Morgan County appeals judge ruling on referendum petition

Morgan County has filed its own appeal of a Sept. 15 decision by Second District Court Judge Noel S. Hyde to allow five residents to pursue a referendum on a rezone that allowed Wasatch Peaks Ranch to begin to develop nearly 12,000 acres in Morgan County.

In dispute has been a November 2019 effort by the residents, Whitney Croft, Robert Bohman, Brandon Peterson, Shelley Paige and David Pike, to file an application for a referendum petition with Morgan County. At that time the county clerk rejected the application saying the residents had not fulfilled the legal obligations to file. So, the residents sued and after being heard in Second District Court and on appeal the Utah Supreme Court, the case was remanded back to Hyde’s court. In his Sept. 15 decision Hyde said the residents had filled the legal requirements and could move forward, but both Morgan County and Wasatch Peaks Ranch are challenging that decision.

That day, Wasatch Peaks Ranch filed an appeal with the Utah Supreme Court challenging Hyde’s judgement and some specific orders. Then on Sept. 29, Morgan County filed its own notice of appeal. 

In its motion, Morgan County appealed “some similar decisions but not all that were outlined by the intervenor [Wasatch Peaks Ranch],” County Attorney Garrett Smith said.

County officials dispute Hyde’s findings and say the legal conditions were not met and if the decision is not challenged it could set unintended precedents for future cases.

Much of the problem stems from the fact that the referendum petition filed by the residents was the first ever such petition to be filed in Morgan County, Smith said. Both the residents and county officials were lacking in experience with this issue, and he believes the residents got bad legal advice, he said.

“As the county we believe the petitioners failed to exercise their right appropriately by not meeting the minimum responsibilities required to exercise that right as outlined in Utah law,” he said. “From the county’s perspective we’re in support of the right of referendum … but the application must be filed according to statute.”

The county sees three legal problems with the actions of the petitioners: First, they did not attach a copy of the zoning law (which was recorded the morning after the application deadline) or the development agreement which was available in the commission packet that evening, which might have given them a legal exception to doing the former.

“While we understand that there may have been some confusion it was their duty to attach the law, or whatever was available to them, to the petition which they failed to do,” Smith said.

Further, Whitney Croft, who is a notary and notarized the signatures of the other four, did so illegally because Utah law does not allow it because she is a party to the suit, he said. Also, since Stacy Netz Clark who was the county clerk in 2019 when they filed the petition left Morgan County in 2021, the residents did not substitute current County Clerk Leslie Hyde in the lawsuit, something that is required under the law, so that the court would have jurisdiction over Hyde, he said.

“Letting the decision stand as it is, that would set a negative precedent with unintended case law,” Smith said.

The county is appealing because as a matter of public policy the rights of all parties must be considered, the county needs to uphold the law and if the law needs clarification that needs to be addressed by the Utah legislature, he said.

“It relates to balancing everyone’s rights, not just the rights of the petitioners in this case, which the petitioners largely ignore, the position of our elected officials to act on behalf of their constituents, also the use and enjoyment of property, so property rights,” he said.

“As the county we believe the petitioners failed to exercise their right appropriately by not meeting the minimum responsibilities required to exercise that right as outlined in Utah law,” he added. “From the county’s perspective we’re in support of the right of referendum …  but the application must be filed according to statute.”

It appears that it will be several months before the Utah Supreme Court hears the case. The court has asked for a record of the proceedings that took place in Second District Court. Once they are received the parties will then file opening briefs which have a specific comment/response time, and time must be allowed for reply. After that process is completed, the Supreme Court is expected to then hear oral arguments and make a decision from there. λ