Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

September 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 17 Zoning Bulletin . Similarly; the court found that CME had sufficiently alleged a particu- larized injury arising out of the county's decision to redraw the hazard- ous waste corridor. The Board's decision to redraw the hazardous waste corridor made it virtually impossible for CME's parcel B of the Property to be used for waste disposal. Thus, CME had adequately alleged an ad- verse effect from that Board decision. The court also held that CME had standing under the "alternative . standing test" to challenge each of the Board's April 2005 decisions be- cause CME showed that it was "an appropriate party raising issues of significant public importance." . CME was an "appropriate party" to challenge the validity of the county's land use decisions because it had shown that: "it had the inter- est necessary to effectively assist the court in developing and reviewing all relevant legal and factual questions;" and (2) "the issues [were] un- likely to be raised if [CME].was denied standing." The court found that CME had the necessary "interest" as both: an adjoining property owner; and as a competing business. The court also found that CME had the necessary "experti~e" because as a competing waste-oriented business it had: a working knowledge of the laws and regulations controlling radio- active waste; and therefore had sufficient expertise to assist the court in developing and reviewing the legal and factual questions presented by a challenge to the Board's decisions. Finally, the court further found that no other parties were "likely, or, in this case, permitted to challenge the [c]ounty's actions, as the short thirty-day time frame for doing so hard] already passed." The claims alleged by CME raised issues of significant public impor- tance in that the issues: (1) were of a "sufficient weight;;' and (2) were "not more appropriately addressed by another branch of government" (i.e., through legislative or administrative action). Here, the court found it was of "significant public importance" that the county's land use deci- sions involving the storage of hazardous waste were properly made. Fur- ther, the county had already addressed the issues presented by the case by enacting procedures for granting a CUP and by creating the hazard- ous waste corridor. Whether the county in fact complied with its own procedures was a proper issue for the court to address. See also: Utah Chapter of Sierra Club v. Utah Air Quality Bd., 2006 UT 74, 148 P.3d 960 (Utah 2006). Case Note: EnergySolutions had argued that in order to have statutory standing, CME also had to prove its alleged particularized injury. The court said such showing was only very rarely required. Generally, to establish standing, the alleged harm can be actual or potential. 8 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 66 (=) (~ '\ 9 \ L '-~:'-