The fate of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ proposed Cody temple was supposed to be settled Tuesday night. But the Cody Planning, Zoning and Adjustment Board’s fourth meeting on the subject again ended without a final decision.

There remains hope of a potential compromise on the temple’s most contested features — its 101-foot-high tower and nighttime lighting. However, board members expressed frustration that there had been little obvious progress toward an agreement in recent weeks.

“I don’t know what to do to get from A to B and get all parties on the same side on this,” said board Chair Carson Rowley. 

The city’s review of the temple has proven complicated and divisive, drawing hundreds of public comments for and against the project, the involvement of attorneys and a legal action.

Neighbors to the 9,950 foot temple have called for the church to find another location, but the planning board effectively approved the site — west of the Olive Glenn Golf Course — at its initial meeting in June. What remains to be determined are the features, as the majority of the board members want a shorter tower and limits on nighttime lighting of the facility.

Communication confusion

At a June 27 meeting, church leaders offered to work with City of Cody officials on a potential compromise on those two issues, and the board asked staff to work with the church on a potential development agreement. However, no agreement was struck or sent back to the board.

Cody Mayor Matt Hall organized a meeting between a church official and neighbors this month, but with the neighbors insisting the church find a new location and the church intending to proceed at the site, it didn’t yield much progress. The church submitted a potential compromise to Hall and City Attorney Scott Kolpitcke, but didn’t hear back, said Kendal Hoopes, a Sheridan attorney representing the church.

“We have presented ideas, presented things that the church would be willing to do,” Hoopes said, adding that, “we would like to continue that discussion.”

Some board members also expressed interest in continuing to seek a compromise, and frustration with city staff for the lack of progress.

“I’m struggling because I don’t feel it’s incumbent on this board to keep coming up with ideas to pass something. … We rule on the things that are presented to us, is my understanding,” said board member Josh White.

White later suggested that the board table the temple’s site plan again with a request that the church and city staff “present to the board a development plan that we were told would happen last time.”

Rowley said he didn’t have “the stomach” to drag the application process out further, but the board split on how to proceed. Motions to approve the site plan as presented, to approve the site plan except for the lighting, to table it and to deny it all failed before an eventual 5-1 vote to table the plan.

There is also some question as to whether the board has already approved the plan. Back in June, the board voted in favor of the plan, 3-2. Because that wasn’t a majority of the full seven-member board, Rowley ruled the motion had failed. However, in a recent lawsuit filed in Park County District Court, the church asked a judge to find the plan was approved, because city ordinance says those plans only need the support of a majority of the members present.

The board considered updating their prior minutes to reflect that the site plan had actually passed, but the change failed on a 3-3 vote. Among the opponents was Rowley, who argued that “decisions were made, votes were had” under the belief that four votes were needed for a motion to pass.

Divided city, divided board

Matt Moss was again the only board member to express support for the church’s plans as presented, including the 101-foot-high tower.

“We’ve heard from the city planner, the City Building Official Sean Collier and the fire marshal … that this building does in fact, meet our current code,” Moss said.

At the direction of Planner Todd Stowell, the church initially requested a special height exemption for the tower, as structures in the Rural Residential zoning district are generally limited to 30 feet. Stowell and Collier later concluded that the tower isn’t subject to the limit, but the board rejected that interpretation.

In his own review of city code and the International Building Code, Rowley said the tower seems to fall into a gray area.

“I think we do have, as a city, a process [for] dealing with it when it’s gray. That’s the special exemption for height,” he said.

After Rowley offered his take on the code, Stowell raised his hand and sought to offer a response, but the chairman declined to recognize him.

Underscoring the chasm that has developed between Stowell and some members of the board, they later approved a fairly extensive rewrite of his proposed findings of fact for the project’s conditional use permit. That permit is effectively what gives the church permission to build the temple at the 4.69 acre site.

White indicated that he believes the church should build the temple somewhere else.

“I feel the applicant has not presented sufficient evidence showing there would be a substantial burden imposed on them by this board by not agreeing to the temple being constructed in the Rural Residential zone,” he said. 

White also said city code is unclear about how to handle the situation.

“I urge everyone to work with your elected and appointed officials to ensure that we are not put in divisive positions like this moving forward,” White said.

Rowley also suggested that the city’s ordinance should be tightened.

The role of religion

Moss, meanwhile, sounded a note of caution, noting federal law protects churches from discriminatory zoning.

“Steeples and lighting have a symbolic meaning for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” said Moss, who is a member of the church.

Board member Scott Richard noted that Americans have a fundamental right to worship as they see fit, and said it would be problematic if the board prevented the church from building at the site. However, Richard said the tower’s height doesn’t align with the city’s master plan and that the tower and lighting would change the character of the neighborhood.

Board member Kim Borer, meanwhile, said her opposition had nothing to do with religion.

“When you take the one-story structure, plus whatever that thing is on top of it, it’s higher than what I would vote for, for any type of building,” Borer said.

Barring further developments, the temple’s site plan will be reconsidered in some form at a future board meeting, though no one seemed particularly excited by the idea.

“It’s difficult to continue this process for everybody,” Richard said.