After several days of testimony, the bench trial between Friends of Maple Mountain and Mapleton city heard final witnesses Friday.

Wendell Gibby, who owns and plans to develop property in Mapleton, testified briefly, as did representatives from Rocky Mountain Power. Although the final witnesses gave testimony Friday, a decision will not be made in the case for another month.

"All the testimony is now concluded, and what remains is for both parties to give an exchange of their closing briefs," said Bob Bradshaw, Mapleton city administrator.

The main point in the case, Bradshaw said, is whether the decision to grant a planned development zone on Gibby's property may be contested in a referendum vote.

Bradshaw said attorneys in the case must submit briefs of their closing arguments by Jan. 11, at which point all parties will be heard and a decision may be made.

"It's possible, technically, that [the judge] could give a ruling from the bench on Jan. 11, but we anticipate that in practice it will be the end of January, early February before we get the judge's written ruling," Bradshaw said.

The case came before the court after Friends of Maple Mountain obtained a restraining order, restricting Gibby from working with the city until a referendum vote had been taken. The court has been asked to decide whether the zoning decision was administrative, which cannot be challenged by referendum, or legislative, which can.

Bradshaw said the city also asked the court to decide whether enough signatures were obtained for a referendum. The number of signatures necessary is determined by the number of votes cast in Mapleton in the last governor's election.

Bradshaw said a legislative action would need enough signatures to equal 35 percent of those votes, while an administrative action would only need 15 percent.

Only 864 signatures were collected by Friends of Maple Mountain, which is enough to pass the 15 percent mark, but not enough to pass 35 percent.

If the judge rules that the zoning was an administrative action, Friends of Maple Mountain would have enough signatures for a referendum. However, Bradshaw said the point is moot, because an administrative action cannot be challenged by referendum.

"It dies either way," he said.

Jim Lundberg, who is involved with Friends of Maple Mountain, said he believes the number of signatures will be enough whether or not the issue is administrative or legislative. The main issue, he said, is that the residents of Mapleton should have a say in how the city is developed.

The ability to challenge a decision on the way the city is zoned, Lundberg said, is a right guaranteed to the people by law.

"The referendum process is a constitutional right under the Utah State Constitution," he said.

Lundberg stressed that Friends of Maple Mountain does not oppose Gibby's right to develop his property, they oppose the rezoning of the property. The group simply wants the right to contest the city's decision, he said.

Gibby said he hopes the issue moves through the court system quickly to save himself and the city a good deal of money. The longer the case goes on, he said, the more costs pile up in attorney's fees and hours of manpower.

"It's time we put this behind us," he said. "We're going to have development, and we might as well do it in a reasonable way."

Gibby said the restraining order obtained by Friends of Maple Mountain is simply an 11th-hour attempt to stop him from building on his property. The effort is wasted, he said, because even if he loses, there will eventually be development at the location at an even higher density.

Although Friends of Maple Mountain say it is their constitutional right to have a referendum vote, Gibby said, it is not prudent that every decision be contested with a referendum.

"If individual property zoning decisions were made by referendum, we would have a very chaotic government," he said.