Hideout Planning Commission Changes Annexation Timeline, With An Eye To Future Litigation
The Hideout Town Planning Commission on Monday night recommended timeline changes to the Annexation Development Agreement—a Fourth District Court ruling in June struck down the town’s annexation into Summit County, and ensuing lawsuits require more time to be resolved.
At the same time, Hideout is challenging the June court decision. The town has filed a Motion for Reconsideration, asking the judge to look again at her decision. It is scheduled for a hearing in mid-September.
During the Monday meeting, Town Attorney Polly McLean said that no matter how Judge Brown rules on a Reconsideration, it’s almost certain her decision will be appealed by either Hideout or Summit County.
The Planning Commission’s vote on the Annexation Development Agreement next goes to the Hideout Council this Thursday the 12th.
Attorney McLean said under the Amended Agreement, deadlines set in the original deal would be shifted to 120 days after the litigation is finally settled.
“We picked 120 days, thinking that that would be reasonable, from the date that we know what’s gonna happen. Then, if it can go forward, then this gives ‘em time to finalize their obligations.”
The Development Agreement details a prospective commercial/residential center called Silver Meadows on the annexed land. Under its terms, developer Nate Brockbank has to provide land for a town hall, police and fire station and a possible school site; and the developer and the town must agree on a set of design standards.
On October 16th of last year, the Council for the Wasatch County town of Hideout voted to annex 350 acres into Summit County near Richardson Flat.
Summit County filed suit to stop the effort and on June 22nd, Judge Brown ruled that the town didn’t follow the steps to properly enact the annexation before a legal deadline.
Hideout submitted its Reconsideration request last month, arguing that its annexation completed all the necessary legislative requirements by the deadline of October 20, 2020.
It said there is insufficient reason to overturn the decision of Hideout’s elected officials, nor override the June 22nd referendum where citizens approved the annexation by a 2-to-1 margin.
The town also contended that Summit County doesn’t have standing to file suit.
Summit County filed a response saying the town’s Reconsideration request doesn’t comply with Rules of Civil Procedure, which are guidelines that govern civil litigation in court.
The next two court dates are the hearing for Reconsideration on September 16th, and October 14th, for other issues in the case.
At Hideout’s Monday meeting, Attorney McLean was asked how much it is costing the town to deal with litigation.
“The cost to the town is not much, because we entered into a pre-annexation agreement with the developer prior to moving forward with this annexation. The developer is indemnifying the town for all costs related to the annexation. The town does not have any costs related to it.”
Hideout Town Attorney Polly McLean.