Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

june 10, 2004 -- Page 5 with greater discretion in determining whether a proposal meets the standards contained in the regulations. There was no linguistic ambiguit7 in the text of the zoning code or the development plan. Access roads linking two commercial properties were not included as permitted uses or exceptions, and only those uses expressly speci- fied by the regulations were permitted. The regulations did not need to be any more explicit in their preclusion, of such access roads. see also: Wood v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 784 A.2d 354 (2001). see also: R & R Pool & Patio Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 778 A.2d 6I (2001). Conditional Use Permit -- County claims denied permit application incomplete £andowner argues no mention of application made in commissioner report Citation: Diamond B-Y Ranches v. Tooele Co~mty, Court of Appeals of Utah, No. 20030578-CA (2004) UTAH (4/29/04) -- Diamond B-Y Ranches wanted to use a port/on of its property for a gravel pit. Diamond applied for a conditional use permit, which was reviewed by the Tooele County Planning Commission. The county denied the application. It later claimed the application was denied because Diamond had not produced an Environmental Impact Statement (ELS) or a completed application. Diamond sued, and the court ruled in the county's favor. It found Diamond could not now sue if it hadn't correctly completed its required application. Diamond appealed, arguing the county's decision was based on factors other than the application. DECISION: Reversed. Based on the record, neither the planning commission nor the county com- mission based their decision on lack of an EIS or anything else involving the application. Thus, Diamond was within its rights in suing the count),. Over a year elapsed between the time the application was submitted and the time it was denied. During this time, Diamond sought to have its property rezoned and to get a permit allowing gravel extraction on the property under the previous zoning ordinance. Diamond also sought to obtain an EIS, but determined it would be futile to spend the over $100,000 necessary in light of the work to be achieved and public opposition. Conspicuously absent from the county commissioners' comments was any reference to the lack of an EIS or any procedural failure on the part of Dia- mond ~n completing the application process. In fact, the comments mainly discussed health, safety, and proximity issues. Accordingly, the county could 2004 Qu.flan Publishing Grou¢. Any rec~roduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. O§