Dear editor:

What drives temple Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval? City ordinance title 10-14-1-D lists seven standards to be satisfied for Planning and Zoning approving a CUP as follows:

1. IS SITE LARGE ENOUGH AND ALL DIMENSIONAL AND REGULATIONS MET? Temple site size compared to a residence is a mismatch. Is this mismatched prefabricated modular structure designed for various U.S. locations capable of withstanding the city high point with strong 100-plus mph winds? The big issue is its 101-foot height against zoning maximum 30-feet driven by preserving low profile western city neighborhoods. As this maximum height is a local ordinance, how can it be exceeded without city council approval or rezoning approval? If such an extreme variation is allowed, it sets a precedent that any fixed zoning requirement is a guide easily waived! 

2. IS SCALE OR DENSITY COMPATIBLE WITH USES IN IMMEDIATE AREA? Existing uses are single family homes and open space. Future uses allowed are open space and recreational. The temple massive monumental scale and designed dominating style structure is three or four times family home footprint, on four-plus acres with a 140 parking spaces, a bright reflective finish and three to five times higher than average home. These comparisons and temples restricted membership limiting neighborhood use, unlike other houses of worship, is hardly compatible with existing uses. 

3. ARE ANY LISTED NUMEROUS ACTIVITIES MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL? Temple’s 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. hours of operation with people coming and going daily seem similar to commercial service rather than residential activities. Increased traffic on dead end, two lane Skyline Drive will add risk to individuals and sports activities. Glare, even with restrictive lighting, will always cause reflection from sun and moon light to area neighbors.

4. DOES PROPOSAL INCLUDE CITY UTILITIES AND SERVICES? City responses required.

5. DOES PROPOSAL CREATE EXCESSIVE ADDITIONAL COSTS? City responses required.

6. WILL RESULT IN DESTRUCTION, LOSS OR DAMAGE OF NATURAL SCENIC OR HISTORIC FEATURE? Neighbors acquired homes in part for the great scenic views from McCullough Peaks across landscape to Cedar Mountain incorporating scenic features like open space, Heart Mountain inverted top, Chugwater outthrust and Shoshone River Canyon. Temple does not destruct these features but its center of attraction eye catching design damages the current clear unobstructed scenic views.

7. IS PROPOSED USE CONSISTENT WITH CODY MASTER PLAN? Master plan objective is to preserve and protect existing neighborhoods and their characters, limits building heights, preserve scenic views and lessens noise and lighting impacts.

The P&Z Board voted too quickly in its first meeting favoring a Conditional Use Permit on a biased seemingly conflicted city planner’s report and a seemingly conflicted non-city resident board member’s pressure. These factors limited a thorough comparison with Standards of Review Considerations and analysis of local neighbors’ impacts in the meeting presentations?  Who better to judge the temple’s compatibility and harmony than affected neighbors whose input recently caused the P&Z Board to not approve the West Cooper Lane project?