Bluffdale fight in court

After three years of controversy, a fight over whether nearly 40 percent of Bluffdale's land should become part of Herriman will go before the Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday.

The court will hear oral arguments from attorneys representing Bluffdale and developers who want to disconnect about 4,000 acres of undeveloped land from the city's southwest corner and make them part of neighboring Herriman.

The city is asking the high court to overturn a Feb. 27 ruling by 3rd District Judge Anthony Quinn that gave the developers approval to secede from Bluffdale and opened the door for them to take their high-density, mixed-use developments to Herriman.

Landowners have been trying for years to develop the property, known as Area 4, but Bluffdale officials and residents have been hesitant to abandon the city's tradition of mostly one-acre lots. The battle entered the legal arena after a December 2003 decision by the City Council to deny a zoning change requested by developers Bluffdale Mountain Homes and South Farm.

Now, three years later, both sides are hoping the legal skirmish will be put to rest with the state Supreme Court's decision, and attorneys for both parties are each confident that the ruling will be in their side's favor.

"Bluffdale is going to win," said Dale Gardiner, Bluffdale's city attorney. "I think it's clear-cut."

"When we win, it's over," said Bruce Baird, who represents the developers.

While there is no timetable for the state Supreme Court to register its opinion, the case has been on a fast track, and Gardiner said he expects a decision by February.

Gardiner has continued to represent Bluffdale in the case despite relinquishing his duties as city attorney in June to pursue a romantic relationship with Mayor Claudia Anderson. The couple was married Nov. 4.

Gardiner says that the city's case is buoyed by state statute and contends that the case never should have gone before the court because the petition to disconnect was not signed by the majority of landowners. Although the court recognized the error, the judge allowed the developers to amend the petition to include additional signatures, he said.

"That is just a flat-out error," Gardner said. "Either the court has power to decide the case or it doesn't, and in this case it doesn't."