LJ Mascaro Inc. v. Herriman City
428 P.3d 4
Utah Ct. App.2018Background
- The Mascaros owned property used for topsoil manufacturing and screening since mid-20th century; Herriman City annexed the property in 2009.
- Under Herriman City Code, topsoil manufacturing/screening is a conditional (not permitted) use; the Mascaros sought a determination that their operation was a legally established nonconforming use existing before annexation.
- The Mascaros submitted extensive documentary evidence and testimony (business licenses, county correspondence, meeting minutes, a 1999 county approval to expand a nonconforming building, and a 2012 letter from a county councilmember) but conceded they had no definitive documentary proof that Salt Lake County had expressly authorized topsoil manufacturing/screening.
- The Herriman Zoning Administrator denied the request; the Planning Commission upheld the denial, finding no evidence the activity had been legally authorized under Salt Lake County; the Appeal Authority affirmed, relying in part on a court order that Riverton City’s earlier annexation (1978–1981) was null and void.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Herriman City; the Utah Court of Appeals reviewed whether the Appeal Authority’s denial was arbitrary and capricious or illegal and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Mascaros' Argument | Herriman City's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the topsoil operation a legally established nonconforming use pre-annexation? | Mascaro: Operation existed since 1950s and was legally recognized by prior jurisdictions. | Herriman: No substantial documentary evidence shows county or municipal authorization for topsoil manufacturing/screening. | Held: No — insufficient substantial evidence of prior legal authorization. |
| Was the Appeal Authority’s denial arbitrary and capricious? | Mascaro: Decision ignored substantial record facts and improperly discounted evidence (licenses, minutes, council letter). | Herriman: Decision was supported by the record and deference is owed; plaintiffs lack conclusive proof. | Held: Not arbitrary or capricious; reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion. |
| Can the nullified Riverton annexation be relied on to establish legality of the use? | Mascaro: During annexation period Riverton had no zoning, so use was lawful while under Riverton jurisdiction. | Herriman: A district court declared the annexation null and void; plaintiffs point to no legal authority to avoid that result. | Held: Plaintiffs failed to preserve/establish an exception; the nullification controls, so annexation cannot be used to prove legality. |
| Did the 1999 Salt Lake County action (expansion permit) or business licenses establish the use as lawful? | Mascaro: 1999 special application and decades of county business licenses show county treated the use as nonconforming/authorized. | Herriman: The permits/licenses do not reference topsoil manufacturing/screening; they are ambiguous and do not prove authorization. | Held: No — the records are ambiguous or unrelated; they do not prove the particular use was lawfully established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis County Solid Waste Mgmt. v. City of Bountiful, 52 P.3d 1174 (Utah 2002) (standard of review for district court legal conclusions on summary judgment)
- Springville Citizens for a Better Cmty. v. City of Springville, 979 P.2d 332 (Utah 1999) (deference limits in administrative fact review; substantial-evidence standard)
- Fuller v. Springville City, 355 P.3d 1063 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (court treats appeals of land-use authority denials as direct review of administrative decision)
- Patterson v. Utah County Board of Adjustment, 893 P.2d 602 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (interpretive principle: zoning restrictions strictly construed; permissive provisions liberally construed for owner)
- Rosen v. Saratoga Springs City, 288 P.3d 606 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (issue-preservation rule for administrative appeals)