dunn law firm adam c. dunn, #10926 attorneys for ... 1 dunn law firm adam c. dunn, #10926 attorneys
Post on 13-Jun-2020
Embed Size (px)
DUNN LAW FIRM
Adam C. Dunn, #10926
Attorneys for Petitioners
110 West Tabernacle
P.O. Box 2318
St. George, UT 84770
Attorney for Petitioners
IN THE FIFTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
IN AND FOR WASHINGTON COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH
SKY MOUNTAIN GOLF ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC.
Petitioners, vs. THE CITY OF HURRICANE, UTAH,
REVIEW OF DECISION
Case No.: _______________
COMES NOW, the Petitioner, SKY MOUNTAIN GOLF ESTATES HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, by and through its attorney of record, Adam C. Dunn of the Dunn Law Firm,
and hereby petitions the Fifth Judicial District Court in and for Washington County, Utah as
PARTIES, JURISDICTION, & VENUE
1. Petitioner is a Utah nonprofit corporation consisting of homeowners of the Sky Mountain
Subdivision, and located in Washington County, Utah. That subdivision is hereinafter sometimes
mailto:email@example.com mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org Susan Typewritten text 190500180
Susan Typewritten text John J. Walton
referred to as “Sky Mountain”.
2. Respondent is The City of Hurricane (hereinafter “Hurricane” or the “City”), which is in
Washington County, Utah.
3. All actions complained of herein occurred in Washington County, State of Utah.
4. That the real property that is the subject of this action is in the incorporated city of
Hurricane, Washington County, State of Utah.
5. This action arises out of a land use decision by Hurricane wherein it granted an application
for an amendment to the General Plan Map.
6. U.C.A. § 10-9a-801(2)(a) provides that “[a]ny person adversely affected by a final decision
made in the exercise of or in violation of the provisions of this chapter may file a petition for
review of the decision with the district court within 30 days after the decision is final.”
7. Hurricane City Council voted on and approved the application for an amendment to the
General Plan Map on March 7, 2019, making its decision final on that date.
8. Petitioner files this petition within the time period laid out in U.C.A. § 10-9a-801(2)(a).
9. Jurisdiction is proper in the above-captioned court under U.C.A. § 78A-5-102.
10. Venue is is proper in the above-captioned court under U.C.A. § 78B-3-301 & -307.
Hurricane City’s General Plan
11. The City of Hurricane has adopted a General Plan for its city’s land use. The General Plan
is, “[i]n many ways a reflection of the community’s values.” General Plan, at p. 4.
12. The “[m]essage of the [adopted] General Plan is that the land uses shown have already
been debated and approved by the community”. Id. at pp. 4-5.
13. Where a “…landowner or developer wishes to propose something substantially different
from the General Plan, the proposal must pass through close scrutiny by the community.” Id. at
p. 5 (emphasis added).
14. Hurricane has stated that one of its visions is a community “…where growth is well-
managed and new development does not exceed the capacity and services [of the community]”.
Id. at p. 8.
15. Indeed, Hurricane has established a goal in its General Plan that it will “[e]nsure that new
development (including its cumulative impacts) will not create an unfair or inappropriate burden,
financial or otherwise, on existing residents.” Id. at p. 11 (emphasis added).
16. Many of the Petitioner’s members chose to settle at Hurricane because of its General Plan,
its commitment to reasoned and well-planned growth, and its commitment to the natural
Application for the Amendment of the General Plan
17. On or about December 6, 2018, a certain “Jim Thomas” (hereinafter “Thomas” or the
“Developer”) submitted a “General Plan Amendment Application” (hereinafter, the
“Application”) to amend the City’s Land Use Map covering an approximately 340-acre property
north of 600 North at 2000 West (the “Cove” or the “Property”).
18. The Cove is currently within a general plan area that was designated to have “Single Family
Residential Up To 4 Units/Acre”. See General Plan Map for Hurricane.
19. The Property is on a peninsular-like property that is surrounding on the North, East, and
South by open space, including the Red Cliffs Desert Reserve and on the west by Sky Mountain.
See Map that was included with Application and which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
20. In 2011, the Hurricane Planning Commission concluded that the best use for the Property
is single-family homes. See Staff Comments, at p. 1.
21. Hurricane City Ordinances § 10-2-2(H)(2) provides that “[p]ersons proposing general plan
amendments shall do the survey and analysis work necessary to justify the proposed amendment.”
22. Of the things the applicant must put forward for the city to show that the proposed
amendment is “justified” are the following:
a) Eight and one-half inch by eleven inch (81/2" x 11") map showing the area of the proposed amendment;
b) Current copy of county assessor's parcel map showing the area of the proposed amendment;
c) Mapped inventory of existing land uses within the area of the proposed amendment and extending one-half (1/2) mile beyond such area;
d) Correct property addresses of parcels included within the area of the proposed amendment;
e) Written statement specifying the potential use of property within the area of the proposed amendment;
f) Written statement explaining why the existing general plan designation for the area is no longer appropriate or feasible;
g) Analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed amendment on existing infrastructure and public services such as traffic, streets, intersections, water and
sewer, storm drains, electrical power, fire protection, garbage collection, etc.; and
h) As part of the general plan map amendment process, the applicant shall attempt to collect the signature of the property owner or authorized agent or, in the case of
amendments affecting multiple properties, the signatures of a majority of the
persons who own property within the area proposed for the general plan map
Hurricane City Ordinances § 10-2-2(H)(2)(a)(1) – (8).
23. The Developer sought to change the Cove area to “Mixed Use – Neighborhood Scaled,
Development Including Residential, Commercial, and Light Industrial”. See Application,
24. The Developer did not provide a “[m]apped inventory of existing land uses within the area
of the proposed amendment and extending one-half (1/2) mile beyond such area” as required under
Hurricane City Ordinances § 10-2-2(H)(2)(a)(3).
25. Instead, the applicant stated that “[t]his property will tie in with all uses that surround this
property. The use to west is multi-family use. Use to the south is commercial, multi-family and
mixed use.” (Id.)
26. Not only did the applicant fail to provide a “mapped inventory” as required by ordinance,
but, according to staff comments, “The statement provided regarding potential impact says ‘this
property will tie in with all the uses that surround this property’ fails to note the property to the
east, which is entirely open space/ public recreation. While the designation on the General Plan
map to the west is ‘multifamily uses’, the actual development is single family houses on a public
golf course.” Staff Comments at p.2 (emphasis added).
27. In providing a written statement specifying the potential use of property within the area
of the proposed amendment as required under Hurricane City Ordinances § 10-2-2(H)(2)(a)(5),
the Developer provided an inexplicably vague explanation as follows:
We propose to change this 352-acre future parcel to mixed use - neighborhood
scaled, development including residential, commercial, and light industrial.
Projects will include streetscape enhancements & community amenities that will
require plan approval.
Application, at Statements.
28. The Developer also provided a map wherein only 50 acres would be used for “commercial”
uses with the balance of the property being used as residential uses. See Application.
29. The approximately 50 acres proposed as commercial property is on the tip of the peninsula
of the Property (as shown in the map which is attached hereto as Exhibit B, and which was
included with the Application.
30. At various meetings prior to the March 7, 2019 meeting, the Developer repeatedly stated
that it would use all but approximately 50 acres for residential uses and approximately 50 acres for
commercial uses and never stated that any of the property would be used for light industrial uses.
31. If the commercial section of the