VIRGIN TOWN REFERENDUM INFORMATION PAMPHLET
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
April 30 2021
VIRGIN TOWN
REFERENDUM INFORMATION
PAMPHLET
For The Proposed Referendum of
Virgin Ordinance 2021-34
TO BE CIRCULATED WITH
REFERENDUM PETITION
SIGNATURE SHEETS
Compiled by
Monica Bowcutt, Virgin Town Recorder
VIRGIN TOWN
114 S Mill Street, PO Box 790008
Virgin, UT 84779
Proposition Information Pamphlet 1
April 30 2021
Table of Contents
Page #
Ordinance 2021-34 3
Referendum Petition 5
Sponsor Argument 8
Town Argument 9
Fiscal Impact Statement 10
Legal Impact Statement 12
Proposition Information Pamphlet 2April 30 2021
Ordinance 2021-34
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 44, SECTION 44.06 OF VULU: HIGHWAY RESORT
ZONE LOCATION
RECITALS
WHEREAS - Utah Code provides for the adoption and amendment of Town land use ordinances by the
Land Use Authority, which in Virgin is the “Town Council with recommendation by the Planning and
Zoning Commission” ; and
WHEREAS, the Virgin Land Use Authority wishes to expand access to the Highway Resort Zone; and
WHEREAS, the Virgin Land Use Authority wishes, to accommodate the towns desire to provide
landowners south of Rio De Zion subdivision with development opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the Virgin Town Planning and Zoning Commission held properly noticed Public Hearings
on these amendments on March 29, 2021, and voted to recommend its draft amendment ordinance to the
Virgin Town Council at a regular meeting on March 31, 2021;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Land Use Authority of Virgin, Utah that, in order to
provide for the health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of Virgin, Utah, the VULU Ordinance is
hereby amended to incorporate the following changes:
ORDINANCE
3. Lie within the area South of Entrada Drive, East of Camino del Rio, and South of SR 9 to the
furthest east and west to grid line 300 E.
1. Severability. If ay section, clause or portion of this Ordinance is declared invalid by a court of
competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall not be affected thereby and shall remain in full force and
effect.
2. Conflicts/Repealer. This Ordinance repeals and supersedes the provisions of any prior ordinance
in conflict herewith.
3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption by the Virgin
Town Council and execution by the Virgin Town Mayor.
Proposition Information Pamphlet 3April 30 2021 Proposition Information Pamphlet 4
April 30 2021 Referendum Petition Proposition Information Pamphlet 5
April 30 2021 Proposition Information Pamphlet 6
April 30 2021 Proposition Information Pamphlet 7
April 30 2021
Sponsor Argument
ARGUMENT “FOR”
THE PROPOSED REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2021-34
The Virgin Town Council passed another ordinance enabling developers to re-zone residential
property to Highway Resort Zone (HRZ). This time it is way off any highway, south of the river, an
area that should be protected for homes. The change impacts properties above, in, and east of Rio de
Sion.
Commercial development here would hurt homeowners in the Rio De Sion subdivision, and
possibly block access to BLM trails. This mesa-top property is visible across town; IF YOU SEE THE
CELL TOWER (OR SINGLE-STORY HOME), YOU WILL SEE THE DEVELOPMENT FOR
WHOM THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED. Furthermore, access is from Camino del Rio, across the
narrow two-lane bridge built to serve a subdivision’s needs.
The Town keeps trying to expand HRZ eligibility throughout town, allowing RV Parks, “glamping”
wagons and tents, short-term rentals, and large resorts. They quietly added 250 acres south of the river—east
of Kolob Terrace Road to the town boundary—just before Christmas 2019. This new ordinance adds nearly
100 acres, consisting of 13 parcels with many different owners, expanding HRZ zoning eligibility
further west.
The Town’s actions have incrementally opened up more and more areas for RV and other tourist
accommodations while reducing protections for residential neighbors (color, size, light pollution, density,
viewshed), regardless of impacts. Why? There are many non-developed acres already eligible and more
appropriate for HRZ use along Highway 9 and Kolob Terrace Road. Once zoned HRZ, almost anything goes,
as seen with Wildflower and Weeping Buffalo.
Current town officials have publicly confessed their goal is to “simplify” and make HRZ the
ONLY commercial zone in town, stretching from one end to the other. Through referenda, the majority
of citizens keep saying large commercial developments everywhere is not their vision for Virgin’s
future, but officials are not listening.
• The heart and health of a community reside in its residents.
• People want to live in a town that cares about and protects their quality of life.
• People are attracted to Virgin for its rural qualities and recreational opportunities.
Virgin is changing because growth pressure has increased. Springdale has little room for new
developments and, since the pandemic, people are moving to rural towns. Change is inevitable but can be
guided with a shared vision and thoughtful planning. As an incorporated town, state law enables citizens to
decide where commercial uses should be and what areas to protect for homes—for local families and
workers. Businesses provide a tax base but need to be BALANCED with a diversity of residential
housing, so our town remains healthy and vibrant.
This referendum has been filed so citizens can decide if this rezoning is in our best interest.
Referendums give us voice in significant decisions, particularly if Town Council’s ordinance benefits only a
few, harms other property owners, and throws away opportunities in our town to provide quiet, safe
neighborhoods for families and children.
By signing the petition, you help put this issue on the ballot in November for voters to decide.
THANK YOU
Proposition Information Pamphlet 8April 30 2021
Town Argument
ARGUMENT “AGAINST”
THE PROPOSED REFERENDUM TO REPEAL VIRGIN ORDINANCE 2021-34
Around the first part of February 2021, prospective buyers presented the Town with an agreement
made between themselves and Ms. Linda Collet. Ms. Collet had signed a purchase contract with the buyers
with the provision that she initiate a zone change eligibility request for the property to be considered as
Highway Resort Zone (HRZ). She then cashed a $1000 check that was issued from the buyers for the purpose
of the zone change. Unfortunately, she had a medical emergency shortly thereafter and was unable to ask for
the eligibility in person.
Because the Town was aware of the contract and that her medical conditions prevented her from
finishing her application for eligibility (and by then it was too late to get it on the February agenda), the request
was added to the March Town Council Agenda.
The State of Utah requires that all elected and appointed municipal persons attend mandatory statewide
training each year. At the 2021 training, it was emphasized that personal property rights are the priority when
making land use decisions. The representatives must ask, “Is there any justifiable reason to deny the owner
their request?”
After consideration, the Town Council did not see any justifiable reason why this eligibility should be
not expanded to cover Ms. Collet’s property, a very, small addition to the land eligible for HRZ designation,
and honored her agreement on March 31, 2021. This does not make the parcel HRZ, it only makes it eligible
for a future zone change.
The sponsors suggest that the Town Council has made “quiet changes” to zoning and allude to
underhanded dealings, which is completely unfounded. They suggest that the “development” will be seen and
even presume to say what it will be with absolutely no information. The HRZ has over twenty uses, including
single family dwellings, healing centers, museums, trails, and wineries. This is a fear-driven, knee-jerk
reaction that is misleading citizens of Virgin.
Regarding space to build a community, neither Rio de Zion, Old Home Acres, nor Sierra Bella
subdivisions have built out to capacity after years in existence. There is plenty of opportunity for housing, but
no one will come to live here if there is not employment as well.
It is unfortunate that the Sponsors of this proposed Referendum do not reside anywhere near this area
of land and yet feel that they should have control over the property owner’s ability to rezone their land. We
have seen this again and again with this group. Should they have the right to control land use for others? Why
are the sponsors not those who live adjacent to this property? These are some of the questions that residents
need to consider before signing this referendum. Challenging every decision of the Planning & Zoning
Commission and the Town Council smacks in the face of representative government. We simply ask that you
support the Commission and Council’s decision to uphold Ms. Collet’s right to zone her land as she desires.
Proposition Information Pamphlet 9April 30 2021
Fiscal Impact Statement
INITIAL FISCAL IMPACT ESTIMATE FOR
THE PROPOSED REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2021-34
The Referendum Application proposes to overturn an ordinance (Virgin Ordinance 2021-34) which amended
Chapter 44, Section 06 of the Virgin Uniform Land Use Ordinances (“VULU)” as to what areas or locations
within the Town are eligible to be re-zoned or annexed into the Town’s Highway Resort Zone (“HRZ Zone”).
Specifically Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 made property that lies within the area South of Entrada Drive, East of
Camino del Rio, South of SR-9 and to the furthest East and West grid line of 300 East eligible for participation
in the HRZ Zone beyond those areas already eligible. Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 did not effectively change
any properties zoning designation or re-zone any property in the expanded eligibility area to HRZ. Because
Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 expands eligibility for future participation in the HRZ Zone, it is estimated that
should the requested referendum occur, and regardless of whether it is successful or not, the outcome will have
a very small immediate fiscal impact on the Town and its residents. The only quantifiable immediate fiscal
impact is that the Town will incur limited costs and expenses in connection with the certifying and processing
of the Referendum Application and signature petition packets and conducting the special election. It is
estimated that these costs and expenses to be approximately Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
Estimations as to the long term fiscal impact on the Town and its residents is much more speculative and hard
to quantify because expanding the eligibility for future participation in the HRZ Zone does not necessarily
mean that property owners within the expanded geographical eligibility area or areas already within the
existing geographical eligibility area will actually re-zone their property to the HRZ Zone. Because the HRZ
Zone conditionally allows uses other than the Town’s predominantly residential and agricultural uses - uses
such as hospitality (hotel/motel), retail, restaurants and recreational, there is the possibility that the Town might
generate additional revenue in the form of increased sales tax, transient room tax, property tax, RAP tax,
municipal energy tax, franchise fees and state road funds (gas tax). However, the amount, if any, of additional
revenue or beneficial fiscal impact to the City and its residents is dependent on what newly eligible parcels
actually re-zone to the HRZ Zone in the future and whether actual development on those parcels actually
occurs.
Accordingly, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §20A-7-602.5(2) the Town estimates the following:
1. The dollar amount representing the total estimated fiscal impact of repealing Virgin Ordinance
2021-34:
Answer: Initially - $15,000.00, Long Term – Unknown.
2. If repealing Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 would increase or decrease taxes, a dollar amount representing
the total estimated increase or decrease for each type of tax that would be impacted by Virgin
Ordinance 2021-34’s repeal and a dollar amount representing the total estimated increase or decrease
in taxes that would result from the law's repeal:
Answer: Because Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 amends an existing zoning ordinance. The effect of the law’s
repeal would be to revert back to the existing eligibility/location requirements under VULU 44-06(A) and (B)
and thus there would be no increase or decrease in the present taxes charged by the Town, Washington County
and the State of Utah.
3. If repealing Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 would result in the issuance or a change in the status of bonds,
notes, or other debt instruments, a dollar amount representing the total estimated increase or decrease
in public debt that would result:
Proposition Information Pamphlet 10April 30 2021
Answer: No. Repealing Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 would not result in the issuance or change in status of any
bonds, notes or other debt instruments and would not result in the increase or decrease in any public debt of
the Town.
4. A listing of all sources of funding for the estimated costs that would be associated with the law's repeal,
showing each source of funding and the percentage of total funding that would be provided from each
source:
Answer: The Town’s general fund would be the source of 100% of the funding for the $15,000.00 of initial
estimated cost to process the proposed Referendum and conduct the Special Election.
5. A dollar amount representing the estimated costs or savings, if any, to state and local government
entities if the law were repealed:
Answer: None.
Proposition Information Pamphlet 11April 30 2021
Legal Impact Statement
INITIAL LEGAL IMPACT ESTIMATE FOR
THE PROPOSED REFERENDUM TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2021-34
As required by Section 20A-7-602.5(2) of the Utah Code Annotated, the attorney for Virgin Town (the “Town”)
has prepared the following estimate of the legal impacts of repealing Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 by referendum.
The Referendum Application proposes to overturn an ordinance (Virgin Ordinance 2021-34) which amended
Chapter 44, Section 06 of the Virgin Uniform Land Use Ordinances (“VULU)” as to what areas or locations
within the Town are eligible to be re-zoned or annexed into the Town’s Highway Resort Zone (“HRZ Zone”).
Specifically Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 made property that lies within the area South of Entrada Drive, East of
Camino del Rio, South of SR-9 and to the furthest East and West grid line of 300 East eligible for participation
in the HRZ Zone beyond those areas already eligible. Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 did not effectively change
any properties zoning designation or re-zone any property in the expanded eligibility area to HRZ.
Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §20A-7-602.5 it is estimated that the following legal impacts would result from
repealing Virgin Ordinance 2021-34:
1. Significant effects on a person's vested property rights:
Answer: None. No re-zone applications or other land use entitlement requests have been granted by the Town
on eligible properties in reliance on Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 since it was adopted. A persons property rights
in uses permitted or permitted with conditions do not vest until they have actually applied for, and obtained
approval from, the Town Council (with the recommendation of the Town’s Planning & Zoning Commission
after a public hearing). See Utah Code Ann. §§ 10-9a-502 & 10-9a-503, see also Western Land Equities Inc. v.
City of Logan, 617 P.2d 388 (Utah 1980).
2. Significant effects on other laws or ordinances:
Answer: None. See summary explanation below.
3. Significant legal liability the Town or Washington County may incur:
Answer: None.
4. Other significant legal impact as determined by the Town’s budget officer and the Town’s Attorney:
Answer: None.
SUMMARY
In summary, repealing Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 will have no direct legal effect on the Town, its residents, its
ordinances and Washington County because Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 simply amends an existing land use
ordinance of the Town. If the Sponsors of the proposed referendum obtain sufficient signatures to its
referendum petition by registered voters residing within the Town, then, pursuant to Utah Code Ann.
§20A-7-601(5)(b) Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 is therefore deemed to have not yet taken effect. Pursuant to
Utah Code Ann. 20A-7-611, if Virgin Ordinance 2021-34 is rejected then it is deemed repealed and will have
never taken effect. In that instance, the current language of VULU §44.06 will remain in effect.
Proposition Information Pamphlet 12April 30 2021
This page intentionally left blank
Proposition Information Pamphlet 13April 30 2021
End of Pamphlet
Proposition Information Pamphlet 14You can also read
