Is Mapleton deal unsafe?

MAPLETON — As Mapleton officials and Wendell Gibby race toward an end to a five-year legal battle over a strip of land on Maple Mountain, a group of residents are frantically working to put the brakes on the deal.

In exchange for land easements for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail and a water pipeline, the Mapleton City Council agreed in May to rezone Gibby's 120-acre plot to allow him to build a 47-home subdivision.

If both sides meet the requirements of the compromise by a Sept. 1 deadline, Gibby agreed to drop several lawsuits against the city.

Some residents argue Gibby's land, which is designated as a critical-environment zone, is too unstable to support such a high-density development, however.

"We know there are geotechnical issues along that bench," said Jim Lundberg, who is acting as spokesman for concerned residents. "Our concern is that as soon as he starts putting lots on that bench there are going to be landslides, houses sliding down and roadsides falling away and it may end up being the city's responsibility to fix. This subdivision is an accident waiting to happen."

Although residents agree the city should put an end to the legal battle with Gibby, Lundberg said rezoning the land to allow double the density is both unfair and unwise.

Gibby is getting a "special deal" not available to other landowners, he said. Under the critical-environment zone designation, Gibby would only be allowed to build 23 homes.

"He bought this property under the current zone designation, and he knew what he bought," Lundberg said. "He's getting special treatment because he has sued the city."

Rezoning Gibby's land also opens the door for future litigation, Lundberg said. Once Gibby sells his lots, the city will be liable for homes damaged by geotechnical problems.

"This is simply putting a Band-Aid on the current litigation," he said. "It will only lead to more litigation down the road."

Gibby maintains, however, that his land is some of the least geotechnically hazardous on the mountain. He paid more than $60,000 on hazard studies and tests, all of which indicated his land was "low risk."

"The only thing critical about this land is you have some pampered rich people who want to be the biggest house on the block," Gibby said. "It has nothing to do with safety or geotechnical studies."

To leave the property zoned as critical environment would be "ridiculous," Gibby said, because it is not geologically hazardous.