Summary
The Utah Supreme Court reviewed a dispute concerning Summit County's approval of an Utelite railroad loading facility and the resulting claims for development-code violations, injunctive relief, nuisance, due process, attorney fees, and open-meetings violations. The court reversed summary judgment on the development-code claim, vacated the removal order and nuisance damages, affirmed the rejection of the due-process and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 fee claims, and affirmed dismissal of the open-meetings claim. The case was remanded for a determination of whether the facility qualified as an accessory use under the county development code.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming summary judgment that the County violated the development code by failing to issue a certificate of zoning compliance and building permit before construction.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming summary judgment that the County violated the development code by approving the facility as a permitted use.
- Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming summary judgment that the County violated the development code by failing to order Utelite to cease work after discovering the lack of a permit.
- Whether the trial court's grant of injunctive relief and nuisance per se finding should stand.
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed summary judgment on the due process claim.
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the denial of attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
- Whether the Court of Appeals correctly reversed summary judgment and dismissed the open meetings claim.
Holdings
- The County did not violate the development code by failing to issue a certificate of zoning compliance; the County's letter approving the facility as a permitted use constituted a certificate of zoning compliance.
- The County did not violate the development code by not issuing a building permit before construction; the code places the burden of applying for a building permit on the person seeking approval, and there was no evidence an application was submitted.
- Summary judgment was not proper because the Harpers failed to meet their initial burden of showing the absence of disputed material facts regarding whether the facility was an accessory use to the nonconforming railroad use.
- The County violated section 1.7(10) by failing to order work stopped, but this violation was remedied when a building permit was later issued.
- The due process claim fails because the County's actions in issuing the certificate and permit were administrative in nature and followed the development code procedures; an incorrect interpretation of a code is not a due process violation.
- The Harpers were not entitled to attorney fees under § 1988 because they failed to successfully prosecute their due process claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The open meetings claim was properly dismissed because the issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance and building permit is an administrative action not required to be discussed in an open meeting.
Key quotations
“The County cannot be deemed to know that a building or structure will be built until an application is submitted or perhaps until construction begins. Therefore, reading into section 1.9 a duty on the County to issue building permits before an application is submitted is unreasonable.” (¶ 16)
“if a building or structure is found to be an authorized use in the zone, otherwise complies with the provisions of the code, and would have been a proper candidate for a building permit had one been sought before construction began, violation of section 1.9 can be remedied by the subsequent issuance of a valid building permit.” (¶ 24)
“In issuing a certificate of zoning compliance and building permit, the County was simply interpreting the development code and applying it to the property in question. In doing so, it followed the procedures set forth in the development code. The County's interpretation of the code may be found to be incorrect, but that is not the basis for a due process claim.” (¶ 31)
Factual background
In 1988, Utelite sought to relocate a railroad loading facility to property leased from Union Pacific Railroad in Echo, Utah. Summit County verbally approved the relocation at a planning commission meeting and confirmed it by letter. The Harpers, neighbors of the new site, sued, alleging the County violated its development code in approving the relocation, violated the Open and Public Meetings Act, and violated their due process rights. The County later issued a building permit.
Procedural history
The Harpers sued Summit County and Utelite, alleging violations of the development code, Open and Public Meetings Act, and due process. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for the Harpers. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and dismissed the open meetings claim. Both parties petitioned for certiorari to the Utah Supreme Court.
Remand instructions
The court of appeals is directed to remand to the trial court for a determination of whether the facility is an accessory use to the existing nonconforming use and thus correctly designated a 'permitted use' by the County.