Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2012 I Volume 6 ( Issue 22 Proceedings —County council adopts ordinance that replaces agreement for a planned unit development with an amended agreement Citizens object to approval and seek administrative review, contending ordinance was an administrative act not a legislative act Citation: Suarez v. Grand County, 2012 UT 72, 2012 WL 5233510 (Utah 2012) UTAH (10/23/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether a county council's adoption of an ordinance that replaced an original agreement for a planned unit development with an amended agreement was an administra- tive act —subject to an exhaustion of administrative remedies, or a legisla- tive act —subject to an appeal to district court. The Background/Facts: Moab Mesa Land Company, LLC ("Moab Mesa") sought to develop a nearly two -thousand acre parcel of land in Grand County Utah (the "Cloudrock Development" or the "development"). In February 2002, the Grand County Council (the "Council") adopted a resolu- tion (the "2002 Resolution"), approving a planned unit development ("PUD") for the Property. The 2002 Resolution stated that the preliminary master plan for the development was subject to a development agreement (the "Original Agreement") between the County and Moab Mesa. Then, from 2002 to 2006, the Cloudrock Development was involved in litigation that stalled work on the development. Eventually, Cloudrock Land Company, LLC ("Cloudrock") succeeded to Moab Mesa's interest in the development. In 2006, Cloudrock submitted an application to the County Planning Commission to begin the process of amending approvals granted in the 2002 Resolution (the "Cloudrock Application"). The County Planning Commission recommended approval of the Cloudrock Application, subject to certain conditions, including that Cloudrock make specified changes to the Original Agreement. Cloudrock submitted its Amended Agreement, which incorporated changes suggested by the Planning Commission. The Council ultimately voted to adopt Ordinance 454, which approved the Cloudrock Application, including the Amended Agreement, an Amended Master Plan, and an Amended Prelimi- nary Plat. A group of citizens ("Citizens") objected to the approval of the Cloudrock Application. Citizens argued that approval of the Cloudrock Application was illegal because approval for Cloudrock's preliminary phase 1 plat had lapsed, and that the preliminary plat was therefore void. © 2012 Thomson Reuters 9