Blackburn v. Washington City, Case No. 20030528-CA.
| Decision Date | 21 October 2004 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20030528-CA. |
| Citation | 2004 UT App 365,101 P.3d 391 |
| Parties | Grace Blackburn; Eileen Blake; Brian Christiansen; Morgan Bingham; Dave Stark; ETC/TB Daycare, Inc.; Gary Westfall; David Beagley; Washington-Ridgeview Associates; Terry Campbell; The Highlands Homeowners' Association; and Turtle Creek Homeowners' Association, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Washington City, Defendant and Appellee. Wheeler Machinery Company, Intervenor and Appellee. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
Bruce R. Baird, Salt Lake City, for Appellants.
Jeffrey N. Starkey and Bryan J. Pattison, St. George, for Appellee Washington City.
Joseph C. Rust, Salt Lake City, for Intervenor.
Before Judges Billings, Bench, and Greenwood.
¶ 1 Plaintiffs appeal the trial court's order (1) granting summary judgment to Defendant Washington City (the City) and Intervenor Wheeler Machinery Co. (Wheeler) and (2) denying Plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. We affirm.
¶ 2 Wheeler applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) to construct and operate a commercial facility from which to sell, rent, and service construction equipment on property it had acquired within the City. After a public hearing before the Washington City Planning Commission (Planning Commission) on November 7, 2001,1 at which public comment was taken from area residents, the Planning Commission voted to deny the application. Pursuant to Washington City Zoning Ordinance 8-6,2 Wheeler appealed that decision to the Washington City Council (City Council). At a hearing on January 9, 2002, at which public comment was also taken from area residents, the City Council voted to affirm the Planning Commission's denial of Wheeler's CUP application.
¶ 3 Wheeler filed a petition for review in Fifth District Court and a subsequent motion for summary judgment. On August 12, 2002, Judge Beacham granted Wheeler's motion concluding there was not substantial evidence in the record supporting the City Council's denial of Wheeler's CUP. Accordingly, Judge Beacham ruled that the City Council's denial of Wheeler's CUP was arbitrary and capricious and ordered that the Planning Commission grant Wheeler's CUP.
¶ 4 The matter was remanded for implementation of Judge Beacham's decision, and on September 4, 2002, the Planning Commission considered the matter. Public notice of the Planning Commission meeting agenda was posted in the City offices, on the City's website, and in the local newspaper at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting. However, notice for this meeting was not mailed to residents living within a 300-foot radius of Wheeler's property, as Plaintiffs assert was required by Washington City Zoning Ordinances 3-6 and 8-33 (the Ordinances) for public meetings.
¶ 5 No public comment or input was taken at the meeting because the Planning Commission staff (the staff) advised the Planning Commission that all items of concern had been addressed at the previous two public hearings on the matter on November 7, 2001, before the Planning Commission, and on January 9, 2002, before the City Council and that the only action necessary was to implement Judge Beacham's decision. The staff recommended that the Planning Commission grant Wheeler's CUP application with certain conditions. These conditions included quiet-time hours, entrance and exit traffic prohibitions, surrounding block walls and trees, dust-free surfacing, and landscaping. The Planning Commission voted to approve Wheeler's CUP application subject to the staff's recommendations.
¶ 6 On September 20, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to intervene in and for reconsideration of Judge Beacham's summary judgment ruling. On November 5, 2002, Judge Beacham denied Plaintiffs' motion to intervene. Plaintiffs did not appeal the Planning Commission's grant of Wheeler's CUP to the City Council.
¶ 7 However, on October 4, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a petition for review of the Planning Commission's decision in Fifth District Court, which was assigned to a different judge. Wheeler filed, and the court granted, a motion to intervene. Plaintiffs, the City, and Wheeler then filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On May 19, 2002, the court granted summary judgment to both the City and Wheeler. Plaintiffs appealed. However, subsequent to the City's approval of Wheeler's CUP and during the pendency of this appeal, Wheeler completed construction of its commercial facility.
¶ 8 Plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the City and Wheeler on the grounds that the Planning Commission's failure to mail notice of the September 4, 2001 meeting did not violate its own rules or Plaintiffs' due process rights because Plaintiffs were not entitled to notice of the remand hearing. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Utah R. Civ. P. 56(c). "In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, we do not defer to the legal conclusions of the district court, but review them for correctness." Springville Citizens for a Better Cmty. v. City of Springville, 1999 UT 25, ¶ 22, 979 P.2d 332.
¶ 9 In reviewing a municipality's land use decision under Utah Code section 10-9-1001(3), "courts shall . . . presume that land use decisions and regulations are valid; and . . . determine only whether or not the decision is arbitrary, capricious, or illegal." Utah Code Ann. § 10-9-1001(3) (2002). Plaintiffs argue that the granting of Wheeler's CUP was illegal under section 10-9-1001(3) because the City failed to follow its own rules regarding notice. While the City concedes that it did not mail notice of the September 4, 2002 Planning Commission meeting to property owners within a 300-foot radius of Wheeler's proposed facility, it contends that the failure did not violate its own rules nor Plaintiffs' due process rights.
¶ 10 The district court determined that the Ordinances did not require mailed notice to property owners within a 300-foot radius of Wheeler's property because the Planning Commission meeting was not a public hearing and the administrative record in this case was closed. We agree with the district court.4
¶ 11 The Planning Commission's issuance of Wheeler's CUP on September 4, 2002, was merely the final step in the procedure which commenced with Wheeler's filing of its CUP application in the fall of 2001. The Ordinances require that the CUP applicant provide stamped envelopes addressed to property owners within 300 feet of the applicant's property so that the City may notify them of the hearing on the CUP application. That was done in this case. Wheeler submitted envelopes prior to the September 11, 2001 hearing. However, because some names had been left off the mailing list, another hearing was scheduled for November 7, 2001, to remedy the notice deficiency. Wheeler then submitted new envelopes for that hearing which were mailed to all residents within...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Derian v. West Point City, 2005 UT App 243 (UT 5/26/2005), Case No. 20040869-CA.
...1999 UT 25,¶22, 979 P.2d 332 (alteration in original) (quoting Utah Code Ann. § 10-9-1001(3)(b) (1996)). See also Blackburn v. Washington City, 2004 UT App 365,¶9, 101 P.3d 391 (same). Moreover, we "review a local agency's interpretation of ordinances for correctness, but also afford some l......