The progress of Wendell Gibby's legal battle with Mapleton City has hit the skids again, with both parties claiming the other has not lived up to its end of agreements.

"In the absence of that litigation being dropped, we're turning to the courts," Bradshaw said. Bradshaw said the city believes it fulfilled its obligations after rezoning the Gibby property in May. Once the rezone took place, the lawsuits should have been dropped, he said.

Gibby's property was originally rezoned in September by the Mapleton City Council, but the Friends of Maple Mountain obtained a restraining order preventing any action until a judge reviewed whether a referendum vote could be taken.

Gibby was also given two grading permits by the city, but work halted on his property when the Friends of Maple Mountain obtained a restraining order while the issuing of the permits was reviewed.

Gibby's lawyer, Dayle Jeffs, said he does not believe the court will uphold Mapleton's motion. Jeffs said the city has not fulfilled its end of the agreement because the city has not re-issued the grading permits after they were reversed. The city has also only granted preliminary plat approval on the 47-lot development, and several conditions have been placed on the plat and the grading permits. These conditions were not part of the MOU, so the city is not adhering to its own agreement.

"They've put a bunch of conditions on final plat approval, some of which are almost impossible to comply with," he said.

Jeffs said those conditions require two access points on the property and a specific location for the grading work to be done. The MOU said nothing about a grading location, just that the permit would be granted "forthwith," he said. While the property has one access point wide enough to fit the city's requirements, Jeffs said other locations for an access point would require taking someone else's property, which Gibby does not have the power to do.

Mapleton Mayor Laurel Brady said the city has done everything in its power to comply with the MOU, but the conditions on the plat approval and grading permit were in place because of the city's code, and they would apply to any other builder as well. The MOU was in place under the assumption that the city code would be followed, she said. A final plat plan has also never been submitted, so the city could not approve it.

Brady also said it would not be possible to approve a grading permit without seeing engineering studies and knowing what would be graded.

"If we grant him a permit, what are we giving him a permit to do?" she asked.

The property has a second access point, but it is not wide enough to suit the city's requirements. The city has established a standard for its roads, and it needs to ensure substandard roads are not built, Brady said. Although some of the access points on Gibby's property would need to go across his neighbor's property, Brady said it is not the city's fault he cannot make a second access.

"Because of disputes with his neighbors, he can no longer use those points of access," she said. "The city did not take away his access."

Brady said the city and Gibby both see the matter differently, but the matter will be up to the court to decide. Even with the disagreement, she said she thinks Gibby understands the city has its own timetables to work with to settle the matter.

"I think he understands our position, and I hope we will be able to continue working with him," she said.

Gibby said he believes the motion will have little legal advantage to the city, and he was hoping to be able to negotiate further. Both parties had uncontrollable setbacks in the process, but trying to force Gibby to drop the lawsuits was a bad negotiating strategy. However, Gibby said he believes he and the city will still be able to cooperate on the subdivision.

"I don't think it's helpful, but we're still open to trying to work with the city," he said.