Dozens of Summit County voters will see an initiative resurrected from the dead on their Election Day ballots in November: the incorporation of West Hills.
West Hills is a proposed township covering 3,600 acres along S.R. 248 near Kamas. It was scheduled to appear on the ballot last year until Third District Judge Matthew Bates ruled the proposal — and the state’s incorporation process — unconstitutional just weeks before Election Day.
The legal proceedings stemmed from a lawsuit filed by 10 Summit County property owners who claimed West Hills’ incorporation process violated their rights by offering only some landowners a chance to opt out of being included in the town’s proposed boundaries.
However, Derek Anderson, the sponsor behind the West Hills incorporation movement, contested Bates’ decision and appealed the case to the Utah Supreme Court in February, with his attorneys arguing the state law was designed to ensure the process progresses smoothly and with reasonable deadlines.
The Utah Supreme Court last week issued its own ruling siding with Anderson and allowing the West Hills incorporation to move forward, more than four months after the two sides argued their case in a Salt Lake City courtroom.
The Supreme Court agreed with Summit County property owners’ concerns regarding differential treatment, saying the incorporation law divides landowners into classes and “similarly situated” property owners added to the town’s boundaries later in the process may not have the same rights as those included at the beginning.
But the Supreme Court said the differential treatment is “reasonably related” to the law’s design, which aims to prevent “endless boundary changes so that incorporation questions can proceed to the ballot box.” Essentially, landowners may be treated differently to avoid starting the incorporation process from scratch each time a property is added to, or wants to be removed from, the map in order to allow voters to make a decision on Election Day.
Anderson in a press release called the initial lawsuit ironic, saying it was framed as a defensive measure for landowners even though it violated the property rights of those who supported West Hills.
“A handful of wealthy, out-of-area donors who want to protect views from their own property should not be allowed to invoke property rights to strip away their neighbors’ rights or to get a veto over how the rest of us regular landowners, who actually own and use the property within these boundaries, exercise our rights,” he said.
Anderson also decried the lawsuit for delaying the vote on West Hills and thanked the Supreme Court for “upholding the law and restoring that right” to be heard on Election Day.
Janet Conway, an attorney representing the Summit County property owners, said she was displeased with the verdict.
“We are disappointed with the ruling and are considering our options and next steps,” Conway said in a statement to The Park Record.
Kamas Valley residents have largely opposed the West Hills township since its proposal two years ago, with community members citing concerns over property rights, economic viability and the sponsor’s motives.
Meanwhile, West Hills supporters believe the incorporation will give residents more flexibility with their property, help control expected growth in the area and encourage open land preservation.
Only the 97 registered voters living within the proposed West Hills boundaries will be eligible to participate in the ballot initiative.