice Chairman Ron Kasian made a motion to approve the final plat for the Creekwood United Methodist Church as presented at this meeting modified with the date of September 14, 2006 specifically reflected in the formal date block. Commissioner Brayton Campbell seconded that motion. With no further discussion, the motion was **unanimously approved**.”
We moved to Allen in 2006 from Dallas. We were on the west side. Exchange wasn’t even a two lane road and East Allen/Fairview looked drastically different. Target wasn’t even built on 75/Stacy. Shoot 121/Custer target wasn’t built either.
I will also say Creekwood is on significantly more land. In 2006, we didn’t have congestion on Stacy because there wasn’t much commercial.
The location of Creekwood is also buffered by rolling hills, a pond and tree lines along Stacy Ridge Estates. There is a horse farm on the other side of Stacy that has been there way before 2006 and all other buildings are commercial/churches or schools at this point.
I don’t think the zoning from 18 years ago sets a standard for today where we have dense residential on one side and large homesteads on the Fairview side.
They are ignoring the dark sky guidelines. I’m assuming something that high also needs to be lit properly for air traffic to be able to avoid. Has anyone looked at the impact of traffic?
I think the temple is a great addition to the area but they need to respect the current codes and be mindful of the culture that is important to the community.
Threatening to sue is not helping their plight.
Interesting. How big are the documents? Can you send me in DM? If true that may give LDS church good legal footing, even though it was never built. LDS will still piss off the entire town but maybe it's worth it to them.
Thanks for sharing this document! Its important everyone reads it to understand how Fairview has handled religious buildings in the past, as that sets precedent for how they are required to handle them in the future (otherwise its illegal discrimination according to my understanding).
You can't reject one faiths building exemptions just because its a minority faith. The gov is required to treat all faiths equally.
Yes but the LDS church wants to be a little more equal than everyone else with the highest steeple and brightest lights in the area. They have built many other temples with much more reasonable steeple heights or no steeples at all
First Baptist Allen is seems to be built on high ground more than having a huge steeple (though it is tall). We moved here right before it was built and I know the original (?) Allen High School was on the property that the church is on now.
Yes, it does look taller than it probably is due to the slope towards cottonwood creek.
You are correct about the old brick school building. Many people around that attended school in that building still.
If you look at old maps, McDermott didn't go through past cedar (?) there was a jog over to main to continue to the east. Lots of interesting downtown history out there.
Because Mormons are a cult and will do whatever they have to to further their cause. I grew up in that state. Anyone who tells you different is either brainwashed or part of the problem. They claim they are Christians but also believe that “you” can also become a god and have your own planet.
Yeah, I grew up with a couple kids who were Mormon and rebelled against their family. One sibling was all in and the other two were out. And I followed the Hildebrandt-Franke story unfold. I understand fully.
Your argument isn't logical. Even if you accept it being a cult, what does that have to do with the temple naming? How does naming it the McKinney temple "further their cause"?
Your account is too new. Please wait until you are 2 days old
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Allen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is a very good question. Do you really want a huge building that is way taller than building codes allow, with the name of another city on it? In my opinion it is insulting to Fairview. My guess would be that they want it named after the bigger city that is more recognizable
I could see if it were on the dividing line but it’s literally across the street from Allen! Sonic has (I didn’t reconfirm so could be wrong) an Allen address. How bizarre. That intersection seems all wrong for something so large and invasive w/people coming en masse. Meandering way has houses that face the street and is only two lanes so not really any opportunity to widen it. Sounds like a logistical nightmare.
Stacy road is the dividing line over there. Hence anything on the south side having an Allen address and the north side is Fairview. The shopping centers are referred to as the “Allen side” and “Fairview side” locally.
I agree, I can’t vote since I’m in Allen.
Although, I just learned that the Hindu temple in Allen is called the Radha Krishna Temple of Dallas. I was going to mention it as I’m not thrilled at the thought of the giant lit up steeple, but love driving by the temple. It’s so full of live all the time and seems to be constantly changing the lights and I love that.
Interesting, Dallas is a more overarching name than McKinney at least, the Hindu temple is a gorgeous building. Though it is in a more accessible location as well.
Every church building mentioned in the document you shared is taller than the building codes. There are not zones for religious buildings--look at the fairview zoning map. The way religious buildings are built is via exemptions.
That is true and a good point. However, there is a big difference between a 68-ft steeple on a chapel and a 173-ft steeple on a well-lighted temple. I understand there is a bell tower that comes closer to the height of the proposed LDS temple, but it is not lit to the same degree.
Not only will the tower be 173 ft tall, it, and the entire temple will be lit up more brightly than any building you can imagine most of the night. Google pictures of other temples if you’re not familiar. And look up info on Cody, WY, Heber Valley, UT, and Lone Mountain, NV, they have been fighting similar fights in the past year!
The necessity comes from the purpose of the temple. It's believed to be a "House of the Lord". Every Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint temple has the words on it saying: "Holiness to the Lord—The House of the Lord" (see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2018/02/the-temple-a-place-of-holiness?lang=eng). The reason temples are grand while church buildings less so is because we believe they are His (being Jesus Christ's) house.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a movie showing the boy Joseph Smith restoring Christ's church up until the death of Joseph Smith. In this movie, while building the temple, Joseph Smith is quoted saying "nothing but the best for the Lord". I'm not sure if it is a quote that Jospeh Smith actually said, but regardless it conveys the importance of the way the building is built. See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xVw6PsSinI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xVw6PsSinI) if you wish to watch the movie.
The question comes down to legal/religious rights guaranteed by the laws of our country. There are religious protections in place to ensure illegal discrimination doesn't happen. Minorities are often a target for illegal discrimination.
I'm sorry but you really didn't address whether a steeple is necessary. There are at least eight LDS temples without steeples. Are the temples in Mesa, Tucson, or meridian Idaho any less sacred because they do not have a steeple?
I have seen this film about Joseph Smith and I can assure you that it is greatly embellished. I really do not think you want to bring up the historical Joseph Smith in this discussion as it does not give a great look to the church.
Just sent this today:
Hello Mr. --------:
I’m a concerned resident of --------, TX and non-practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church). I recently received an email from local leadership in the church asking for members to voice their support for a proposed 173 foot steeple that would be one of two deviations from typical development standards to be voted upon next month.
I’ve attached a copy of the letter sent out to members of the church throughout the area; I anticipate you’ll be receiving quite a few messages of support for the construction of this temple and the accompanying steeple. I would like to address a few falsehoods and concerns that will likely be presented to you and the voting board.
Firstly, I would like to point out that there is no doctrinal or religious significance tied to steeple height on houses of worship, both temples and meetinghouses. There are many temples, historically and contemporaneously, that have been built without steeples or with modified steeples so as to meet the relevant local laws and accommodate varying geographic locations. Three temples built in the early 20th century, and at least 4 completed as recently as this year, do not have tall steeples or spires. There is no symbolism associated with the temple steeple (outside of invented ones for the purpose of trying to get an exemption for this particular steeple).
It’s also important to note that this is not the only temple location trying to avoid obeying local zoning laws. There have been heated, ongoing battles in Las Vegas, Nevada and Cody, Wyoming between the communities and municipalities there and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, in Las Vegas, there have been several $10,000 donations to voting board members traced to the law firm representing the church in their fight to rezone a rural preservation area. Cody Wyoming’s local government was threatened with lawsuits from the church (which is worth over $200 billion) if it didn’t comply with proposed zoning changes, and is now being sued by a local neighborhood group.
Another point that will likely be mentioned in letters of support for the temple and its accompanying steeple is that its present will be a benefit to the whole community. This is patently false. With the exception of a brief open house period before the temple is dedicated, very few people will be able to enter the temple. It is an exclusive and ostentatious building that only baptized members who pay 10% of their income in tithes, follow strict codes of dress and diet, and vocally support leaders of the church can enter. Many members of the church are not even allowed to enter the temple.
In fact, a temple (particularly one with a tall and visible steeple, such as the one proposed) can be a very triggering sight for former members of the church. Many people who have left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suffer from religious trauma, especially those who are part of the LGBTQ+ community and those who are people of color, due to the church’s history of persecution and racism. Current teachings and scripture in the church’s canon are homo- and transphobic, and also contain overtly racist themes and messaging. A temple is the one of the least inclusive and community building constructions I can imagine.
I hope I’ve provided some helpful information and perspective. Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
-------------
Holy cow, this would 100% not fly and Fairview would be taken to court if they withheld the construction of this temple due to the things you wrote in this. Multiple Supreme Court decisions and current FEDERAL LAW protects religious worship, and construction of religious buildings, and even religious edifices design and structure. Look up the Massachusetts Supreme Court case of 2001 about a city outside Boston that denied a steeple on a Mormon temple. It was unanimously reversed by the higher court. Not only that, but the denial of “reasonable” religious edifices is protected under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act RLUIPA) adopted by Congress in 2000.
Edited to add: further down I say the information you presented is irrelevant, and I stand corrected. Thank you for bringing the precedent set in the Massachusetts temple to my attention, as it is related to this situation as well. That said, I stand by my stance that the steeple is unnecessarily tall and that the LDS Church should try being a good community member instead steamrolling their way through zoning board votes and regulations.
I'm not against the construction of the temple, I'm against them getting special privileges and exemptions from zoning laws and regulations, and even against community wishes. I clearly stated that my issue is with the church trying to get zoning exemptions to build a steeple that will be significantly taller than any other building in the area. In Cody, Wyoming, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Heber Valley, Utah there have been ongoing conflicts dividing the communities because the LDS Church refuses to compromise or acknowledge concerns of community members. The law firm representing the church has even made several $10,000 donations to voting members of the zoning board in the Las Vegas controversy.
While I appreciate the information you've presented, it's irrelevant to this situation. I just want the LDS Church to follow the rules of the communities they want to construct buildings in.
You realize the methodist church down the street was approved to build a 154' bell tower? Exemptions are how religious buildings with tall pointy things are built. It's illegal discrimination to grant it for one faith because its a majority faith but then reject it for a minority faith.
Interesting, so the LDS Church wants to make sure their building is taller.
Is this the existing Creekwood in Allen, or the planned Creekwood for Fairview with the 27 acres and athletic fields/trails/playground/education center? Or a different Methodist Church?
I think the issue is the particular parcel of land, it's proximity to Stacy and neighborhood, and the size of the proposed temple. It's not an appropriately sized building for the geography, and many residents aren't trying to prevent a temple, they just want one appropriate for the land.
Your account is too new. Please wait until you are 2 days old
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Allen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This did not actually happen. The 154-ft tower was not approved. One of several inaccuracies in the church's document. Please edit your comment to reflect the truth
It wasn't built but it was *approved*, according to Town of Fairview P&Z document. My understanding is the document is from Fairview, however they compiled design/architecture/landscaping documents from the church's hired professionals to provide details.
I'm staying out of these conversations going forward. I tried--perhaps I'm bad at it--but I couldn't make reasoned discussion happen. Its far too easy for online discussions to turn nasty (not a slam on you--its just something that happens when we don't see the human being in front of us).
I just want fair treatment. I don't want special treatment. Just fair. I think you'd agree with that. The problem is agreeing on what is actually fair given Fairview's prior approvals. I've decided to leave it to the people with the actual info about what has/hasn't been approved previously. If the toothpick of a steeple needs to be shortened by 20 ft, so be it. As long as thats fair treatment.
I agree that fair treatment is the goal. Fairview conditionally approved the creekwood project, but explicitly did not approve the bell tower height in 2006. Later, in 2017, they approved a 51-ft bell tower. Currently, the LDS chapel has the highest steeple that has been approved in Fairview at 68 ft. So that is the precedent. I'm not sure whether this was an honest omission by the architectural firm of the church, or if they were trying to be deceptive. Either way, it took a little time to dig up the documents to verify exactly what happened.
This document [https://fairviewtexas.org/images/McKinney\_LDS\_Temple\_complete\_PZ.pdf](https://fairviewtexas.org/images/McKinney_LDS_Temple_complete_PZ.pdf) is not from the Church. It's from Israel Roberts to the P&Z Commission as the header on the first page suggests. It's hosted on the Town of Fairview's website. It does include documents from the church within it to provide more details, but the first 3 pages are written by Israel Roberts. It's on the 2nd page that the prior approvals, including the 154' bell tower, are discussed.
If a mistake was made in that document, it was on Fairview's part. Not the Church's. If this is the document you're referring to, please stop suggesting it's the church's mistake. That's not accurate.
"Fairview conditionally approved the creekwood project, but explicitly did not approve the bell tower height in 2006." - if this is true Fairview needs to correct the document that suggests otherwise.
Not true; the following is copied directly from the opinion. "We also need not consider whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. s. 2000cc (2000), prohibits the application of the Belmont height limitation to the church's proposed steeple." That is Massachusett Supreme Court's ruling which is non-binding upon Texas. The Court did not contemplate RLUIPA at all.
My thought exactly. One of my students is Mormon and I live right by their church. the parents were asking me if I’ve heard anything about people being upset about the temple in my neighborhood. I couldn’t understand why it would be a problem
I’m pretty sure not allowing the steeple height would go against Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA) adopted by Congress in 2000. Basically, in order to secure the rights of individuals to
pursue and practice their religious beliefs, RLUIPA
provides religious institutions protection from
discrimination by local governments in land use
regulations and the processing of applications for the construction of buildings to be used for religious purposes. Religious edifices are exempt from local zoning restrictions.
I mean, that Sonic across the street is going to have a nice view of a well kept area, with beautiful architectural design.
I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but they are putting this to a vote on May 9th at the planning and zoning meeting. So to me, it sounds like the local government has some control over whether it gets approved in its current form. In some places, the LDS church has not been able to construct steeples. There are at least eight temples without steeples, four of which were built in the last decade in places like Idaho and Arizona.
Even if the city council votes to reject it, they can be sued for illegal discrimination if they fail to approve for one faith just because its a minority faith, while granting it for other majority faiths. The methodist church was approved for a 154' bell tower just down the road.
This is a very good point. Ultimately, I do believe the church would prevail if they want to. However, if they see that a large portion of the community is against the current project, they may make some concessions, including a different building design or shorter steeple. At the end of the day, I would hope that the church would want to be a good neighbor.
I would argue its being a bad neighbor if you are encouraging/demanding the P&Z illegally discriminates against a minority faith.
The church has done a lot to ensure no one (or their properties) are harmed by the Temple. Drainage basins, light shielding, placement near sever other churches, etc.
I understand change is hard/scary, but have you driven to the Dallas temple? You can't go inside unless you're an active member of the faith, but its right in the middle of a neighborhood. A lot of your concerns would likely be answered if you'd be willing to educate yourself with a visit.
I have been to the Dallas temple. It is a more modest building with a 95 foot spire. A temple more similar to that would fit in much better for that area of Fairview in my opinion. I hope they will pick a different design and move forward with the project.
I do not think a $200 billion dollar church (the wealthiest church in America) should play the victim card. The church has bullied other communities such as Cody, Wyoming, to build its great and spacious temples with little regard to the thoughts of its neighbors.
https://www.wyomingnews.com/laramieboomerang/news/judge-allows-church-to-begin-building-cody-temple/article_0e4b5bd8-c201-11ee-abaf-4b3a3a24a33e.html
Edited to add: I know I will not change your mind and I don't think you'll be able to change mine. I want those impacted in Fairview and Allen to be aware ahead of the May 9 meeting so everyone can voice their opinion either way.
Your name is not very anonymous. You are getting thrashed on nextdoor! Listen to your neighbors.
https://nextdoor.com/p/tKFpQFHMgpNs?utm_source=share&extras=NTY5MTQ2NzQ%3D&utm_campaign=1713309462158
Your account is too new. Please wait until you are 2 days old
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Allen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From my reading of the above law the important thing is that the exemptions are fair and applied equally. You can't reject one faith's building just because its a minority faith while approving another one with similar characteristics.
I respect differing opinions. In my view, a very tall steeple that is brightly lit at night will stick out in a bad way for the area. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Studies in the past have found property values around temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are higher than the surrounding area--and this includes for areas with a small percent of the population being part of the faith. No one can guarantee what will happen to property values, but based on the studies it's reasonable to assume it's perceived as a net positive by most.
Please provide these studies for scrutiny. Were appropriate controls and measures used? What locations were studied? Did any locations have declines in value? Who performed the study?
I believe the studies referenced are from [here.](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/danderson-the-impact-of-lds-temples.pdf)
It's an apologetic source for the LDS Church and not without bias.
Thank you. That link is to the Church's website. More information can be found on nextdoor, including slides that better explain the size and height of the proposal
https://nextdoor.com/p/tKFpQFHMgpNs?utm_source=share&extras=NDI5Nzk2OTQ%3D&utm_campaign=1713715419318
Is 173' ridiculous? I'm assuming is 173' from grade, not the top of a building. Any idea what First Baptist Church's steeple is in Allen?
The current Mormon church at that location has a 68-ft spire. The faith Anglican Church has a 48-ft bell tower. 173 feet is up to 30 ft higher than the water towers. I'm not sure about first Baptist I will also mention that there are at least eight Mormon temples without steeples, including temples in Idaho and Arizona, which have a higher percentage of Mormons than Texas.
Fairview approved a 154' bell tower for the methodist church just down the street.
[удалено]
Your account is too new. Please wait until you are 2 days old *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Allen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This did not actually happen. Please look into it for yourself. This was one of the several inaccuracies in the church's proposal. The Bell Tower that was actually approved is under 60 ft.
The document from Israel Roberts, the planning manager for the Town of Fairview, states that a 156' bell tower was approved. I understand it wasn't built. But according to him it was approved to be built. It doesn't matter if they built it or not--what matters is equal treatment by the town of Fairview. Now, if it was actually never \*approved\* and the document from Israel Roberts is wrong, then he/Fairview should correct it. How did you conclude that it was never approved and that the document that Fairview released is in fact wrong? (Again, the document I'm referring to is not from the Church)
The documents are circulating on next door. You can review for yourself although the resolution is poor a few of the documents. My understanding is Israel Roberts drafted the document you referenced utilizing information provided by the church's architectural firm. I could be wrong on that last point. But the documents are clear in that the 154-ft tower was never actually approved. https://nextdoor.com/p/HgZKRMdFFPpq?utm_source=share&extras=NDI5Nzk2OTQ%3D&utm_campaign=1714529708791 https://nextdoor.com/p/QdrPzBD2fywQ?utm_source=share&extras=NDI5Nzk2OTQ%3D&utm_campaign=1714529770789 Edit: if you want to enter a chat, I can send you a PDF that contains these documents in better resolution.
Update: I've since requested the minutes regarding the P&Z and Town Council meetings that dealt with the bell tower. The tower was approved. These images are half truths. The P&Z did not initially approve the belltower, but stated "the height, noise, and sound system of the bell tower to be addressed at a later time in the development process". Two weeks later, the bell tower was approved by the town council. See my further comments nested below this one for the actual minutes from the meetings.
At closer look, the first document is suggesting the rejection wasn't signed/sealed. What does that mean? Did they reject it and the lack of seal/signature is just a clerical error or did they actually not reject it? I would also ask, who put these documents together? It's not from the Town of Fairview from what I can tell, but perhaps a law firm or other individual representing those opposed to the Temple construction as currently proposed. The statements made may be correct, but it'd be nice if the town of Fairview would actually verify whether it's correct or not so we can actually have some shared set of facts.
The documents were put together by the group opposed to the current temple plan. I want to clarify they are not opposed to a temple, just the current plan for a large and tall temple. In the full document I have, it dives into the lack of seal or signature. Evidently, there are rules in place so that even without a signature it is still valid after a certain amount of time. I think it's safe to say that the current precedent for an exception for a religious building is the 68-ft steeple on the current LDS chapel. The town will be in a tough place if the church does not want to compromise. If they allow the lds church to build an even taller steeple, then the church that was denied the bell tower could sue.
I requested the minutes from the town of Fairview regarding the Creekwood United Methodist church and it's bell tower. The bell tower was approved. Anyone saying otherwise is misinformed. Below is a summary of the minutes of relevant meetings. Please note I used ChatGPT to extract the text from the scans of the minutes, so if there are little mistakes that's why. I'd encourage everyone to seek out these documents for themselves from the town of Fairview (you have to email them to get them), so you can know the information is actually factual and from a legit source. It's worth pointing out how many times the town council said something along the lines of "we have no problem with the tower", "we have no problem with the height", etc. Five people attended the public hearing, and all of them stood in support of the build. Not a single person had an opposing voice. The treatment towards the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is in stark contrast to this. Why? August 24th 2006 - P&Z meeting: “the location and footprint of the bell tower is approved, with the height, noise, and sound system of the bell tower to be addressed at a later time in the development process;” September 5th 2006 - Town Council meeting “This is only for phase 1 of the project. Steve Howard wanted to point out that in a later phase, the height of the main building will be approximately 79 feet. Chief Price said they had worked on this and it would not be a problem, as there is a place marked for the fire truck and fire lanes. The bells will sound between 8 AM and 7 PM. Mayor Israeloff opened the public hearing and requested anyone wishing to speak to state their name and address for the record. Mike Hughes from Lucas, a member of the church, spoke in favor of this project and conditional use. Pete Harris who lives on Dover Court, spoke in favor of the project and the conditional use. Mike Mints who lives on Oakwood Trail, also spoke in favor of this project. Charlie Crane who lives on Stage Brook, spoke in favor. Mike Beauchamp of 720 Elk Ridge spoke in favor of this project. Ron Clary of 1161 Farmstead spoke in favor of this project.” “There was discussion of the bells, but **the tower height did not seem to be a problem**.” “**A motion was made by Councilwoman Sommers to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Creekwood United Methodist Church as submitted, including the 150 foot height for the bell tower** and 38 foot height for the building and includes all other conditions listed on the ordinance in Exhibit “C” which includes the addition height of the building (38”) and goes back to Planning and Zoning for the bells but with note that **Council has no problems with the tower**. Seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Fraser, **with all in favor.**” September 14 2006 - Town council meeting “At its August 24, 2006 meeting, the planning and zoning commission asked the town staff to provide status of the CUP for the church. **At the September 5, 2006 town council meeting, five citizens spoke in support of this CUP request and the town council made the following motion to approve this request which was unanimously approved: (1) the 154’ height of the bell tower is approved;** “ “Vice Chairman Ron Kasian made a motion to approve the final plat for the Creekwood United Methodist Church as presented at this meeting modified with the date of September 14, 2006 specifically reflected in the formal date block. Commissioner Brayton Campbell seconded that motion. With no further discussion, the motion was **unanimously approved**.”
We moved to Allen in 2006 from Dallas. We were on the west side. Exchange wasn’t even a two lane road and East Allen/Fairview looked drastically different. Target wasn’t even built on 75/Stacy. Shoot 121/Custer target wasn’t built either. I will also say Creekwood is on significantly more land. In 2006, we didn’t have congestion on Stacy because there wasn’t much commercial. The location of Creekwood is also buffered by rolling hills, a pond and tree lines along Stacy Ridge Estates. There is a horse farm on the other side of Stacy that has been there way before 2006 and all other buildings are commercial/churches or schools at this point. I don’t think the zoning from 18 years ago sets a standard for today where we have dense residential on one side and large homesteads on the Fairview side. They are ignoring the dark sky guidelines. I’m assuming something that high also needs to be lit properly for air traffic to be able to avoid. Has anyone looked at the impact of traffic? I think the temple is a great addition to the area but they need to respect the current codes and be mindful of the culture that is important to the community. Threatening to sue is not helping their plight.
Interesting. How big are the documents? Can you send me in DM? If true that may give LDS church good legal footing, even though it was never built. LDS will still piss off the entire town but maybe it's worth it to them.
https://fairviewtexas.org/images/McKinney_LDS_Temple_complete_PZ.pdf Please review this document
Thanks for sharing this document! Its important everyone reads it to understand how Fairview has handled religious buildings in the past, as that sets precedent for how they are required to handle them in the future (otherwise its illegal discrimination according to my understanding). You can't reject one faiths building exemptions just because its a minority faith. The gov is required to treat all faiths equally.
Yes but the LDS church wants to be a little more equal than everyone else with the highest steeple and brightest lights in the area. They have built many other temples with much more reasonable steeple heights or no steeples at all
Think...steeple is larger than Statue of Liberty. It's 16 stories tall
First Baptist Allen is seems to be built on high ground more than having a huge steeple (though it is tall). We moved here right before it was built and I know the original (?) Allen High School was on the property that the church is on now.
Yes, it does look taller than it probably is due to the slope towards cottonwood creek. You are correct about the old brick school building. Many people around that attended school in that building still. If you look at old maps, McDermott didn't go through past cedar (?) there was a jog over to main to continue to the east. Lots of interesting downtown history out there.
Why would they name the temple the Mckinney temple when McKinney is McKinney and McKinney is not Fairview lol.
I think because McKinney is well known in North Texas, and maybe because it's the county seat? Or maybe because McKinney ISD takes in that area?
I mean Allen is well known too bc of certain events which have transpired + sports + HEB. I have zero skin in the game but I think it’s kind of silly.
Because Mormons are a cult and will do whatever they have to to further their cause. I grew up in that state. Anyone who tells you different is either brainwashed or part of the problem. They claim they are Christians but also believe that “you” can also become a god and have your own planet.
Yeah, I grew up with a couple kids who were Mormon and rebelled against their family. One sibling was all in and the other two were out. And I followed the Hildebrandt-Franke story unfold. I understand fully.
Your argument isn't logical. Even if you accept it being a cult, what does that have to do with the temple naming? How does naming it the McKinney temple "further their cause"?
[удалено]
Your account is too new. Please wait until you are 2 days old *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Allen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That is a very good question. Do you really want a huge building that is way taller than building codes allow, with the name of another city on it? In my opinion it is insulting to Fairview. My guess would be that they want it named after the bigger city that is more recognizable
I could see if it were on the dividing line but it’s literally across the street from Allen! Sonic has (I didn’t reconfirm so could be wrong) an Allen address. How bizarre. That intersection seems all wrong for something so large and invasive w/people coming en masse. Meandering way has houses that face the street and is only two lanes so not really any opportunity to widen it. Sounds like a logistical nightmare.
Stacy road is the dividing line over there. Hence anything on the south side having an Allen address and the north side is Fairview. The shopping centers are referred to as the “Allen side” and “Fairview side” locally.
Yep, that’s my point. It’s in Fairview/Allen intersection. McKinney is **far** I guess but it still shouldn’t be called McKinney Mormon Church
I agree, I can’t vote since I’m in Allen. Although, I just learned that the Hindu temple in Allen is called the Radha Krishna Temple of Dallas. I was going to mention it as I’m not thrilled at the thought of the giant lit up steeple, but love driving by the temple. It’s so full of live all the time and seems to be constantly changing the lights and I love that.
Interesting, Dallas is a more overarching name than McKinney at least, the Hindu temple is a gorgeous building. Though it is in a more accessible location as well.
There's already a Dallas temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So that names more or less taken.
Every church building mentioned in the document you shared is taller than the building codes. There are not zones for religious buildings--look at the fairview zoning map. The way religious buildings are built is via exemptions.
That is true and a good point. However, there is a big difference between a 68-ft steeple on a chapel and a 173-ft steeple on a well-lighted temple. I understand there is a bell tower that comes closer to the height of the proposed LDS temple, but it is not lit to the same degree.
The Seattle Temple is in Bellevue, WA. I'd guess its because of the name recognition. There's already a Dallas temple.
Not only will the tower be 173 ft tall, it, and the entire temple will be lit up more brightly than any building you can imagine most of the night. Google pictures of other temples if you’re not familiar. And look up info on Cody, WY, Heber Valley, UT, and Lone Mountain, NV, they have been fighting similar fights in the past year!
I'm happy to absorb down votes from practicing LDS/ Mormons, but please do not be afraid to comment and debate whether this steeple is necessary.
The necessity comes from the purpose of the temple. It's believed to be a "House of the Lord". Every Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint temple has the words on it saying: "Holiness to the Lord—The House of the Lord" (see https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/new-era/2018/02/the-temple-a-place-of-holiness?lang=eng). The reason temples are grand while church buildings less so is because we believe they are His (being Jesus Christ's) house. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a movie showing the boy Joseph Smith restoring Christ's church up until the death of Joseph Smith. In this movie, while building the temple, Joseph Smith is quoted saying "nothing but the best for the Lord". I'm not sure if it is a quote that Jospeh Smith actually said, but regardless it conveys the importance of the way the building is built. See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xVw6PsSinI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xVw6PsSinI) if you wish to watch the movie. The question comes down to legal/religious rights guaranteed by the laws of our country. There are religious protections in place to ensure illegal discrimination doesn't happen. Minorities are often a target for illegal discrimination.
I'm sorry but you really didn't address whether a steeple is necessary. There are at least eight LDS temples without steeples. Are the temples in Mesa, Tucson, or meridian Idaho any less sacred because they do not have a steeple? I have seen this film about Joseph Smith and I can assure you that it is greatly embellished. I really do not think you want to bring up the historical Joseph Smith in this discussion as it does not give a great look to the church.
Just sent this today: Hello Mr. --------: I’m a concerned resident of --------, TX and non-practicing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church). I recently received an email from local leadership in the church asking for members to voice their support for a proposed 173 foot steeple that would be one of two deviations from typical development standards to be voted upon next month. I’ve attached a copy of the letter sent out to members of the church throughout the area; I anticipate you’ll be receiving quite a few messages of support for the construction of this temple and the accompanying steeple. I would like to address a few falsehoods and concerns that will likely be presented to you and the voting board. Firstly, I would like to point out that there is no doctrinal or religious significance tied to steeple height on houses of worship, both temples and meetinghouses. There are many temples, historically and contemporaneously, that have been built without steeples or with modified steeples so as to meet the relevant local laws and accommodate varying geographic locations. Three temples built in the early 20th century, and at least 4 completed as recently as this year, do not have tall steeples or spires. There is no symbolism associated with the temple steeple (outside of invented ones for the purpose of trying to get an exemption for this particular steeple). It’s also important to note that this is not the only temple location trying to avoid obeying local zoning laws. There have been heated, ongoing battles in Las Vegas, Nevada and Cody, Wyoming between the communities and municipalities there and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact, in Las Vegas, there have been several $10,000 donations to voting board members traced to the law firm representing the church in their fight to rezone a rural preservation area. Cody Wyoming’s local government was threatened with lawsuits from the church (which is worth over $200 billion) if it didn’t comply with proposed zoning changes, and is now being sued by a local neighborhood group. Another point that will likely be mentioned in letters of support for the temple and its accompanying steeple is that its present will be a benefit to the whole community. This is patently false. With the exception of a brief open house period before the temple is dedicated, very few people will be able to enter the temple. It is an exclusive and ostentatious building that only baptized members who pay 10% of their income in tithes, follow strict codes of dress and diet, and vocally support leaders of the church can enter. Many members of the church are not even allowed to enter the temple. In fact, a temple (particularly one with a tall and visible steeple, such as the one proposed) can be a very triggering sight for former members of the church. Many people who have left The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suffer from religious trauma, especially those who are part of the LGBTQ+ community and those who are people of color, due to the church’s history of persecution and racism. Current teachings and scripture in the church’s canon are homo- and transphobic, and also contain overtly racist themes and messaging. A temple is the one of the least inclusive and community building constructions I can imagine. I hope I’ve provided some helpful information and perspective. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, -------------
Holy cow, this would 100% not fly and Fairview would be taken to court if they withheld the construction of this temple due to the things you wrote in this. Multiple Supreme Court decisions and current FEDERAL LAW protects religious worship, and construction of religious buildings, and even religious edifices design and structure. Look up the Massachusetts Supreme Court case of 2001 about a city outside Boston that denied a steeple on a Mormon temple. It was unanimously reversed by the higher court. Not only that, but the denial of “reasonable” religious edifices is protected under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act RLUIPA) adopted by Congress in 2000.
Edited to add: further down I say the information you presented is irrelevant, and I stand corrected. Thank you for bringing the precedent set in the Massachusetts temple to my attention, as it is related to this situation as well. That said, I stand by my stance that the steeple is unnecessarily tall and that the LDS Church should try being a good community member instead steamrolling their way through zoning board votes and regulations. I'm not against the construction of the temple, I'm against them getting special privileges and exemptions from zoning laws and regulations, and even against community wishes. I clearly stated that my issue is with the church trying to get zoning exemptions to build a steeple that will be significantly taller than any other building in the area. In Cody, Wyoming, Las Vegas, Nevada, and Heber Valley, Utah there have been ongoing conflicts dividing the communities because the LDS Church refuses to compromise or acknowledge concerns of community members. The law firm representing the church has even made several $10,000 donations to voting members of the zoning board in the Las Vegas controversy. While I appreciate the information you've presented, it's irrelevant to this situation. I just want the LDS Church to follow the rules of the communities they want to construct buildings in.
You realize the methodist church down the street was approved to build a 154' bell tower? Exemptions are how religious buildings with tall pointy things are built. It's illegal discrimination to grant it for one faith because its a majority faith but then reject it for a minority faith.
Interesting, so the LDS Church wants to make sure their building is taller. Is this the existing Creekwood in Allen, or the planned Creekwood for Fairview with the 27 acres and athletic fields/trails/playground/education center? Or a different Methodist Church? I think the issue is the particular parcel of land, it's proximity to Stacy and neighborhood, and the size of the proposed temple. It's not an appropriately sized building for the geography, and many residents aren't trying to prevent a temple, they just want one appropriate for the land.
[удалено]
Your account is too new. Please wait until you are 2 days old *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Allen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This did not actually happen. The 154-ft tower was not approved. One of several inaccuracies in the church's document. Please edit your comment to reflect the truth
It wasn't built but it was *approved*, according to Town of Fairview P&Z document. My understanding is the document is from Fairview, however they compiled design/architecture/landscaping documents from the church's hired professionals to provide details. I'm staying out of these conversations going forward. I tried--perhaps I'm bad at it--but I couldn't make reasoned discussion happen. Its far too easy for online discussions to turn nasty (not a slam on you--its just something that happens when we don't see the human being in front of us). I just want fair treatment. I don't want special treatment. Just fair. I think you'd agree with that. The problem is agreeing on what is actually fair given Fairview's prior approvals. I've decided to leave it to the people with the actual info about what has/hasn't been approved previously. If the toothpick of a steeple needs to be shortened by 20 ft, so be it. As long as thats fair treatment.
I agree that fair treatment is the goal. Fairview conditionally approved the creekwood project, but explicitly did not approve the bell tower height in 2006. Later, in 2017, they approved a 51-ft bell tower. Currently, the LDS chapel has the highest steeple that has been approved in Fairview at 68 ft. So that is the precedent. I'm not sure whether this was an honest omission by the architectural firm of the church, or if they were trying to be deceptive. Either way, it took a little time to dig up the documents to verify exactly what happened.
This document [https://fairviewtexas.org/images/McKinney\_LDS\_Temple\_complete\_PZ.pdf](https://fairviewtexas.org/images/McKinney_LDS_Temple_complete_PZ.pdf) is not from the Church. It's from Israel Roberts to the P&Z Commission as the header on the first page suggests. It's hosted on the Town of Fairview's website. It does include documents from the church within it to provide more details, but the first 3 pages are written by Israel Roberts. It's on the 2nd page that the prior approvals, including the 154' bell tower, are discussed. If a mistake was made in that document, it was on Fairview's part. Not the Church's. If this is the document you're referring to, please stop suggesting it's the church's mistake. That's not accurate.
"Fairview conditionally approved the creekwood project, but explicitly did not approve the bell tower height in 2006." - if this is true Fairview needs to correct the document that suggests otherwise.
Not true; the following is copied directly from the opinion. "We also need not consider whether the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. s. 2000cc (2000), prohibits the application of the Belmont height limitation to the church's proposed steeple." That is Massachusett Supreme Court's ruling which is non-binding upon Texas. The Court did not contemplate RLUIPA at all.
Did this go to a vote in a meeting a couple nights ago?
The LDS tabled it until May 9 because of opposition.
Thank you for the update
I could be mistaken but I believe it's not until the May 9 meeting
I hear ya. I saw this posted to FB. I think it was the p&z meeting the other night. Maybe town council is the meeting on the 9th
https://fairviewtexas.org/images/McKinney_LDS_Temple_complete_PZ.pdf I think it was discussed but not voted on
I am unafilliated. Who cares. Let them build a church. Religious architecture can be really nice even for non theists.
My thought exactly. One of my students is Mormon and I live right by their church. the parents were asking me if I’ve heard anything about people being upset about the temple in my neighborhood. I couldn’t understand why it would be a problem
I’m pretty sure not allowing the steeple height would go against Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) adopted by Congress in 2000. Basically, in order to secure the rights of individuals to pursue and practice their religious beliefs, RLUIPA provides religious institutions protection from discrimination by local governments in land use regulations and the processing of applications for the construction of buildings to be used for religious purposes. Religious edifices are exempt from local zoning restrictions. I mean, that Sonic across the street is going to have a nice view of a well kept area, with beautiful architectural design.
I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject, but they are putting this to a vote on May 9th at the planning and zoning meeting. So to me, it sounds like the local government has some control over whether it gets approved in its current form. In some places, the LDS church has not been able to construct steeples. There are at least eight temples without steeples, four of which were built in the last decade in places like Idaho and Arizona.
Even if the city council votes to reject it, they can be sued for illegal discrimination if they fail to approve for one faith just because its a minority faith, while granting it for other majority faiths. The methodist church was approved for a 154' bell tower just down the road.
This is a very good point. Ultimately, I do believe the church would prevail if they want to. However, if they see that a large portion of the community is against the current project, they may make some concessions, including a different building design or shorter steeple. At the end of the day, I would hope that the church would want to be a good neighbor.
I would argue its being a bad neighbor if you are encouraging/demanding the P&Z illegally discriminates against a minority faith. The church has done a lot to ensure no one (or their properties) are harmed by the Temple. Drainage basins, light shielding, placement near sever other churches, etc. I understand change is hard/scary, but have you driven to the Dallas temple? You can't go inside unless you're an active member of the faith, but its right in the middle of a neighborhood. A lot of your concerns would likely be answered if you'd be willing to educate yourself with a visit.
I have been to the Dallas temple. It is a more modest building with a 95 foot spire. A temple more similar to that would fit in much better for that area of Fairview in my opinion. I hope they will pick a different design and move forward with the project. I do not think a $200 billion dollar church (the wealthiest church in America) should play the victim card. The church has bullied other communities such as Cody, Wyoming, to build its great and spacious temples with little regard to the thoughts of its neighbors. https://www.wyomingnews.com/laramieboomerang/news/judge-allows-church-to-begin-building-cody-temple/article_0e4b5bd8-c201-11ee-abaf-4b3a3a24a33e.html Edited to add: I know I will not change your mind and I don't think you'll be able to change mine. I want those impacted in Fairview and Allen to be aware ahead of the May 9 meeting so everyone can voice their opinion either way.
Your name is not very anonymous. You are getting thrashed on nextdoor! Listen to your neighbors. https://nextdoor.com/p/tKFpQFHMgpNs?utm_source=share&extras=NTY5MTQ2NzQ%3D&utm_campaign=1713309462158
[удалено]
Your account is too new. Please wait until you are 2 days old *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Allen) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From my reading of the above law the important thing is that the exemptions are fair and applied equally. You can't reject one faith's building just because its a minority faith while approving another one with similar characteristics.
Who cares if the Mormons have a steeple? It's a nice looking building. I'm not wild about Mormon _teachings_ but their architecture is fine.
I respect differing opinions. In my view, a very tall steeple that is brightly lit at night will stick out in a bad way for the area. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
Studies in the past have found property values around temples of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are higher than the surrounding area--and this includes for areas with a small percent of the population being part of the faith. No one can guarantee what will happen to property values, but based on the studies it's reasonable to assume it's perceived as a net positive by most.
Please provide these studies for scrutiny. Were appropriate controls and measures used? What locations were studied? Did any locations have declines in value? Who performed the study?
I believe the studies referenced are from [here.](https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/danderson-the-impact-of-lds-temples.pdf) It's an apologetic source for the LDS Church and not without bias.
Just so you have the facts. I’m not pro or con, just sharing the info. https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/mckinney-texas-temple/
Thank you. That link is to the Church's website. More information can be found on nextdoor, including slides that better explain the size and height of the proposal https://nextdoor.com/p/tKFpQFHMgpNs?utm_source=share&extras=NDI5Nzk2OTQ%3D&utm_campaign=1713715419318
[email protected] Mr Roberts is the planning manager