Alan Roberts Statements versus the Facts
1. “Our town deserves leadership that unites rather than divides.”
Talk with your fellow residents who have been attending Town Council meetings over the past 14 years, observing both Alan Roberts and me as Mayor, and ask them who was unifying and who was divisive. Don’t take Alan’s word or my word for it. Ask about the routine presence, or lack thereof, of Sheriff Deputies at meetings during each of our terms in office.
2. “We can’t afford to go back to the days when one person tried to run everything.”
While I was Mayor and Alan Roberts was on Town Council, Alan Roberts was the Town’s representative to the Washington County Solid Waste. For Leeds to exercise its right to vote at County meetings is critical, and I made myself available whenever needed so that Leeds would never be left out. Alan did not respond to an invitation from the Toquerville Sentinel to share his views. I did. Here’s my statement: “[In 2025] I [Wayne Peterson] have attended many meetings in Washington County at which the Town of Leeds is frequently a voting member, but regrettably, oftentimes, has not been represented by an elected official from our community” [Toquerville Sentinel, “Leeds Candidate Survey Results”, 10/8/2025].
3. “The Mixed-Use zoning proposal was carefully developed in line with our General Plan.”
As the example in my October 14 letter demonstrated, the Mixed-Use zoning reduced the size of the lot required to build a four-family dwelling in Leeds by more than half. More than doubling the allowable density does not keep with the General Plan strategy to “require new residential development to be compatible and consistent with the town’s historic land use patterns and/or adjacent developed lot sizes.”
4. “Our town has always been diverse, from small lots to ranches, mobile homes to custom homes. Leeds doesn’t fit one historic pattern”
This statement tries to redefine a “historic pattern” as everything has to be identical. The Town has continued to be diverse in the types of structures in it because its General Plan has continued to support diversity. The Leeds Land Use and Zoning Ordinance Number 2008-04 establishes 13 different zones. The General Plan adopted in 2022 continues to support this “historic pattern.” My concern is that the current Town Council and Planning Commission have approved new zones that run contrary to the 2022 General Plan. In doing so, they have disregarded the process of the General Plan and the voices of residents who contributed to its development, and who would have had the opportunity to be heard during the amendment process, which by State Law requires a Public Hearing.
5. “If Leeds continues to fight growth instead of managing it, property owners can disconnect or be annexed by neighboring communities.”
During my eight years as Mayor I did not fight growth, nor am I proposing to do so now. Building permits were issued, construction was completed, new homes were occupied and new subdivisions were platted. For Parcel owners within Leeds, their Parcel has been assigned a zone, and they are free to develop according to the Permitted and Conditional Uses, and Development Standards for their zone. For developers looking to subdivide purchased tracts of land, the General Plan provides the road map forward for how Leeds is looking to grow and the Land Use Ordinance spells out the process for new Subdivisions. Developers have the right to propose different uses for their land. If a use inconsistent with the current Land Use Ordinance and General Plan is proposed, if the Town Council thinks it makes sense, the proper process to follow is to first amend the General Plan. Threats of actions should not drive Leeds to abandon its vision for the Town (or City, when the population grows past 1,000) it wants to be. Future Town Councils, however, are not able to just undo actions of prior Town Councils. Ordinances may be amended going forward, but they would not apply retroactively to approved developments. I am mindful of this situation and, while not afraid of facing legal action when the Town is likely to prevail in doing what is desired and right, would not go down a path where the Town is likely to lose in court and then suffer avoidable and expensive consequences.
6. “Leeds has always lived within its means and that will not change.”
In June of 2009 the Town of Leeds hired a Town Manager in anticipation of development activity that was believed likely to occur. That development activity did not materialize, nor did the projected revenues associated with it. Eleven months later the Town of Leeds could not afford to continue employing a Town Manager and the Town Manager who had been hired went to work for one of the developers owning land in Leeds.
7. “Claims about excessive [emphasis added] hiring or ‘unique’ wildfire risks are equally false. Every city in Washington County faces the same fire designations.”
At https://wrap.wildfirerisk.utah.gov/Map/Public/#whats-your-risk one is able to enter the name of a Utah municipality and assess that location’s risk. Entering St. George, UT, USA generates a “Moderate” risk. Entering Leeds, UT, USA generates a “High” risk. They are clearly not designated the same. In my October 14 letter I wrote “As a retiree, I am available and prepared to work the longer and harder hours that I expect will be required, expanding our Town staff only when it is clear that it is needed, and that the revenue is there to support it on an ongoing basis.” Alan Roberts says there won’t be “excessive” hiring, so there will presumably be “non-excessive” hiring. I am only able to conjecture on the “non-excessive” hiring of which Alan Roberts writes. What position? Will the position be posted? Will we recognize the name of who might be a leading candidate for that position?
Wayne Peterson For Leeds Mayor 