LDS Trust Board Resource Applications

Please find below an email regarding resource consents for the former CCNZ campus from JodesP.

From: Alice.M XXX @hcc.govt.nzSubject: RE: LDS Trust Board Resource ApplicationsDate: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 04:54:58 +0000

I have checked with the Planning Guidance Unit and can advise that to date, no resource consent application has been received nor has the existing application for demolition of the dorms and health centre been requested to be taken off hold.

With regard to the further submissions to the Proposed District Plan process, they will be on Council Web page shortly. In the meantime, please contact Cameron McLeod and he will be able to assist you.

Regards Alice

From: JodesPSent: Wednesday, 24 July 2013 1:47 PMTo: Alice MorrisSubject: LDS Trust Board Resource Applications

Hi Alice,

Could you please advise if the LDS Trust Board has made any resource consents or re-instated the application for demolition of the boys dorms and health centre?

Also, might you advise when the further submissions will be available for public viewing ie online?

Auckland perspective of the Envisioning Meetings being held around NZ to 'drum up support'

Below is the perspective of an Auckland LDS (mormon) member who attended the Envisioning Meeting a few weeks ago. These are their comments below:


Comments:


These meetings have be held throughout New Zealand from Dunedin in the South Island. It is obvious they are drumming up support for their plans and then presenting this to the Presiding Bishopric, Quorum of 12, and First Presidency to state that the people of NZ support their plan. I thought we lived under a Theocracy, whereby the Brethren speak and we obey. But thisagenda is going from the people to the brethren to state we accept the plan.Strange!!!


The meeting was to show their plans for the new roading, homes and Stake Centre. A question was asked what numbers signified approval for such a Stake Centre. Kent Money stated that Temple View Stake met the criteria, yet when the Tamaki Stake, who were getting between 2,550 and 3,000 members attend their conference were downgraded to a small stake centre. Then the Area office were not convinced the numbers were correct sent some people from the Area Office to do the count and the number came to 3,000. How disgraceful this was when the brethren would not accept the count from the Stake President who is one who holds the Keys of the Priesthood. Let alone they had to have half the wards meet in the morning conference, and the other half meet in the afternoon. The Stake President went to conference and met with Bishop Burton, who also indicated they were not entitled to a larger chapel, but when he had his secretary bring the report on the stake to him, and viewing his numbers finally agreed to a bigger chapel.


Kent Money stated the Temple View Stake Centre would also act as a community centre for those stakes that were to use Hamon’s Bush for their activities. Anyway I am not convinced this stake centre will in fact materialize as they have planned.


Housing will start at $365,000.00 and more if the people wish to add more rooms. The Temple is going to go through a major refit at some time, which will be at least a couple of years out of action. With the land already secured for a possible Temple in Auckland, why would anyone want to move south. So most of the time was talking about the roading, housing and Harmon’s Bush development.


I asked Kent Money what did they have for plan B in the event the David O McKay was rejected for demolition. He stated that they will address that later, but that he said the CCNZ campus looked tired. Well cause it does because a simple coat of paint would restore it to looking immaculate. Kent also stated that seismic report showed that the David O McKay has a swaying problem. Is that all!!! I thought they said it was on land that is high in liquefaction. Also I reject this claim.


However I perceive that the Brethren are waiting for the Envision Group to come back to them with a report, which we all know will be fabricated. If we had the funds we should have an independent surveyor go through the report and be allowed on campus to do their findings.


When Dr Manahi Nitama Paewai (Doc Paewai), was a member of the original board of trustees, and even before the college opened, he suggested to the brethren that CCNZ should be a university and not a high school, because he stated, our education system in NZ was well in advance of many other countries. I know CCNZ will never be a high school again, but give thethought, it would be a great university. Students would be able to apply for student loans. The church would not be burdened with huge financial strain on their resources, and our young men and women would not have to go to Hawaii, but remain here and receive a high level of education. Food for thought.

Former CCNZ Campus Project: Non-Mormon frustrated and sees no possibility of progress with current Envision NZ Project

A meeting held on the 12th of July 2013 and hosted by the Hamilton City Council. 18 submitters were personally invited to attend by the co-authors of the Hamilton City Council Proposed District Plan, Mark Roberts and Alice Morris (City Planners)

The following notes were written by Andrew Bydder (see http://www.linkedin.com/pub/andrew-bydder/16/908/772) who was in attendance as a submitter.

NOTES

The meeting was about the process (Resource Management Act) that needs to be followed to establish the process (District Plan) for dealing with a resource consent application. It is a long way from even attempting to find a solution.
I find that frustrating. I want to get on solve things!

But it is obvious that there is no common ground. The proposed structure plan still shows demolition of the heritage buildings, and a dramatic, incompatible change to the special character of the community.

Don White showed no indication of shifting his position, and continues to say the church has consulted and considered the views of all parties. As Liz Witehira pointed out, a cease and desist letter is not consultation or consideration. I see no possibility of progress by working with Don.

The submitters are deeply passionate and not going to give up, but have at least shown more readiness for compromise in previous meetings. HCC is caught in the middle.

So what happens now? I summarise my expectations:

HCC will not consider Temple View for growth or investment in the next 30 years. Even after that, it is unlikely. Other growth cells are committed to, and no funds are available. The Church trustees will not sell any land to another developer. They do not want to lose any control over it.

Therefore, the only new growth and infrastructure that could happen is via the trustees. The trustees have no desire to do any development. Their original plan was to turn the campus back into pasture.

The trustees have deliberately not shown any new school or childcare facility in their scheme plan.. Obviously such facilities could use the existing campus buildings. Their exclusion is deliberate to remove the rationale to retain campus buildings.
Yet such facilities are essential if the trustees were serious about new housing development. Therefore I conclude the trustees are not committed to their scheme plan.
The scheme plan is a smokescreen. The trustees are pretending to be offering a vision. The vision provides an excuse for demolishing the campus buildings. After that, there is no intention for the re-development to happen. This achieves the trustees' original outcome.

As Ann McEwan pointed out, there is an absence of considered structure planning within the proposed precincts. The trustees have a vague design guide to suggest new work will mimic the campus style. But there will be no new work. The trustees are just going through the motions.

Where is the market research to support the scheme plan? Where are the demographic studies to show the need? Where are the customer surveys to find out what people want in each zone? Where is the financial analysis? Where are the engineering reports on essential services? All they have to show is a google map covered with coloured shapes like a school project.. For an experienced property service, this is simply unprofessional – unless there
is no intention to build anything new.
There is a reasonable fit within the community for a retirement village catering for elderly Mormons. But this can easily be accommodated on the available land without demolition.
There is not the support base for retail, office, other uses – unless the residential expansion occurs – which won't happen unless there are educational facilities.

The only purpose of the scheme plan is to justify demolition. Any demolition will require resource consent under HCC's proposed District Plan. This needs to be notified, and will be opposed by iwi, heritage, and community. HCC can decline the consent (heritage is of national importance) or make the demolition conditional on new infrastructure for the scheme plan being installed prior to demolition – in effect stopping the process as the trustees have no intention of doing that.  The District Plan simply needs to include an infrastructure provision for development in that zone.

So what then?
The current Temple View community is special with a safe village atmosphere. But is it viable in the long term? Yes – if it has community facilities. A stake centre will provide some, but not all of what is needed. The campus buildings provide excellent community facilities, but if these are demolished or left derelict, then the trustees must commit to building new
ones or the community will not be viable.

The trustees have a choice:
* Stubbornly do nothing and damage a uniquely Mormon community, leaving derelict buildings as eyesores around the temple while the community declines;
* Stubbornly demolish heritage buildings only to spend tithed money on replacement facilities (poor fiscal responsibility and no intention to do so);
* Do an embarrassing about-face and restore heritage buildings to support a vibrant and expanding Mormon centre as a mission base for the South Pacific.

Frankly, what's so embarrassing about doing the right thing?

This last option is the best outcome but I fully expect the first option to occur. The good news is that the buildings were so well built by the missionaries that even with no maintenance, they will outlast Don White. Perhaps a change of leadership will bring less pride and stubborness.

MORAL COURAGE

In today’s world, churches and institutions should take a stand on morally difficult decisions. We need to have moral courage.

With the benefit of hindsight, history books can sometimes simplify issues that have divided people over the years. One side comes out looking forward-thinking and right, while the other seems like shortsighted "bad guys." Thinking about controversies that face us today, however, makes it easier to see how hard it can be in the present to tell who is "right" and who is "wrong." Taking a stand in an issue like this is difficult, especially if your stance is not a popular one.

Mormons are encouraged to stand up for what they believe, regardless of prevailing opinion. It may not be easy, popular, or fun. Sometimes taking a stand means subjecting yourself to ridicule, slander or even physical abuse. In this kind of situation, a person can rely on the Lord to help them maintain their beliefs. He expects us to do what we believe is right in any situation, and He will help us have the moral courage to do it. It isn't enough to look away or to keep quiet. Looking away can sometimes be a sin in itself. We are acting as Jesus acted when we stand up for what we believe and take action.

INTERNET REFERENCE
http://mormon.org/values/choice

Former CCNZ alumni and twins serve as missionary companions

From left, Elder Joshua Whippy and Elder Jared Whippy

© 2013 by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

INTERNET REFERENCE:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/twin-brothers-serve-as-missionary-companions

Steven E. Snow – consequences of poor stewardship.

Steven E. Snow – consequences of poor stewardship. 

 "Our generation, more than any other, has the ability to irretrievably change the land.  Financial rewards provide tremendous pressure to unleash our technology to reinvent our surroundings. There will be growth; change will come.  But failure to care for the land on which we live means turning our backs on a heritage laid down carefully and at such great cost by our forefathers – and will leave us immeasurably poorer.

‘Follow the Prophet’

“The admonition ‘follow the prophet’ is given with increasing frequency in the Mormon Church. Which is then transformed into a ritualistic slogan or mantra intended to stifle questions and differences of opinion and does not accord with a reasonable reading of the LDS scriptural account of the war in heaven where clearly agency was established prior to obedience among the laws on which our Plan of Salvation operates. When employed for leverage by overzealous leaders, the Church operates like any other human institution and is entitled only to the same presumption of qualified loyalty that we give other human institutions.”
- Armand L. Mauss

Armand Lind Mauss (born June 5, 1928) is an American sociologist specializing in the sociology of religion. He is professor emeritus of Sociology and Religious Studies at Washington State University, is the most often published sociologist in the twentieth century of works on the Mormons, and is broadly recognized as one of the leading Mormon intellectuals of his generation. 

INTERNET REFERENCE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armand_Mauss)

The LDS Church commissioned Beca Report 2003 and EL Byder

INTERNET REFERENCE:
http://www.slideshare.net/kiakaha/2003-beca-structural-engineering-report-

• CCNZ buildings are less critical of major maintenance than NZ Temple and Foster Rd Meetinghouse
• There is no record of over the past 150 yrs of European history of a major earthquake occurring in Hamilton that would cause significant damage to the buildings
• The probable extent of liquefaction and associated foundation settlement during earthquake is unlikely to be the primary cause of significant distress to the buildings

INTERNET REFERENCE:
http://www.slideshare.net/kiakaha/church-college-of-new-zealand-july-2009-engineering-report

EL Bydder (Phd, MSc, Ceng, FNZIPP, MIEE, Chartered Engineer)

"I must congratulate the designers of this building and the personnel involved in it construction. They have clearly done a magnificent job and it appears that ther was an expectation that the building would become an iconic structure on the landscape of NZ".

LDS Church Demolition Vehemently Opposed – November 18, 2011

LDS Church Demolition Vehemently Opposed – November 18, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011

A joint visit by the Historic and Design Review Committee and Historic Landmarks Committee to the neglected LDS Meeting House was featured in the "Hellholes of Arcata" series in the July 21, 2010 edition.
 Note: Those wishing for more raw data and back story on the LDS Meeting House issues can find it here. – Ed.

Kevin L. Hoover
Eye Editor

A STREET – The City will approve a building permit for demolition of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) Meeting House on A Street, the Planning Commission was told last week.

The LDS Church hasn’t used the moldy building since the 1980s 2004 and has wished to tear it down since 2001, when it first applied for a demolition permit. The church has said that it doesn’t need the building and that repairs necessary to restore it to safe use would be prohibitively expensive.

Opinions varied as to whether the building was sufficiently distinguished historically or architecturally to merit preservation. The LDS Church said it was nothing special, but local historians and preservationists disagreed.


The LDS Meeting House. Photos by KLH | Eye
But all of that became irrelevant Oct. 28, when the LDS church withdrew its previous demolition permit and submitted a non-discretionary or “ministerial” permit application which removes the demolition debate from City review. The basis for the non-discretionary status is California Government Code Section 37361, which exempts buildings owned by religious institutions from being designated historical, which would protect the building under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

That immunity from historical designation renders moot a ruling by the Historic Design Review Commission (HDRC). It had recommended the City Council designate the LDS Meeting Hall a local historic landmark and that the Planning Commission deny the previously discretionary permit.

In a staff report for last week’s Planco meeting Community Development Director Larry Oetker said that his department and the City Attorney have reviewed the new application and the law cited by the LDS Church to exempt it from discretionary review, and confirmed that it does apply. Hence the Planco agenda item was informational only.

This decision did not sit well with local historic preservationists, who immediately contested the applicability of the law.

Citizen Lisa Brown called the decision “very troubling,” and said that the demolition could set a bad precedent whereby those wishing to demolish buildings could “skirt public process.”

Brown contended that the project hadn’t changed, just the bureaucratic process that would make it possible. “The neighbors are being shut out,” she said. “If there are environmental impacts to the community, then the community needs to be involved as per CEQA.”

She asked that granting of the demolition permit be delayed until the State Historic preservation Office could make a ruling on an application to list the building as a State Historic Landmark. The church has objected to the proposed designation, and Oetker said that it is irrelevant.

Brown also suggested that the Planning Commission appeal the demolition permit so that the matter could be considered by the City Council with public testimony “to create balance that is representative of our community.”

“I have been watching for many years, and I have never seen anything as absurd as this,” Brown concluded.

Historic consultant Kathleen Stanton also objected to the demolition recommendation, calling it “very, very troubling.” She said that there are un-considered environmental consequences to the demolition.

Stanton said that all demolition permits in Arcata are discretionary.  She didn’t understand why a building permit was being issued to un-build a building. “That doesn’t make sense to me,” she said.

She also said that the church’s opposition doesn’t invalidate a protective historic designation.

“That’s a fallacy that the City is working from,” she said.

On Nov. 11, the Brandt-Hawley Law Group of Glen Ellen, Calif. submitted a letter to Oetker on behalf of a group known as the Friends of the LDS Meetinghouse.


The letter announces an intent to appeal the City’s decision to grant the demolition permit on grounds that “the approval violates the California Environmental Quality Act and the Arcata Municipal Code, and is inconsistent with the General Plan.”

The letter, signed by attorney Susan Brandt-Hawley, contests the exemption on several grounds.

It states that in order to qualify for the religious exemption, the LDS Church must determine in a public forum that preventing it from demolishing the building would cause economic hardship.

“The Church has not provided a current documented claim of hardship and cannot claim the protections of 37361 until it does so,” states the letter.

Another of the Friends’ group’s objections is that the demolition permit is just a small part of a larger project which the church is “segmenting” to gain piecemeal approval, depriving the City of a review of the overall project.

The letter cites CEQA law stating that “the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.”

“Demolition of a building is never the entire project

; it is the first step to new development,” the letter continues. “The LDS Church intends to remove asphalt and significantly grade and re-landscape its site if a demolition permit is granted, as a precursor to sale for a six-lot housing project. Every reasonable indication is that if it is allowed to demolish the historic Meetinghouse it will then return to the City for the additional project permits it originally requested, beginning with the long-pursued grading.”

The Friends also contend that removal of the building could cause environmental impacts related to drainage, plus traffic and other unforeseen consequences.

Concludes the letter, “This appeal will be supplemented with additional evidence and argument at the Planning Commission and City Council. The building permit must be set aside and the entire LDS Meetinghouse site project must be subjected to CEQA review. The application of Government Code section 37361 has not been justified under these facts. Additional information may be brought forward by the Friends up until the close of the public hearing preceding final project approval at the City Council.

The letter was forwarded by former HDRC member Marc Delany, who said the Friends of the LDS Meetinghouse meets mostly via e-mail. He can be reached at mldelany@gmail.com.

INTERNET REFERENCE:
http://www.arcataeye.com/2011/11/lds-church-demolition-vehemently-opposed-%E2%80%93-november-18-2011/

Proposed demolition of 19th-century home back in village's lap (June 12, 2013)

INTERNET REFERENCE: http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20130612/COMMUNITIES02/306120011?gcheck=1

Gill Wright Miller is hoping her research documenting the historical value of a 175-year-old house on the village’s east side — and her plan to buy and restore it — will be sufficient to forestall a request to tear it down.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the building, located to the rear of the church at
2486 Newark-Granville Road. It is asking the village for permission to demolish it.

The structure is in poor condition after years of neglect, but is structurally sound, according to Miller. The church sees it as a liability and safety problem; Miller says it has become an attractive nuisance to local teens.

Miller has offered to buy the four acres on which the unoccupied home is located for $7,000 per acre. The church is weighing the offer and has not responded. Miller says she is willing to pay the estimated $75,000 cost of renovating the home in order to sell it, most likely as a private residence.

At its meeting Wednesday, Village Council will consider the request after holding a public hearing.

“My request is to deny the request to demolish it,” Miller said in a phone message to the Sentinel. “It is still salvageable. It needs to be preserved as part of the history of Granville.”

Gordon H. Jeffery, facility manager for the church, said he has forwarded Miller’s request to church higher-ups. He said the church is considering whether to split the four acres off the rest of the property and sell it, which would make Miller’s acquisition of the home conceivable. Jeffery said safety and liability issues concerning the home are a major concern.

“We are asking for the demolition in order to be prepared budget-wise, but that in no way indicates the direction the church may go,” he said. Jeffery said he doesn’t expect the church to have an answer to Miller’s offer by Wednesday’s meeting.

Miller is related to William Spencer Wright Sr., who along with his father built the house, according to the Granville Historical Society. Teresa Overholser, head archivist for the historical society, says the home was built in the 1820s or early 1830s; Miller says her research points to a slightly later date, 1838.

Miller has extensively documented the history of the home, which she says is a token of the presence of Wright and his second wife, Samantha Stedman, early settlers of Granville who were “part of the fabric of (its) history and Ohio’s great farm tradition,” she said in a document she provided the village.

Wright settled in Granville when he was two years old and became a leader of the farming industry and an active local citizen, Miller said. She said the house is among the oldest brick farmhouses in the area.

An effort is also underway to place the home on the National Register of Historic Places. Ashlin Caravana, who has been helping with the effort, said the research has been done, but an application hasn’t been filed.

The historical society determined the home doesn’t have historic value. But Overholser said its ruling doesn’t mean there is no value in preserving the structure.

This past winter, the council agreed to postpone a decision on the church’s demolition request to allow Miller time to find a way to preserve it.

Vice Mayor Constance Barsky said she is withholding judgment on whether to vote for demolition until she hears from all parties at Wednesday’s meeting.

Old Photos

Hamilton City Council Proposed District Plan Submissions 2013 (Round one)

INTERNET REFERENCE:

http://www.hamilton.co.nz/PDPSubmissions2013/PDPSubmissions2013.pdf

Audience Statistics for Legacy Temple View Blog

Landfill remediation and contamination works

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board

Landfill remediation and contamination works

Temple View

April – June 2013

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Trust Board (the Trust Board) has obtained resource consent to remediate the former Temple View landfill located on the eastern boundary of the former school site.  In addition, two Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) are proposed to be removed and near surface soils in the vicinity of the former Automotive workshops containing elevated metals will also be excavated.  Consents have been obtained from Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and the Waikato Regional Council to undertake these works.

The contract to undertake the works has been let to Schick Construction & Cartage Hamilton and Schick plans to begin site set up works such as fencing during the week commencing 8^th April 2013.  Earthworks are expected to start on Tuesday 16^th April 2013 and the total contract is expected to take about ten weeks however this is dependent on weather conditions. 

A plan of the former Church College site is attached which shows the extent of remediation works associated with this specific contract (noted as Stage 1), and the contractors access route through the site.  This plan also identifies the approximate extent of the remediation activities.  The removal of UST 7 and UST 8 as shown on the attached plan will not involve any work on the former Automotive workshop itself as consents are required from Hamilton City Council before this building can be removed. 

The landfill works will involve digging through the former landfill site and sorting the material that is excavated.  Material that is verified as being contaminated will be trucked off site to the Hampton Downs landfill near Meremere in the North Waikato.  Material that is verified as suitable for reuse  will be placed back in the ground and compacted.  The sorting process will be overseen by a Contaminated Land Specialist from Tonkin and Taylor in Hamilton who will undertake verification testing of the materials that are to remain to ensure they meet the appropriate standards.  Excavated soil in the vicinity of the former Automotive workshop will be removed and taken to Hampton Downs Landfill as well.  All verification testing results will then be sent to Hamilton City Council, Waipa District Council and Waikato Regional Council staff. 

Please contact Mr Cameron Inder, Engineer to the Contract on 07 838 0144 if you have any questions in relation to this project.

Encl:

Drawing 61344.004 – Site Layout Plan by Tonkin & Taylor

Kai hall - Te Whare Kai

Click on the link below for a summary of the history of this building.

Kai hall

GRB Hall - Te whare tipuna

Click on the link below for a summary of history of this building.

GRB Hall

First house

Click on the link below for a summary of the history of this building.

First house

David O McKay Building History

Click on the link below for a summary of building history.

David O McKay Building History