Summary
The Utah Supreme Court considered whether Grand County acted legislatively or administratively when it adopted Ordinance 454, approving amendments to the Cloudrock Planned Unit Development. The court held that the ordinance was legislative because it created a new law of general applicability, reflected policy considerations, and was adopted through a formal legislative process. The court also concluded that the ordinance was not adopted illegally.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the County Council acted in its legislative or administrative capacity when it adopted Ordinance 454.
- Whether Ordinance 454 was invalid because the original preliminary-plat approval had allegedly expired.
- Whether Ordinance 454 was invalid because the Cloudrock Application allegedly conflicted with the Grand County General Plan and Public Facilities Analysis.
- Whether the public notice for the hearings concerning Ordinance 454 was inadequate.
- Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to the County, Council, and Cloudrock.
Holdings
- The County Council acted legislatively in adopting Ordinance 454 because the ordinance created a new law of general applicability after the Council weighed broad policy considerations and because the ordinance had the formal nature of a legislative act.
- Ordinance 454 was not invalid merely because it approved amendments to the preliminary plat more than twelve months after the original approval.
- Citizens failed to establish that Ordinance 454 was illegal because of any inconsistency with the Grand County General Plan or Public Facilities Analysis.
- The notice was adequate because it was reasonably calculated to apprise interested persons of the proceeding and was sufficient to permit objections; the matters ultimately considered were reasonably related to the noticed subject.
Key quotations
“The first guideline is that "legislative power gives rise to new law, while executive power implements a law already in existence."” (694-695)
“A generally applicable rule, in other words, sets the governing standard for all cases coming within its terms.” (697)
“Thus, we affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cloudrock.” (709)
Factual background
Grand County adopted a 2002 resolution approving a planned unit development and related approvals for a nearly two-thousand-acre Cloudrock project. After litigation delayed development, Cloudrock sought amendments to the development agreement, master plan, and preliminary plat. Following public hearings and a Planning Commission recommendation, the County Council adopted Ordinance 454, approving an amended development agreement, master plan, preliminary plat, and Cloudrock Code. Citizens challenged the ordinance as administrative and therefore subject to administrative exhaustion, and alternatively argued that it was illegal because of an expired preliminary-plat approval, inconsistency with the General Plan and Public Facilities Analysis, and inadequate public notice.
Procedural history
Citizens challenged Ordinance 454, first filing an administrative appeal with the Grand County Board of Adjustments and then filing an action in district court. The district court granted summary judgment for the County, Council, and Cloudrock, concluding that the Council acted legislatively and that the ordinance was not illegal. On an earlier appeal, the Utah Supreme Court held that Citizens had standing and remanded for transmission of the Council's record. After remand, the district court again granted summary judgment, leading to this appeal.