Judge issues preliminary injunction against Wasatch Peaks Ranch

In the ongoing case of Wasatch Peaks Ranch, Judge Noel S. Hyde of Second District Court has issued a preliminary injunction barring the resort from moving ahead with any development.

The preliminary injunction was issued on Dec. 8, eight days after Hyde had entered a temporary restraining order against the development. According to the preliminary injunction, WPR may not move forward in any way on the 12,000-acre property except for “protective maintenance.”

“Wasatch Peaks Ranch shall immediately cease all construction and development activity on the property which is the subject of the Ordinance, to the extent that such activity is inconsistent with the zoning status of the property immediately prior to the passage of the Ordinance,” Hyde’s order reads.

In September Hyde authorized five Morgan County residents, Whitney Croft, David Pike, Robert Bohman, Brandon Peterson, and Shelley Paige, opposed to the development to go ahead with a referendum petition that seeks to have county voters weigh in on the Oct. 30, 2019 rezone which allowed the resort to come into being. The five residents thought this would halt all work on the property until that referendum, but on Oct. 3 Morgan County commissioners approved a subdivision in the development. Morgan County Attorney Garrett Smith said at that time that Hyde’s September ruling only applied to applications filed after his decision.

However, the order issued Dec. 8 and posted Dec. 14 makes clear that Hyde disagrees with Smith. Any development or promotion of the resort in any way is not allowed until the case has been decided in the courts, he said. Hyde addressed and dismissed several arguments made by WPR and Morgan County’s counsel.

His order does not determine the validity of the original ordinance, Hyde said in a Dec. 8 hearing. “The court is not making a ruling today that the development is good, bad, or indifferent. That is not the role of the court. The court is ruling that the voters have a voice, and that voice must be heard,” he said.  

Wasatch Peaks Ranch’s claim that it will experience $455 million in losses is “purely speculative” he says. He further said it was not necessary because of that potential loss for the residents to post a bond.

“The court ruling is that the intention of the posting of a bond is not intended to address potential speculative future revenue stream issues and that there is no specific information from which the court can determine the accuracy of the $455 million figure or of any other figure at this point,” he said.

“Constitutional rights are not for sale,” Hyde said. “Constitutional rights are zealously guarded and protected by the court. To suggest that a party is required to post a substantial bond in order to vindicate their  constitutional rights actually puts a price tag on those rights, and if the party is unable to come up  with that bonding requirement, whatever it is that may be requested, then the constitutional right may go unaddressed, and that, in the court’s view, is not  consistent with public policy.”

Hyde scheduled a telephone conference with the parties for Dec. 14 and indicated that he would be likely to schedule a court date during that conference. The trial date has not yet been released.

See accompanying story above. λ