OGDEN — A pending court case against the Weber County Commission is once again underscoring the heat that growth and development can cause in the county’s western expanse.

Shae Bitton, who lives in the Taylor area of western Weber County, is suing commissioners, saying they acted illegally last June in reversing a Western Weber Planning Commission decision to reject a developer’s 156-unit subdivision proposal. The commissioners, she maintains, acted outside their authority, and she asks that their decision be overturned and that they take the matter back up for reconsideration.

“We write the codes so we’re protected and now they’re not following it,” she said. At stake, she maintains, is the quality of the groundwater in the area.

Commissioners, in their response, don’t address the charges Bitton brings up. Rather, they say she filed her lawsuit beyond the deadline spelled out in law, thus the case should be dismissed.

“Our position is they missed the deadline to appeal to the district court,” said Courtlan Erickson, deputy Weber County attorney. If 2nd District Court Judge Camille Neider, who’s overseeing the case, rejects the county’s motion to dismiss Bitton’s case, that would be the time for the county to respond more directly to her charges, he said.

Image supplied, Weber County

Bitton filed her case on July 30, the county subsequently filed its motion to dismiss based on the timing issue and the two sides argued the matter on Nov. 24, according to online court records. Neider took the case under advisement, according to Erickson, and he’s not sure when she’ll rule.

At the heart of Bitton’s lawsuit is the commissioners’ 2-1 decision on June 23 to grant preliminary approval to Heritage Land Development’s 156-lot subdivision plan, allowing project plans to move forward. The development, near Bitton’s home, is called Taylor Landing and it would sit on an open 109-acre parcel east of 4300 West and between 1800 South and 2200 South.

Bitton in 2017 lobbied against another development proposal in the same area as the Taylor Landing plan, arguing with several other neighbors that it was too dense. Complaints and concerns about development in western Weber County have become a regular thing as developers look to build more and more homes in the traditionally agricultural area.

The commissioners’ decision last June represented the reversal of a 4-2 decision on May 12 by the Western Weber Planning Commission to deny Heritage’s application for preliminary approval. Planning commissioners voting to deny the application argued that the development didn’t tap “prime agricultural space” as required by county code for planned open space. The development calls for 156 housing parcels spread over around 45 acres with the remaining 64 acres to be given over to farming.

In creating open space in a housing development for farming — the 64 acres in the Heritage matter — county code states that the land “best suited for large-scale crop production” should be used, Bitton said in her suit, citing language from county ordinance. She argues county commissioners ignored that provision in overturning the Planning Commission.

She addressed commissioners on the issue at the June 23 hearing and maintains that Heritage should move the proposed open space to a more fertile section of land. Otherwise, it will need to be fertilized and Bitton worries the chemicals could contaminate the groundwater down below.

In taking up Heritage’s appeal of that May decision on June 23, Commissioner Scott Jenkins said the open space, as proposed, can be made suitable for ag use via fertilizer. He also noted that the county’s planning staffers recommend approval of Heritage’s application, according to official minutes from that meeting.

Bitton also argues that the development plan ignores provisions of county code dictating block lengths, and Commissioner Jim Harvey cited that on June 23 in voting against reversing the Planning Commission decision. Jenkins and Commissioner Gage Froerer represented the majority in the 2-1 vote.

As for the timing issue, the county argues in its motion to dismiss that any lawsuit should have been filed by July 25, five days before Bitton actually filed her complaint. Based on differing interpretations of when the June 23 action became official, Bitton argues that she had until July 30, the actual day she filed her suit.

Bitton maintains that county officials are arguing the timing issue instead of the issues at the heart of her case to deter her legal efforts. “The county’s trying to bleed me dry. They’re stretching it out to waste my money,” she charged.

Heritage Land Development representatives declined comment.