Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
FARMINGTON — A dispute over a zoning change to allow a new 341-unit housing development in Clinton is now in court.
Some residents in Clinton worried about excessive townhome development petitioned to get a question related to the controversial zoning decision on the 2025 ballot. The city announced last month that they fell short of the signatures needed. Now, one of the leaders of the contingent has filed suit, asking the court to count 37 disputed petition signatures, which, if permitted, would be enough to allow the question to be placed on the ballot.
Adam Larsen, who filed the lawsuit on Jan. 22 in 2nd District Court in Farmington, said the aim of the lawsuit is to honor the intent of the signatories in question.
Larsen and others in Clinton launched a petition drive last fall asking for a ballot question on the Aug. 27, 2024, Clinton City Council decision to rezone a 34.9-acre parcel. The parcel is central to a development plan calling for 341 units — 266 townhomes and 75 single-family homes. The petitioners took particular umbrage with the townhomes, worried about overdevelopment and the ability of the area's roads to handle the new people drawn by the housing.
They initially mustered more than 3,800 signatures as part of their petition, but the developer subsequently launched a campaign to convince signatories to remove their names, as allowed by law, reducing the final figure to 3,519. The final overall figure of 3,519 was sufficient, but the number fell short in one of the city's voting areas — District B — by 14 signatures, failing to make way for the ballot question, the city said on Jan. 10.
Larsen, though, said Monday that those involved in the drive to get signatories to remove their names used deceit and misinformation. More specifically, the misinformation, the lawsuit charges, led 21 people in District B to strike their names from the petition, and those people subsequently completed declarations saying they were misled and that they wanted their signatures to be counted. Those signatures, plus those of 16 others who say they were misled, should be counted, the lawsuit says, which would sway the results of the petition drive in favor of those seeking the ballot question.
"Ultimately, the shady tactics of those gathering removal statements bore fruit," the lawsuit charges. The proposed ballot question, if it were to get on the ballot, would ask voters if the 3-2 City Council vote from last August authorizing the rezone of the 34.9-acre parcel should stand. If voters said no, the rezone decision would be reversed, stalling the project.
Larsen filed the suit against the Clinton city clerk and the Davis County clerk, who are tasked with reviewing the signatures petitioners mustered. Neither reps from the city nor county would comment Monday since the suit is ongoing. They haven't yet formally responded to the suit. The developer behind the project, Mike Hatch, didn't immediately respond to a query seeking comment.
Growth has been fast in the area around Clinton, West Point and Syracuse, in northwestern Davis County, and those against the 341-unit development are particularly leery of the 266 proposed townhomes. They worry that, combined with a townhome proposal in neighboring West Point, the result will be overloaded roads and infrastructure. Instead, the critics tout a focus more on single-family home development.
The developer, by contrast, has said the infrastructure is sufficient given future planned upgrades and that the proposed housing is needed to keep pace with growing demand.
More germane to the lawsuit, the court filing charges that some of those going door to door to get petition signatories to remove their names misrepresented themselves as being affiliated with the state of Utah or city. Others incorrectly told residents the city "had changed the development plans or the residents were merely signing to support new plans instead of removing their names from the original petition," the lawsuit says. Some allegedly misstated the development plans, indicating a smaller number of townhomes were proposed.
Larsen had brought the issues up with city and county officials before the drive to remove signatures ended but was told there was no recourse for signatories who removed their signatures to subsequently get them back on the petitions. That led to the decision to sue.
Hatch has charged those opposed to his development with misrepresenting details of his plans, including estimated townhome prices, which haven't yet been pinpointed. Larsen, however, says his side has a more concrete foundation for its complaints, including statements from residents who say they were misled.
"Their side has no evidence. We have video after video and testimonial after testimonial," he said, alluding to the reports from residents and video of some of the encounters with those who lobbied petition signatories to remove their signatures.
