Fairview — The Fairview Town Council voted May 20 to engage special legal counsel to represent and advise the town’s Board of Adjustment on a pending appeal related to the council’s April vote on a conditional-use permit for an LDS structure.

Members of the public told the council during the meeting’s public-comment period that the April vote was rushed and may have included a procedural miscalculation that disenfranchised residents who opposed the permit. Marlo Ballard, a Fairview resident, said the April vote “broke trust” and urged the council to ensure citizens were not disenfranchised if the vote had failed.

Ballard said, “If a super majority was required to approve the conditional use permit, then the vote failed and the LDS CUP was not in fact approved.” Lee Moore, a Fairview resident, described the issue as one of precedent, saying, “This was never about just one oversized building ... This was about precedent.” Claudia Mayer, a Fairview resident, told the council she delivered 2,482 signatures in August 2024 urging officials to uphold town zoning and dark-sky protections.

The council moved from open session to an executive session that the mayor said was held under the Texas Government Code sections cited on the record as §551.071 (consultation with legal counsel regarding pending or contemplated litigation) and §551.074 (personnel/appointments). After returning to open session, the council’s presiding official moved that the council “take steps to engage special legal counsel to represent and advise the Board of Adjustment” on jurisdictional questions related to the appeal of the council’s CUP vote. A councilmember seconded that motion. The mayor called the vote; councilmembers voiced “aye,” and the mayor stated, “Motion carries.” The meeting record did not include a roll-call tally in the transcript.

Speakers during public comment also referenced federal protections for religious land use. Speakers used the acronym RLUIPA when describing the legal arguments they expected to be invoked; one commenter said the group opposing the town has “a lawsuit ready to serve.” The council’s action to retain special counsel follows those public concerns and the filing of an appeal, which speakers said had been submitted.

The council did not announce a timeline or name for the special counsel during the open session. The mayor said the council took the action so “all opinions are heard and fairly judged” and to address “process questions” that will need resolution in the coming weeks.

Background: Residents at the meeting said the disputed vote occurred April 29 (also described in public remarks as April 30), and speakers reported that the town’s planning and zoning commission had opposed exceeding residential codes. Residents warned the outcome could affect future zoning enforcement and dark-sky protections.

The council’s next steps on the appeal and any subsequent votes were not specified at the meeting; the council said staff and legal advisers would address jurisdictional questions and process matters in the coming weeks.