Mapleton meets behind closed doors to discuss Supreme Court decision

MAPLETON — City leaders met behind closed doors Tuesday night to determine how they will move forward now that the Utah Supreme Court has decided in favor of a grass-roots group opposed to the rezoning of Maple Mountain.

The case, Friends of Maple Mountain vs. the City of Mapleton, found that the group may move ahead on a referendum that could nullify the city's decision to carve out a 120-acre planned unit development zone on the mountain so developer Wendell Gibby could have 47 residential lots.

Just 23 lots were legal under the previous zone.

The Supreme Court found the rezone was legislative, which means it's subject to a referendum.

"This is new case law," said Bob Bradshaw, city administrator.

It affects every city and town in Utah. All major zone changes are now legislative, not administrative, which means residents can challenge them, he said.

"It makes it very difficult for the city to do its job." Gibby acknowledged.

The Friends of Maple Mountain haven't yet asked the city to act on a referendum petition it filed more than a year ago to bring the planned unit development rezone to a vote. City leaders asked its attorney, Eric Johnson, to look into whether the election is required.

Still unresolved is how the court decision will affect a memorandum of understanding between Gibby and the city that the two parties signed in May 2007 and how it will affect a final plat map the city granted Gibby for his 47 lots in December.

In the agreement Gibby agreed to withdraw five lawsuits against the city, give the city an easement to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail that crosses his property and install a waterline the city could use in exchange for getting the 47 lots.

Meanwhile, before the Court decision was handed down last week, Gibby had already filed a Supreme Court challenge to 4th District Court Judge David N. Mortenson's ruling last December in which he ordered Gibby to drop his lawsuits and pay the city $80,000 in legal fees.

Gibby has also asked for a 4th District Court administrative review on conditions he opposes that are in the final plat map approval, which may become a moot issue if the referendum goes forward and is successful.

In a third court action, Gibby is challenging the width of Dogwood Drive, which accesses his property. The city has since started widening it, but Gibby says it still isn't wide enough.

e-mail: rodger@desnews.com