Cahoon v. HINCKLEY TOWN APPEAL AUTHORITY, 276 P.3d 1141

Cahoon sought a building permit for a fence from Hinckley Town; the Hinckley Town Appeal Authority denied the permit.
Cahoon challenged the decision, arguing the ordinance requires measuring the front yard from his property line to the middle of the road.
The ordinance requires a front yard of at least 30 feet in the R Zone and allows front yard fences that comply with setback rules.
The court applied plain-language interpretation of the ordinance and related definitions (Fence, Frontage, Yard, Front Yard).
The court held the front yard does not include portions of the street, so Cahoon’s fence did not meet the 30-foot front-yard requirement.
The appellate court affirmed the Appeal Board’s decision without addressing Cahoon’s remaining arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Proper interpretation of front yard measurement under Hinckley ordinance	Cahoon: front yard begins at property line extending to street middle	Hinckley: front yard does not include street; plain meaning	Front yard does not include street; Cahoon not entitled to permit

Rogers v. West Valley City, 142 P.3d 554 (2006 UT App 302) (guides statutory/ordinance interpretation rules)
Brown v. Sandy City Bd. of Adjustment, 957 P.2d 207 (Utah Ct.App. 1998) (interpreting ordinance terms in harmony with purpose)
Li v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Co., 150 P.3d 471 (2006 UT 80) (plain-language analysis; harmonization with related chapters)
Miller v. Weaver, 66 P.3d 592 (2003 UT 12) (guidance on statutory construction principles)
Iverson v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 256 P.3d 222 (2011 UT 34) (constitutional/statutory construction approach)
Thompson v. Logan City, 221 P.3d 907 (2009 UT App 335) (uses plain-language interpretation for ordinances)
M & S Cox Invs., LLC v. Provo City Corp., 169 P.3d 789 (2007 UT App 315) (interpretation of zoning ordinances in context)
Fox v. Park City, 200 P.3d 182 (2008 UT 85) (review of land use decisions on illegality standards)