Opinion ID: 168501
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: General Plan Map (complaint 22; 47)

Text: 54 Boulder adopted a General Plan in December 1997, using an existing use map that had been designated for official use by the Town in connection with the Plan. Plaintiffs contend that the designation of this map violated Utah statutes. 55 Plaintiff Mitchell complains that she attended a Boulder Planning Commission Meeting on January 22, 1998, at which she discovered that the General Plan Map had been colored in showing existing commercial properties. Plaintiffs' properties, however, had not been colored in as existing commercial properties. 56 On January 28, 1998, plaintiffs made a request to purchase a copy of the General Plan Existing Use Map. Boulder responded on February 10, 1998, stating that the map would need to be copied, but that this would be difficult because it was a large map. Plaintiffs sent letters to various defendants on March 3, March 15, and May 27, 1998, concerning the map problems and the failure to renew their business licenses. These letters were not answered. 57 Plaintiffs state that at the February 10, 1999, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed a different map, also known as the Boulder Town Existing Land Use Map, created by the Five County Government Association in January 1999. This map showed plaintiffs' properties as existing commercial use. The Commission, however, refused to adopt this map because the Town Council stated it was incorrect. 58 Plaintiffs' General Plan Map claims are precluded by the prior state court action. This is true for the same reasons we have stated in connection with the new LUO claims. The General Plan Map allegations could have and should have been raised at the same time as the conditional use permit claims in their prior state court action, filed in July 1999. 59