Las Vegas LDS temple approved, advances to city council
LAS VEGAS (KLAS) — Hymns could be heard from the assembly of nearly a thousand supporters for the proposal, but those in opposition didn’t stay to sing praises instead they prepared a list of legal issues they hoped would change the congregation’s tune.
Tuesday night the Las Vegas Planning Commission passed two agenda items about a proposed temple for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in the northwest valley, with one abstention from Commissioner Jeff Rogan due to a conflict of interest.
After a six-hour meeting Christian Salmon, a lone Mountain resident, reacted to the vote that he and his neighbors opposed.
“They didn’t listen,” he said. “We brought a ton of evidence that showed on every different angle that if they if they approved this, it would be against the law.”
Another resident in the Lone Mountain area Crystal Herschi, a member of the LDS church, said she was happy the proposal was approved for recommendation.
LDS proposed temple debate takes center stage at Las Vegas City Hall
“I am feeling humbled,” she said. “I feel like the [commission] did a really great job at doing their homework, I felt like we came to a really great common ground.”
The planning commission added three conditions to the motion: streetlights on Hickam, TeePee, and Florine shall be deferred, documentation must be provided to the city that no lights are “spilling over” beyond the property line, and parking lot lights must be off from 11 p.m. to 5 a.m. with the exception of a motion sensor.
The vote now goes to the Las Vegas City Council which will hear arguments from both sides during their meeting on July 17.
“Heaven on Earth”
It was standing room only, both inside the council chambers and outside city hall as supporters flocked the plaza in matching navy-blue attire.
Lindsay Nielson, a resident of the Lone Mountain community and member of the LDS church, said she was happy the LDS community heeded the invitation to show up for the vote.
“It’s really thrilling to see our congregations come together,” she said. “They are all local within 10 minutes of where I live but I’m recognizing it’s fun to see my neighbors and friends out here that I get to spend time with.”
The current LDS temple proposal has plans for a garden and meeting house, but Nielson said the area has more value than just a spot for members to meet.
“The temple is a place where we go to really feel close to the Savior,” she said. “To be able to have a little bit of heaven on earth, and to be able to block out the world around us and really feel silent and the silence is when we learn a lot of things.”
Abel Ortiz stood at the edge of the plaza gathering with his wife and two children, noting as a 26-year Las Vegas resident he was happy to come and show his family’s support for the LDS temple proposal.
“The membership of the church has grown in the valley,” he said. “The construction of a new temple will help more people to come to the temple, and to participate in this area of town.”
8 News Now asked Ortiz what he and his family would do at the proposed LDS temple if built in his community and why he believed it was needed.
“Marriages, it’s something that’s really important that happens there,” Ortiz said. “Also, we learn more about what our Heavenly Father expects from us and also it’s a place where we find peace and quiet … a lot of people go there to pray.”
No discussion on legality
Those in opposition have long contested the proposal based on its height, footprint, and conflicts with the local building restrictions.
Valerie, who declined to provide her last name, provided the rebuttal on behalf of the opposition following a presentation by the applicant who is in support of the proposal.
Moments before the opposition presentation Valerie said she wanted to specifically focus on the laws which conflict with the LDS temple proposal, according to those in opposition.
“Laws treat every citizen equally,” she said. “Favoritism, emotions, and one’s belief of entitlements discriminate against all the other citizens, this PowerPoint is going to focus on just the laws.”
27 minutes were allotted for possible legal conflicts to be presented by the opposition.
List of legal issues presented by opposition:
NRS 278.250 | Opposition argues the standards are allegedly not followed, since language for C-V asks for design to ensure compatibility with existing planned development and uses in the adjacent surrounding area. |
General Plan Requirements 16.16.010 | Opposition argues the temple allegedly does not abide by the spirit and intent of the general plan |
Civic District C-V 19.10.020 – E (1) Development Standards | Opposition argues the standards are allegedly not followed, since language for C-V asks for design to be ensure compatibility with existing planned development and uses in the adjacent surrounding area. |
Interlocal Agreement | No building larger than max 35 feet, proposed temple will sit at 216 feet. |
Unified Development Code 19.18 | Opposition argues the rezoning of a lot or parcel of land to benefit the owner for a use incompatible with surrounding land uses which do not further the general plan should be considered “spot zoning” which they cite a Cornel Law School review as being controversial. |
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 | Opposition argues the RLUIPA requires the government to not treat a religious assembly on less than equal terms than a nonreligious assembly. |
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 | Opposition argues since the temple is closed for non-members it allegedly blocks the observance or practice of religion. |
Nevada Equal Right Commission (NERC) | Opposition argues since the temple is closed for non-members it is discriminating and not abiding by public/quasi-public accommodation required by NERC |
Dillon’s Rule | Opposition argues state law takes precedence over local ordinances in matters where there is a conflict or inconsistency between the two. Opposition points to NRS.278.250 as needing to be followed due to possible four conflicts. |
Valerie also highlighted several court cases from varying jurisdictions that she believed were pertinent to the proposal.
Previously Las Vegas city staff have contested one of these conflicts found in the Interlocal Agreement, the staff’s interpretation of the agreement is it doesn’t pertain to religious buildings.
After several hours of discussion, planning commissioners did not appear to address the legal concerns brought up by the opposition outside of the Interlocal Agreement.
The design of the building was discussed by the applicant’s presenter for the proposal but said the LDS church is unable to change certain design features such as the temple structure’s lighting and 216-foot spire due to the importance of religious symbolism to LDS members.
Copyright 2024 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to KLAS.
