Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/07/2019

Home

Zoning Bulletin A group of citizens from the City (the "Petitioners") petitioned to subject the Resolutions to a public vote by referendum. Upon receiving their, petitions, the City determined that the Resolutions were administrative in nature and therefore not referable. The City declined to place the referenda on the ballot. The Petitioners then initiated a judicial action. They asked the district court to order: (1) that the Resolutions were legislative in nature and therefore referable; and (2) the City to place the referenda regarding the Resolu- tions on the ballot. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the district court held that: (1) Petitioners were entitled to summary judgment as to the claims related to Resolu- tion 2018-16 (approval of the 2018 SDMP) because Resolution 2018-16 was legislative in nature and therefore referable; and (2) Ivory and the City were entitled to summary judgment as to the claims related to Resolution 2018-17 (approval of the 2018 ADL) because Resolution 2018-17 was administrative in nature and therefore not referable. Accordingly, the district court ordered that the City place the referendum petition on Resolution 2018-16 on the ballot, putting the City's approval of the 2018 SDMP to a public. vote. All parties appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Third District Court affirmed. Agreeing with the district court, the Supreme Court of Utah held that Resolution 2018-16 (approval of the 2018 SDMP) was referable because it was legislative in nature, and Resolution 2018-17 was not referable because it was administrative in nature. In so holding, the court explained that, in determin- ing whether a municipality's action is legislative or administrative in nature, the court looks to whether the action has "two 'key hallmarks' of legislative power": (1) it involves the "promulgation of laws of general ap- plicability"; and (2) it is "based on the weighing of broad, competing policy considerations." In compari- son, the court noted that an "administrative power" would involve "applying the law to particular individu- als or groups based on individual facts and circumstances." Here, the court concluded that the City was exercis- ing its legislative powers when it approved Resolution 2018-16 because the 2018 SDMP "promulgated a law of general applicability and its approval required the weighing of broad, competing policy considerations." Even though the site -specific rezoning here only af- fected one piece of property, the court found it was "generally applicable because all present and future owners of the [S]ite would be bound by the decision to rezone the property." Similarly, the court found that the 2018 SDMP applied to "all parties, present and future, that meet its terms by executing a corresponding ADL January 25, 2019 I Volume 13 I Issue 2 with the City." Moreover, the court found that in issu- ing Resolution 2018-16, approving the 2018 SDMP, the City "considered broad, competing policy consider- ations" including "everything from traffic impact in the area surrounding the Site to the City's economic stabil- ity as a whole." The court also concluded that the City was exercis- ing its administrative powers when it approved Resolu- tion 2018-17 because the 2018 ADL "applie[d] only to the contracting parties and its approval involved the ap- plication of law to specific facts," The court found that the 2018 ADL was not generally applicable, but rather had "very limited and specific applicability in that it ap- plie[d] only to those parties that negotiated its teuus." Moreover, the court found that in approving Resolution 2018-17, the City did not weigh broad, competing policy considerations, but rather applied the 2018 SDMP to the specific circumstances of the parties negotiating the 2018 ADL. See also: Carter v. Lehi City, 2012 UT 2, 269 P.3d 141 (Utah 2012). Case Note: In reaching its conclusion regarding the legislative nature of the SDMP, the court emphasized that it did "not mean to sug- gest that every site development plan approved pursuant to a zoning ordinance will be legislative in nature. " Rather, the nature of a site development plan depends entirely on how the municipality reaches its decision, said the court. An "open-ended" municipal decision made without reference to "fixed criteria" may be legislative, while a municipal deci- sion involving "application of existing law to the facts pre- sented by an individual applicant" or that is "limited to the evaluation of specific criteria fixed by law" would be admin- istrative, said the court. © 2019 Thomson Reuters 5