420 P.3d 71
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- Chris and Sandra Checketts operated a countertop business licensed as a home business on their residence lot; they also owned a separate, noncontiguous "Business Lot" three doors away where they built a shed and conducted manufacturing activities.
- The City issued building permits in 2004–2007 and renewed the Checkettses’ business license through 2008; neighbors later complained about heavy machinery and public solicitation at the Business Lot.
- The City issued notices of violation and ultimately refused to renew the business license in 2011, instead inviting the Checkettses to apply for a conditional use permit (CUP); the LUA granted a CUP subject to conditions including landscaping and combining the lots.
- The Checkettses repeatedly delayed satisfying conditions, sought extensions, and attempted to rely on prior permits and communications with the City; neighbors appealed the CUP but the LUA’s CUP was ultimately upheld.
- The City later determined the business was operating in violation of the zoning code; the Appeal Authority upheld the City (finding no legal nonconforming use and no zoning estoppel), the district court affirmed on review and awarded attorney fees under Utah Code § 13-43-206(12); the Court of Appeals affirmed the merits but vacated the fee award.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Business Lot use was a legal nonconforming use | Checketts: prior permits and longstanding use made the operation a legal nonconforming use protected under MLUDMA | City: the business was never a permitted use in the SFT zone without a CUP, so it cannot be a legal nonconforming use | Court: Affirmed Appeal Authority; substantial evidence supports that the use was never permitted without a CUP, so no legal nonconforming use exists |
| Whether zoning estoppel prevents enforcement of zoning against the Checkettses | Checketts: the City’s prior permits, inspections, and communications induced reliance and investment, so estoppel applies | City: communications and approvals did not convey a clear, affirmative assurance; warnings and delays undermine reasonable reliance | Court: Affirmed Appeal Authority; record supports conclusion that the City was not estopped—no clear, affirmative governmental act and no exceptional circumstances |
| Whether attorney fees under Utah Code § 13-43-206(12) are recoverable by the City | City: received an Ombudsman advisory opinion and the litigation resolved consistently with it, so subsection (12) authorizes fees | Checketts: their challenge to the City’s violation notice is not a "cause of action in litigation" triggering subsection (12) | Court: Reversed fee award; subsection (12) applies narrowly to district-court causes of action (e.g., impact-fee/decl. judgment-type litigation) and was not triggered here; fees must be refunded |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Park City, 200 P.3d 182 (Utah 2008) (defines zoning estoppel elements: clear, definite, affirmative governmental act; reasonable reliance; substantial change; exceptional circumstances)
- Utah County v. Baxter, 635 P.2d 61 (Utah 1981) (zoning estoppel requires exceptional circumstances for relief)
- Pacific West Communities, Inc. v. Grantsville City, 221 P.3d 280 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (administrative land-use decisions are arbitrary/capricious only if unsupported by substantial evidence)
- Springville Citizens for a Better Community v. City of Springville, 979 P.2d 332 (Utah 1999) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence in land-use review)
- Baker v. Park City Mun. Corp., 405 P.3d 962 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (court will not substitute its judgment for land-use authority; deferential review applies)