Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 25, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 22 The court disagreed with these arguments. It concluded that Ordinance 454 was a new law of general applicability that the Council adopted after the weighing of policy considerations because: (1) the Ordinance created new law by replacing the Original Agreement with the Amended Agree- ment; (2) the Amended Agreement stated that it would run with the land; and (3) the findings in the Ordinance illustrated that the Council considered policy matters. Although the court's analysis indicated that Ordinance 454 was a new law of general applicability that the Council adopted after weighing policy considerations, the court again acknowledged that some "zoning decisions are.. , difficult to classify," and that "[s]ite-specific zoning ordinances," such as Ordinance 454, "present the classic hard case." The court explained that when considering whether such ordinances are legislative or administra- tive, "[i]n cases of doubt," the court "give[s] controlling significance to the form of the underlying governmental decision." Thus, when land use deci- sions "are at least arguably legislative," the court "give[s] understandable deference to the formal nature of the government body involved in making them and the formal nature of the zoning ordinance." In this case, the court found that because Ordinance 454 was at least arguably legislative, the court could defer to the legislative form of the underlying decision, as evi- denced by: (1) the County's characterization of its action; (2) the substance of Ordinance 454; and (3) the formal process by which the Council adopted Ordinance 454. On appeal, Citizens had also argued in the alternative that Ordinance 454 should be set aside because the Council's adoption of the Ordinance was illegal. Specifically, Citizens contended that Ordinance 454 was illegal because the Council could not have approved the Amended Agreement af- ter the preliminary plat had lapsed. The court disagreed. It held that the Council's decision to adopt Ordinance 454 more than 12 months after the approval of the original preliminary plat was not illegal because the Council had good cause to extend the approval period. And the court found that the Council complied with applicable zoning ordinances. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cloudrock. See also: Carter v. Lehi City, 2012 UT 2, 269 P.3d 141 (Utah 2012). Zoning News from Around the Nation MASSACHUSETTS With the potential to spur related municipal zoning laws, Question 3 on the Massachusetts ballot (to be voted on November 6) seeks to enact a proposed law that would eliminate state criminal and civil penalties related to the medical use of marijuana. © 2012 Thomson Reuters 11