302 P.3d 146
Utah Ct. App.2013Background
- Hatch appeals a district court grant of summary judgment for Kane County and its Board of Adjustment.
- The Board denied Hatch a building permit, finding the Stevens Canyon Estates 40-acre parcel improperly subdivided.
- Hatch argues he subdivided under a 1972 ordinance exempting agricultural divisions, thereby grandfathering the lots.
- Olsen, then County Attorney, wrote a 1972 letter suggesting agricultural subdivisions were exempt from County regulation.
- Questions arise about County oversight of the 1972 subdivision, whether the 1972 ordinance applied to nonagricultural zoning, and whether the 40-acre parcel was a legally created lot.
- The 40-acre parcel was created within the original subdivision and was not identified as a lot on Hatch’s plat, triggering current subdivision requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s denial was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal | Hatch argues 1972 ordinance grandfathered the subdivision | Board/County view: 40-acre parcel not properly subdivided under current law | Not arbitrary, capricious, or illegal |
| Whether the 1972 ordinance exempted Hatch’s subdivision | Subdivision valid under 1972 agricultural exemption | Ordinance applied to future subdivisions; not clearly exempt | Unclear exemption; not dispositive without compliance with current ordinance |
| Whether nonconformity concepts apply to subdivided lots | Nonconforming lots keep validity despite changes | Nonconformity limits apply to existing lots, not new subdivision within original boundaries | Nonconforming principles do not permit endless reconfiguration without current compliance |
| Whether the district court should have held an evidentiary hearing | Transcript irregularities and evidence exclusion warranted hearing | Judicial review limited to record; no new evidence needed | No evidentiary hearing required; no exclusion of Hatch’s evidence shown |
| Whether Board findings were legitimate or tainted by process | Findings crafted post-decision to aid County/Board | Findings final and properly drafted; process legitimate | Board’s written findings were legitimate; no strike warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Patterson v. Utah Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 893 P.2d 602 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (scope of review for Board decisions; substantial evidence standard)
- Harris v. Springville City, 712 P.2d 188 (Utah 1984) (nonconforming use principle guidance in Utah)
- Carlsen v. Board of Adjustment, 287 P.3d 440 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (nonconforming use/liability under changing ordinances)
- Vial v. Provo City, 210 P.3d 947 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (nonconforming use/continuation under ordinance changes)
- Allen v. Friel, 194 P.3d 903 (Utah 2008) (requirements of appellate review; standard of error identification)