Morra v. Grand County
| Decision Date | 30 March 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 20080566.,20080566. |
| Citation | 2010 UT 21,230 P.3d 1022 |
| Parties | Barbara A. MORRA, Michael K. Suarez, John S. Weisheit, Harold Shepherd, Jennifer P. Speers, Tara Collins, William Love, Sarah M. Fields, John C. Dohrenwend, Paul Janos, and Steve Mulligan, Plaintiffs and Appellants,v.GRAND COUNTY, Utah, and the Grand County Council, Defendants and Appellees, Cloudrock Land Company, LLC, Defendant-Intervenor and Appellee. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
J. Craig Smith, Lyle J. Fuller, Nancy J. Delacenserie, R. Christopher Preston, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs.
W. Scott Barrett, Logan, Happy J. Morgan, Moab, for defendants.
Michael D. Zimmerman, Wade R. Budge, Troy L. Booher, Salt Lake City, for defendant-intervenor.
INTRODUCTION
¶ 1 In this appeal, we consider a challenge by a group of citizens (the “Citizens”) to an ordinance passed by the Grand County Council (the “Council”). The ordinance approved an amended development agreement. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Council, and the Citizens timely appealed. We are required to determine whether the Citizens have standing to challenge the ordinance and, if so, whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment. We conclude that the Citizens have standing under our traditional test and that the County's failure to provide a record of the administrative proceedings to the district court violated the County Land Use and Development Management Act (“CLUDMA”) and precluded review of the Council's decision. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment.
¶ 2 In 2002, over the objections of a number of citizens, the Council approved a 2,000-acre planned unit development located on a mesa above the Glen Canyon Aquifer (the “Cloudrock Development”).1 The aquifer serves as the main source of culinary water for Moab, Utah. The Council's approval of the Cloudrock Development was conditioned upon terms set out in a development agreement executed between the County and the developer.
¶ 3 After failing to dissuade the Council from approving the Cloudrock Development, a group of citizens appealed the Council's approval to the Board of Adjustment, which upheld the Council's decision. From 2002 to 2006, litigation unrelated to the issues in this case stalled work on the Cloudrock Development.
¶ 4 In 2006, Cloudrock Land Company, LLC, succeeded to the rights of the original developer and, in October of that year, presented an Amended Plan and Preliminary Phase 1 Plat (the “Amended Plan”) to the Grand County Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”). The Amended Plan was substantially similar to the original development master plan, but did reallocate densities and make changes to the development's wilderness lodge use-on-review provisions.2
¶ 5 Although the total number of effective residential units (“ERU”) remained the same under both plans, the Amended Plan contained fewer actual residential housing units and significantly reduced the number of lodging units, while increasing the number of mesa residential units.3 Furthermore, under the Amended Plan, the mesa residential units were clustered and pulled away from the rim of the development, in contrast to the original plan, which had placed the mesa residential units in a line along the development's boundary. Finally, the Amended Plan also eliminated the equestrian lodge proposed in the original plan and strengthened the development's urban core by relaxing building height requirements and providing for changes to the accessory facilities to the wilderness lodge.
¶ 6 The Planning Commission conditionally approved the Amended Plan, subject to certain changes being made in the development agreement. The Amended Plan, together with an amended version of the development agreement, was placed before the Council in 2007. The Citizens lobbied the Council in opposition to the Amended Plan. Nevertheless, on May 8, 2007, the Council passed Ordinance 454, which approved both the Amended Plan for the Cloudrock Development and an amended version of the development agreement.
¶ 7 Just as in 2002, the Citizens appealed the Council's decision to the Board of Adjustment. But this time, the Grand County Attorney issued a statement of opinion that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the appeal since the approval of Ordinance 454 was legislative, rather than administrative, in nature. After the issuance of the Grand County Attorney's statement, the Board of Adjustment took no further action on the Citizens' administrative appeal.
¶ 8 At this point, the Citizens turned to the district court, where, as a precautionary measure, they had previously filed an action contesting the Council's decision. The Citizens' complaint named Grand County and the Council as defendants and alleged that the Council's approval of Ordinance 454 was illegal. The Citizens sought declaratory relief deeming Ordinance 454 invalid and the amended development agreement null and void. Additionally, after the Grand County Attorney had issued his opinion that the Board of Adjustment lacked jurisdiction over the Citizens' administrative appeal, the Citizens moved to amend their complaint 4 to include an alternative claim that the district court lacked jurisdiction and a request that the action be remanded back to the Board. Shortly before the Citizens had moved to amend their complaint, the district court granted Cloudrock's motion to intervene.
¶ 9 The Citizens and Cloudrock filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Grand County and the Council joined in Cloudrock's motion. In their motion, the Citizens, in addition to their other arguments, objected to the fact that Grand County had failed to provide the district court with a record of the proceedings before the Council. The district court heard oral argument on the motions on April 15, 2008, at which time Cloudrock presented a letter certifying that the documents attached to its motion were true and correct copies of the record of the proceedings before the Council. The Citizens objected to Cloudrock's certification, arguing that it was both untimely and incomplete.
¶ 10 The district court ultimately granted Cloudrock's motion for summary judgment, ruling that (1) the district court had jurisdiction over the Citizens' appeal because Ordinance 454 was a legislative act, (2) because Ordinance 454 was a legislative act it was presumptively legal, and (3) the Citizens had failed to carry their burden to prove that Ordinance 454 did not serve a legitimate land use purpose or was otherwise illegal. It also determined that, because Ordinance 454 was a legislative act, a record was not required to review the Council's action.
¶ 11 The Citizens timely appealed the district court's determinations. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code section 78A-2-102(3)(j) (2008).
¶ 12 A district court's grant of summary judgment is a legal ruling that we review without deference.5 A district court should grant summary judgment only when, viewing all facts and reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party,6 “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” 7
¶ 13 We begin by determining whether the Citizens have standing to challenge the Council's approval of the Amended Plan and development agreement. Although we find that the Citizens have standing to challenge the Council's decision, we conclude that the County's failure to transmit a record of the proceedings prevents the district court from reviewing both whether Ordinance 454 is a legislative act and whether it was legal under the appropriate standard of review.
¶ 14 Cloudrock argues that the Citizens lack standing to challenge the Council's passage of Ordinance 454 under both our traditional and alternative tests. The Citizens claim standing under both tests. Because we conclude that the Citizens have standing under our traditional test, we do not reach the parties' arguments regarding alternative standing.
¶ 15 Challenges to county land use decisions are governed by CLUDMA,8 which provides rights to both an administrative appeal and then an appeal in the district court to any person adversely affected by a land use authority's 9 decision.10 We have interpreted this language to provide statutory standing that is equivalent in scope to our traditional judicial test for standing.11 Accordingly, a person has standing to challenge a county's land use decision under CLUDMA when he or she has (1) adequately alleged a personal injury resulting from a land use decision, (2) adequately alleged a causal relationship between the decision and the alleged injury, and (3) requested relief that is substantially likely to redress the alleged injury.12
¶ 16 Cloudrock first contends that the Citizens lack standing because their alleged injuries all stem from the Council's approval of the original development in 2002, rather than the Council's more recent approval of the amended development through Ordinance 454. Cloudrock asserts that “the 2007 ordinance does not result in an increased impact on the quality or quantity of water because it does not change the number of ERU in the development over that approved in 2002.” Cloudrock argues that because the Citizens' only allegations of injury relate to the impact of the development on the water supplied from the Glen Canyon Aquifer, and because the impact on the water supply (as measured by ERU) remains the same, there is no causal connection between the Citizens' alleged injuries and the approval of Ordinance 454. Instead, Cloudrock asserts that the Citizens' challenge is simply a belated and improper attack on the 2002 approval, which had already been upheld in the face of an earlier challenge.
¶ 17 The Citizens respond by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. State
...there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Morra v. Grand Cnty. , 2010 UT 21, ¶ 12, 230 P.3d 1022 (alteration in original) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).¶28 For the types of claims Patter......
-
State v. Johnson
...certainly fail to carry its burden of persuasion on appeal.'" (citation omitted)), the case is disposed of on other grounds, see Morra v. Grand Cty., 2010 UT 21, ¶ 14, 230 P.3d 1022, or the court employs some other reason for avoiding the issue. 2) When an issue has not been preserved in th......
-
State v. Johnson
...fail to carry its burden of persuasion on appeal.’ " (citation omitted)), the case is disposed of on other grounds, see Morra v. Grand Cty. , 2010 UT 21, ¶ 14, 230 P.3d 1022, or the court employs some other reason for avoiding the issue. 2) When an issue has not been preserved in the trial ......
-
McKitrick v. Gibson
..., 869 P.2d 909 (Utah 1993) ; Utah Chapter of the Sierra Club v. Utah Air Quality Board , 2006 UT 74, 148 P.3d 960 ; and Morra v. Grand County , 2010 UT 21, 230 P.3d 1022, for the proposition that "Utah case law shows a wide variety of circumstances under which traditional standing has been ......
-
Utah Standards of Appellate Review - Third Edition
...appellants must show reasonable like lihood that without the error, there would have been a differentresult. See Morra v. Grand County, 2010 UT 21, ¶36, 230 P.3d1022 ; State v. Johnson, 2009 UT App 382, ¶ 37, 224 P.3d 720;State v. Davis, 2007 UT App 13, ¶¶ 15-21, 155 P.3d 909. This likeliho......