Thurston v. Cache Cty.

• Decision Date: 09 February 1981
• Docket Number: No. 16544,16544
• Parties: Ken THURSTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CACHE COUNTY et al., Defendant and Respondent. Michael P. NIELSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CACHE COUNTY et al., Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: Utah Supreme Court

Page 440

626 P.2d 440

Ken THURSTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CACHE COUNTY et al., Defendant and Respondent.

Michael P. NIELSEN, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CACHE COUNTY et al., Defendant and Respondent.

No. 16544.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 9, 1981.

W. Scott Barrett, Logan, for plaintiff and appellant.

F. L. Gunnell, Logan, for defendant and respondent.

HALL, Justice:

Plaintiffs Ken Thurston and Michael P. Nielsen appeal from the trial court's refusal to grant declaratory relief from the denial, by the County Commission of Cache County, Utah, of plaintiffs' request for certain conditional use permits to build residences in an agricultural area.

Pursuant to Utah law, ¹ Cache County adopted a master zoning plan for the unincorporated areas of the county in 1970. The plan reflected solicitude for agricultural lands lying within the county and contained certain measures designed to alleviate the effects of "scattered and premature urbanization." One such measure provided that parcels of land in agricultural zones could not be subdivided into lots measuring less than ten acres. Secondary dwellings were permissible only upon obtaining a conditional use permit.

In 1977, a new policy plan was adopted. Reiterating the desire to limit prime farm lands to low-density rural development, the plan nonetheless recognized the need to provide for the conveyance of smaller parcels to designated family members and employees. To this end, the plan provided that "small building parcels may be split from each parcel held in individual ownership. Clustering of these lots will be required to reduce the needs for roads and to preserve the integrity of the land for agricultural uses."

Cache County's Zoning Ordinance was amended in 1978. Thereunder, secondary dwellings could be built on agriculturally- zoned property by landowners actively engaged in agriculture without obtaining conditional use permits. Those not engaged in farming or other agricultural pursuits, who wished to build a residence in an agriculturally-zoned area, were required to obtain a conditional use permit. Pertinent to the obtaining of such permits, the ordinance stated that:

The Planning Commission may approve, modify and approve, or deny the conditional use application. In approving any conditional use, the Planning Commission may find that the proposed use meets the criteria established in the numerical evaluation system which has been developed by the Planning Commission in accordance with the intent of the Cache County comprehensive plan and that the proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity, or injurious to property in the vicinity.

The "numerical evaluation system" referred to assigns or denies points to the application according to certain criteria. Points are awarded for residential development which lies closer to pre-existing development and has roadway and utility access, and are deducted for intrusions upon prime farm land or other factors which would be of detriment to agriculture. The evaluation system is advisory in nature, and not solely determinative of the disposition of any given application.

Plaintiff Thurston made application for a conditional use permit to erect a residence on a one-acre lot. His request was denied by the County Planning Commission, ² and the Board of County Commissioners upheld the denial. The trial court found the reasons for denial to be (1) lack of points, (2) objections from adjacent landowners, (3) considerations of health, safety, and general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity, and (4) soil type.

Plaintiff Nielsen made application for a conditional use permit to divide a ten-acre lot into two five-acre parcels for building purposes. The Planning Commission denied his application due to (1) lack of points, (2) access road problems, (3) lack of community services, (4) soil type, and (5) lack of conformity with the basic policy of the master plan. The Board of County Commissioners upheld the decision of the Planning Commission.

Both plaintiffs filed with the district court for declaratory relief pursuant to Utah law. ³ Following a trial to the court sitting without a jury, declaratory relief was denied, and the rulings of the Board of County Commissioners affirmed. Plaintiff Thurston also entered a prayer for a writ of mandamus which would require the defendant to approve the application for a conditional use permit, which the trial court denied.

Plaintiffs first claim that the terms of the Cache County Zoning Ordinance applied in their case denied them equal protection of the law. ⁴ They base this contention on two aspects of the ordinance.

First, it is plaintiffs' assertion that the ordinance provides insufficient guidelines or standards for the issuance or denial of conditional use permits. Where a municipal zoning authority is thus left completely without legislative limitations to issue or deny permits according to its own desires, applicants are denied equal protection of the law. ⁵

While it is true that a zoning ordinance must set some ascertainable boundaries on the exercise of discretion by a zoning authority, such boundaries are not required to be unduly rigid or detailed. A generalized exposition of overall standards or policy goals suffices to direct the inquiry and deliberation of the zoning authority, and to permit appellate review of its decision. Thus, courts have upheld ordinances which permit conditional use permits "where the use will be in keeping with the uses authorized in the district," ⁶ where the zoning authority was required to consider harmony with the neighborhood and the district, ⁷ or where the zoning authority was required to consider the suitability of the property, character of the neighborhood, and economic or aesthetic effects of the proposed use. ⁸

The Cache County Planning Commission is empowered by the County Zoning Ordinance to issue or deny conditional use permits, guided by advisory application of the numerical evaluation system developed by the county, and under the proviso that "(t)he proposed use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing in the vicinity, or injurious to property in the vicinity." Such statutory standards adequately channel the discretionary activities of the Planning Commission, and do not support a claim of denial of equal protection.

Plaintiffs also suggest that the Cache County Ordinance violates their right to equal protection of the law by permitting individuals related to or working for a primary-occupation farmer or dairyman to engage in residential construction in an agriculturally-zoned area without a conditional use permit, while requiring all other individuals to obtain such a permit in order so to build.

As the zoning ordinance in question touches neither upon a suspect classification nor upon a fundamental right or interest, it is sufficient, for equal protection purposes, if the classification adopted by the ordinance is rationally related to a legitimate public goal. ⁹ The classification made by the Cache County Zoning Ordinance in the instant case sought to (1) preserve to farmers within the area maximum agricultural use of their land, (2) permit conveyance of parcels of land to family members and employees without undue governmental interference, and (3) guard against uncontrolled urban and suburban encroachments upon agricultural lands. The requirements imposed by the ordinance struck a harmonious balance of these three goals. There is hence no violation of equal protection.

Plaintiffs cite authority for the proposition that, in the area of zoning and county planning, equal protection requires that distinctions be based on the use of land itself, and not upon the occupation or vocation of those owning or possessing the land. Without adopting such a proposition as the law of this jurisdiction, we observe that the ordinance distinguishes between landowners which are or are not actively engaged in agriculture as a primary occupation. Agriculture being, by definition, a land-based occupation, it is rationally inconceivable to suggest that the distinction does not bear upon the use made of the land in question.

Plaintiffs next suggest that, even if the Cache County Zoning Ordinance be constitutionally valid, the County Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners applied it in an unconstitutional manner. It is plaintiffs' contention that the standards of the ordinance were largely ignored, and that the conditional use permits were denied in an arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory fashion.

County zoning authorities are bound by the terms and standards of the applicable zoning ordinance, and are not at liberty either to grant ¹⁰ or deny ¹¹ conditional use permits in derogation of legislative standards. Within the boundaries established by such standards, however, the zoning authority is afforded a broad latitude of discretion, and its decisions are afforded a strong presumption of validity. ¹² Where such decisions have been made, courts will not interfere unless they are plainly illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable, or abusive of discretion. ¹³

Plaintiffs presented no evidence, nor does the record suggest any, which leads inescapably to the conclusion that the decision of the Cache County Planning Commission was illegal, discriminatory, or an abuse of discretion. Denial of the permits in question rested on application of the numerical evaluation system set forth by the Planning Commission, together with numerous other factors pertinent to the desirability and ultimate benefit of the proposed uses, all of which constitute a legitimate exercise of governmental authority in the enactment of the ordinance in question.

Plaintiffs specifically point out that the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners of Cache County placed undue reliance on objections filed by...