L.C. Canyon Partners, L.L.C. v. Salt Lake County
266 P.3d 797
Utah2011Background
- L.C. Canyon sought to rezone 15.359 acres from FR-20 to FR-2.5 to enable a single-family residence near Little Cottonwood Canyon, Salt Lake County.
- On Oct. 18, 2005 the County Council approved a rezoning ordinance to FR-2.5 for 3.548 acres but required the usual 15-day waiting period and publication before taking effect.
- At a Oct. 25, 2005 hearing, the Council discussed site location and later voted to reconsider; the Council voted on Nov. 1, 2005 to rescind the rezoning ordinance.
- The ordinance never took effect due to the waiting period, and LC. Canyon incurred no reliance-costs tied to the rezoning.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the County, holding the FR-20 zone rational and the Council’s rescission authority valid; on appeal, the court upheld these rulings de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FR-20 was rational as applied to Canyon’s parcel. | Canyon argues the FR-20 application to its 15 acres is irrational and arbitrary. | County asserts FR-20 serves legitimate goals of protecting foothills and scenery and is rationally related. | FR-20 rational as applied to the parcel. |
| Whether the County Council had authority to rescind the October 18 ordinance before it took effect. | Canyon contends rescission was improper because no new ordinance of equal dignity was enacted. | Council validly rescinded under Robert's Rules Rule 37 prior to effect. | Council validly rescinded the ordinance under Rule 37. |
| Whether Canyon has a viable takings claim given rescission. | Canyon contends rescission damages its expected zoning benefit. | No vested rights or protected interest; rescission negates entitlement. | Takings claim fails; no protected interest present. |
| Whether procedural review under Robert's Rules supported Council action. | Canyon argues Rule 86 (reconsideration) governs; rescission misapplied. | Rule 37 governs rescission; proper process followed. | Rule 37 authority upheld; rescission proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643 (10th Cir. 2006) (due process requires a rational relation to public welfare for zoning)
- Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U.S. 155 (1981) (unilateral expectation is not a protectable property interest)
- Colman v. Utah State Land Bd., 795 P.2d 622 (Utah 1990) (vested, legally enforceable interest required for takings)
- Bagford v. Ephraim City, 904 P.2d 1099 (Utah 1995) (vested property interest needed for just compensation)
- Patterson v. American Fork City, 2003 UT 7, 67 P.3d 466 (Utah 2003) (need for vested entitlement to protect takings claim)