- A 4th District judge dismissed a lawsuit blocking construction of a Heber City temple.
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can now proceed with building plans.
- The court found Wasatch County followed law, rejecting claims of inadequate notice and damage to community well-being.
HEBER CITY — A 4th District judge on Wednesday dismissed a lawsuit that sought to block a Latter-day Saint temple in Heber City from being built.
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints welcomes the court's decision dismissing this case," church spokesman Sam Penrod said in a statement. "Since the temple site plan was approved by Wasatch County nearly two years ago, the church has paused moving forward with any construction, while the judicial system reviewed the public process. Now the court has ruled that Wasatch County followed the law in approving the Heber Valley Temple, the church is looking forward to next steps in beginning construction."
The Heber Valley Utah Temple was announced in October 2021, and its location was announced the next year — just outside of Heber City, southeast of 1400 E. Center Street.
Church President Russell M. Nelson dedicated the land for the temple on Oct. 8, 2022, at the official groundbreaking.
On Oct. 26, 2023, the Wasatch County Planning Commission recommended the Wasatch County Council approve updated plans for the temple in a tense meeting where some residents were split with concerns and support. Church officials later addressed technical issues in their plans. The new plans included dimmer lights and more muted colors to comply with the lighting code.
A referendum initiative that sought to reverse the County Council's unanimous approval of the Heber City temple failed to gather enough signatures to make it on the 2024 general election ballot.
Some residents opposed to the plans then filed a lawsuit seeking to block the construction in November 2023.
The petitioners had argued they weren't given adequate notice as required by law about the meetings where the land use for the temple was being considered, according to the court decision on Wednesday. But the court cited notices that detailed the temple discussion and noted that the petitioners and attorneys were there at the meeting to "present objections." Therefore, the court rejected the petitioners' argument of "inadequate notice."
The lawsuit also alleged that the temple zoning was "impermissible spot zoning," which refers to land use that creates "islands" of two different types of zoning near each other, the court decision said. Judge Jennifer A. Mabey found that the petitioners did not address any land uses the temple was granted that others have not been granted under county code, noting that churches are a conditional use in all zoning districts.
The petitioners also argued that the county violated Utah's County Land Use, Development, and Management Act, but the court said in its decision it did not find violations of the act. The lawsuit claimed the land use decision was not good for the "general welfare" of the community. The court found that while some residents may be "individually impacted ... 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" but instead to determine whether it's debatable that the land use is inconsistent with the County Land Use, Development, and Management Act — the court said that is not debatable based on the arguments presented in the lawsuit.
Responding to the petitioners' comparison of the temple to a "members club," the court said it's "hard-pressed to think of any church or business that serves 100% of the county's population" but that it, nevertheless, serves the general welfare of the community to have those churches and businesses there.
The court added that any development may bring more traffic to an area but still benefit the overall community. The judge said the city or county has jurisdiction to place requirements on a developer to "find an appropriate balance that benefits the community as a whole," and that's not the court's role.
