Court Opinion

ID: 9793293
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:45:48.278531+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:04:20.195047
License: Public Domain

STEWART, Justice:
(concurring)
I concur in the majority opinion in all respects. However, I think it important to add one additional observation.
U.C.A., 1953, § 10-2-502 requires that a petition for disconnection be signed by a majority of the registered voters in the territory to be disconnected. In the instant case, the area to be disconnected was not inhabited, and the petition was not signed by any registered voter of the area in question. For that reason, it would appear to me that the petition for disconnection was probably not valid on its face. I make this point simply because in my view it is important that the disconnection statute be construed to support sound principles of city planning. The requirement that the petition be signed by a majority of registered voters who live in the area was no doubt intended to prevent absentee landowners from seeking to circumvent city planning and zoning laws by having odd chunks of land disconnected from the city.
In the instant case, however, the appellant has failed to raise the issue on appeal, and pursuant to the accepted standards of judicial review, that issue is not before us.