Marriott Township denies request ? Annexation area near Ogden River eventually would host golf course By GREG KRATZ_ Standard-Examiner staff The Marriott Township may be only four months old, but its planning board members know their powers. Board members Tuesday voted 3-2 against a proposal to annex about 15 acres of land into West Haven. All of that land, owned by West Haven resident Randy Moulding, is in the township south of 17th Street. Part of Moulding's land is north of the Ogden River, and another part is sandwiched between the south bank of the river and north boundary of West Haven. Edward Reed, West Haven city planner, said Moulding also owns about 39 acres within West Haven and 10 acres within Ogden City. All the properties are connected, Reed said, and Moulding would like them all to be part of one city. Moulding said he plans to use the land to build a golf course within the next four or live years. The Weber County Commission rezoned the property from its previous manufacturing classification to agricultural and open-space zones last July to allow for that development. "The main reason why we're doing this is just to keep it in one entity," Moulding told board members. "It's nothing against Marriott Township." But some Marriott board members said they saw no reason to consider such an annexation now, if the golf course will not be built for several years. Township board member Bill Morris said he was not sure that Moulding's property south of the river was within Marriott's historical boundaries. But that small piece of land was not included in West Haven's boundaries when it incorporated in 1991, he said, so it was included in the township when it was vot-ed into existence last November. Marriott and five other townships were created in the elections based on a law passed by the 1996 Legislature. That law said two of the prime reasons for allowing citizens in an area to form townships were to help them avoid annexation and give them their own seven-member planning and zoning boards. Board member Barbara Brown said people voted to create a township so it could protect Marriott's boundaries, and allowing the annexation would "open a can of worms." But board member Gerald Bischoff said rivers are traditional boundaries, and he made the motion to allow Moulding to petition for annexation of the property south of the river. "I think that finger of land ought to be in West Haven, and we should make that move now, while we have the authority," Bischoff said, pointing out that a proposal at this year's Legislature could do away with the newly formed townships. February 21, 1997 February 26, 1997 (Cont'd on page 57) Townships fight for survival Supporters ready to battle legislation to dissolve entities By GREG KRATZ_ Standard-Examiner staff Bill Morris worked hard to get township status for his home community of Marriott, but his battle is not over yet. Morris and other Weber County township supporters said they are ready to fight legislation proposed Wednesday that would do away with townships. "It's difficult to imagine how a legislator could propose to dissolve something after it came into existence with such large grassroots support," Morris, a member of the Marriott Township planning board, said Thursday. "I think a lot of them don't understand what a township is. In their position, where they can take this away, they need to understand that it is just for zoning and planning and secured borders. It really protects historic communities." Townships in East Huntsville, Hooper, Marriott, Reese, Slaterville and Warren were voted into existence in Weber County last November based on a 1996 state law. That law said citizens in unincorporated areas could elect to form townships, which can avoid annexation and get their own seven-member planning boards. But Warren Township board member Rally Representatives of Weber County's six townships will be among those present at a township rally in the state Capitol rotunda from 10:30 a.m. to 2 p.m. Monday. Duncan Murray said the Weber County townships are probably not the ones that have spurred the proposal by Utah House Speaker Mel Brown. Salt Lake County's townships have been more controversial, Murray said, and that may be why Brown wants to turn townships into "planning districts" that do not have the same powers to stop annexation. Murray said Brown's proposal would also make district planning board members appointed, not elected, as three members of each township board are. David Church, attorney for the Utah League of Cities and Towns, said that organization has yet to take a position on Brown's legislation. "The league is in favor of local control of those kinds of items like planning and zoning," Church said. "But it is against the (1996) township bill as it was drafted, because it was poorly done ... and was used as a subterfuge for Salt Lake County fights." When the league decides where it stands on the proposal Monday, he said, it will be more interested in Brown's proposals regarding annexation and incorporation. "We don't like the idea of counties using townships as a way of encouraging urban sprawl, but we don't mind townships as a means for local control," Church said. Weber County commissioners said they have not yet seen the exact wording of Brown's proposal, so they could not give their position on it Thursday. However, commission Chairman Joe Ritchie said a bill that gets his support will have to maintain protection from incorporation for township areas and give them some planning power. "Annexation concerns were what prompted this in the first place," Commissioner Glen Burton said. Murray said legislators need to understand that the focus of townships is on community identity, elected board members and fixed borders. "If you become a planning district, you lose those things," Murray said. "If townships are repealed, you'll see some of these 63 ? See BILLOT