McElhaney v. City of Moab
2017 UT 65
| Utah | 2017Background
- Mary and Jeramey McElhaney applied for a conditional use permit to operate a bed-and-breakfast in an R-2 residential zone in Moab; the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
- Neighbors raised concerns at hearings about traffic, noise, parking, lighting, drainage, and neighborhood character; the Council held a public hearing and denied the permit by a 3–1 vote.
- Councilmembers articulated policy and character concerns (inconsistency with the general plan, preserving town character, minimal-impact requirement) but did not issue formal written findings of fact or conclusions of law explaining which specific detrimental effects were found or why mitigation proposed by the applicants/Commission was insufficient.
- The McElhaneys appealed to the district court, which reversed the Council for lack of substantial evidence and treated neighbors’ concerns about traffic and noise as speculative; the district court declined to remand for additional findings.
- The Utah Supreme Court granted review and clarified that it reviews the district court’s decision (without deference) in appeals of administrative decisions, and examined whether the Council’s denial was supported by adequate written findings to permit meaningful appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review on appeal of district court review of administrative decision | McElhaney: Court should review the Council's decision directly | Moab: Court should review the district court's order for correctness | Held: Supreme Court reviews the district court's decision (no deference) and applies statutory standard (arbitrary, capricious, illegal; substantial evidence) |
| Whether Council produced sufficient findings to support denial of conditional use permit | McElhaney: Council failed to make factual findings; denial unsupported and speculative | Moab: Council‘s oral explanations suffice; if deficient, district court should remand for findings | Held: Council’s failure to produce written findings made meaningful appellate review impossible; findings were required |
| Appropriateness of district court reversing rather than remanding for findings | McElhaney: reversal appropriate because record lacked substantial evidence | Moab: if defects exist, proper remedy is remand to Council for findings | Held: District court erred by substituting its own fact-finding and reversing; proper remedy is remand to Council to prepare findings and conclusions |
| Applicability of "substantial evidence" requirement to municipal land-use denials | McElhaney: denial not supported by substantial evidence | Moab: deny based on neighborhood concerns and policy judgments | Held: "Substantial evidence" is a term of art that presupposes written reasons; local bodies must supply reasons adequate to enable judicial review |
Key Cases Cited
- Bennion v. Utah State Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 675 P.2d 1135 (Utah 1983) (discusses appellate review of district court judgments on administrative records and whether to defer to the intermediate court)
- T-Mobile S., LLC v. City of Roswell, 135 S. Ct. 808 (U.S. 2015) (when statutes invoke substantial-evidence review, localities must provide written reasons adequate for judicial review)
- Utah Physicians for a Healthy Env’t v. Exec. Dir. of the Utah Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 391 P.3d 148 (Utah 2016) (reviewing intermediate executive director’s order and discussing preservation and review posture)
- LaSal Oil Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 843 P.2d 1045 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (administrative agencies must make findings of fact and conclusions of law adequate for appellate review)