Sandy big-box controversy goes to court

Group tells justices it wants to put citizen initiative on ballot

Published: Monday, April 11, 2005 10:31 p.m. MDT
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
As a resident of Sandy, Cynthia Long feels like her voice as a citizen is being taken away.

This month, an attorney representing Long and several other Sandy residents argued before the Utah Supreme Court that the city of Sandy should put a citizen initiative on next November's ballot that questions the City Council's wisdom in giving the green light to a big-box development at the site of a gravel pit.

"I think what's at stake is the citizens' right to get involved," Long said outside the Supreme Court chambers after oral arguments. "If you disagree with what the administration is saying, then what is your only option?"

The group, Save Our Communities, had gathered 6,425 signatures for a referendum to reverse zoning decisions made by Sandy for a Boyer Co. retail project. Under Utah law, citizens have a right to petition for a referendum to be put to a public vote.

Typically, the law requires that the petition contain signatures equaling 10 percent of voters within a city who voted in the last gubernatorial election. However, many elected officials in Utah have been concerned with citizen groups using referendums to undermine their decisions. In 1999, the Utah Legislature doubled the required signatures for referendums that deal with land-use issues, requiring 20 percent of voter signatures.

Story continues below

"In what types of decisions should the people have a direct voice?" attorney Robert Hughes asked the justices.

Hughes added people need a direct voice in decisions that change the face of their community.

At issue is whether Sandy's zoning decision was considered an administrative or a legislative action. An administrative action is one that uses current city law as a basis while a legislative action is one that makes a profound change to those laws. Administrative actions are not subject to referendum, under Utah law.

Hughes argued Sandy's decision to allow the development diverged enough from city ordinances that it should be considered a legislative action.

Jeffery Williams, attorney for Boyer Co. and also representing Sandy city and Gibbons Realty, argued the city's zoning approval for the project did not conflict with the city's long-term plans for the gravel pit and therefore was not a drastic divergence. As far as the 10 or 20 percent requirement for signatures, "This is a land-use law, there's no doubt about it," Williams said, arguing that under law Save Our Communities needed 7,940 signatures instead of the 6,425 the group gathered.

At stake is the final defining stroke for Sandy.

"This is the last big unimproved parcel in the city," Hughes said.

Steve Mouty's home is located above the gravel pit. After attending Monday's hearing, Mouty said he is concerned the already-congested traffic in his area will get worse.

Comments

You can be the first to comment on this story.

previousnext

Latest comments

time to get rid of both. we need Bosh from Toronto .....trade all 3 including...

Mary Coppins has a new slant these days. I am just so glad he has stopped...

Not one single "Jazz fan" has spelled the name Joel Przybilla correctly, in...

i had awesome this year and she was well....awesome =) i miss her so much...

Yes, I'm rooting for the Y against OK also. Any win by MWC over BCS benefits...

LDS seminary principal arrested in sex abuse of student

off the hook for this, because he did good things at other times. We are...

"So depending on where you look, you'll get your answer." Well...that's...

Apparently your allowed to bring politics into this "sports" story but if...

Palin mistreated

After 4 years of slick-talking-Obama-Mania, I think the time will come when...

I had Bro. Pratt his first year teaching. I cannot tell you what a...

Advertisements