Judge dismisses lawsuit against construction of the Heber Valley Temple

HEBER CITY (ABC4) — A fourth district judge issued a decision on a lawsuit involving the Heber Valley Temple, dismissing a group of citizens’ petition against Wasatch County and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This decision from Judge Jennifer A. Mabey means that the construction of the Heber Valley Temple can continue as planned.

The lawsuit was filed in November of 2023, and it asked Wasatch County to prevent the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from building a temple on the plot of land previously approved in Heber City.

Judge Mabey heard arguments from both sides in June, and released her decision on Wednesday, July 23.

In their complaint, the citizens argued that the County’s approval of the temple plans went against state and federal law by not providing adequate notice, using impermissible spot zoning, and by providing special treatment to the Church.

They also cited negative impacts on the views from their homes, noise and light pollution, loss of privacy, and impacts on their “health, welfare, and quiet use and enjoyment of their property.” They also argued that the Temple is like membership to a limited club and that it does not protect property values or promote general welfare of the community.

What was in the decision?

First, the citizens argued that the County did not provide appropriate notice of the impact that the construction of the temple would have, by providing only a “meagre summary” of the development agreement. However, the judge found that the county gave ample notice to residents, using plain language so that “an ordinary member of the community” would understand the temple project and the location of the property.

Citizens also argued that the zoning used in the approval of the temple was “impermissible spot zoning,” essentially meaning that the zoning went against existing land use regulations. Attorneys for the citizens argued in court that Wasatch County gave the Church “special privileges” with the zoning, claiming that the Temple was granted additional uses that others were not. However, the judge said that they did not specify what those uses were.

The County argued that there was no rezoning of the property to allow the temple to be built, stating that the zoning allows for the building of churches under conditional use. The judge agreed with Wasatch County, and she found that the temple was not impermissible spot zoning.

The citizens also argued that the land use agreement went against multiple provisions of the County Land Use, Development and Management Act (CLUDMA). They stated that the temple project is located within an agricultural use designation, and that the temple “effectively destroys views because of its significant height.” The county’s general plan requires that views and ridge lines be preserved.

However, the judge found that their claims here did not have sufficient legal analysis to support them. She stated that they did not properly explain how violating the county’s general plan goes against the law.

In response to the arguments from the group of citizens, the County and the Church argued that all plans that the county approved followed the law, and that the land use for the Temple is “reasonably debatable” to be consistent with CLUDMA.

The judge agreed with the County that the land use could be consistent with CLUDMA. She noted that the Temple could be debated to be in the general welfare of the community, “even if they have some negative impact upon certain individuals within the community.”

“It is the unfortunate reality with nearly any type of development that those in closest proximity will be the most directly impacted, but the Court’s role is not to substitute its own opinion about the chosen location for the Temple Project,” Judge Mabey wrote in her decision.

She noted that any development of property will increase traffic in that particular location while still benefitting the overall community by being able to access the development.

In response to the citizens’ argument that the Temple is like a club that only serves a select part of the community, the judge wrote, “The court is hard-pressed to think of any church or business that serves 100% of the County’s population.” She also found that the County did not give preferential treatment to the Church.

Finally, the judge found that there was nothing that would indicate that the Temple would reduce nearby property values. In fact, the County had previously concluded that the Temple project would “provide economic opportunities” and contribute to the County’s economy.

Ultimately, Judge Mabey denied the citizens’ motion and found that they were not entitled to injunctive relief–meaning that the court will not prevent construction on the Heber Valley Temple from moving forward.