468 P.3d 537
Utah Ct. App.2020Background:
- In 2012 San Juan County Planning Commission issued a conditional use permit (CUP) for a wind farm; adjacent undeveloped landowners later formed Northern Monticello Alliance (NMA).
- NMA was not heard at the original Planning Commission CUP grant; after a later amendment and sale to sPower, complaints alleged sPower violated mitigation conditions in the amended CUP.
- At a Planning Commission hearing on revocation, NMA was not allowed to present evidence; the Planning Commission declined to revoke the CUP.
- NMA appealed to the County Commission. The County Commission initially reversed and remanded to allow NMA to be heard; after receiving an ex parte letter from sPower, the County Commission reconsidered and upheld the Planning Commission’s decision without hearing NMA.
- The district court remanded, instructing the County Commission to remedy the due-process denial by allowing NMA to argue and present evidence; on remand the County Commission allowed argument but barred any new evidence, and the district court later granted summary judgment for the county and other appellees.
- On appeal, the Utah Court of Appeals held that NMA was entitled to present evidence and remanded for proceedings consistent with providing NMA an opportunity to submit evidence (either to the County Commission or by remand to the Planning Commission).
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether NMA had due process rights in the proceedings | NMA: as adversely affected property owners and beneficiaries of CUP mitigation conditions, they had a right to be heard and to present evidence throughout the process | Appellees: no cognizable property or liberty interest; any due-process right was limited to appeal-stage or to the reconsideration request only | Held: NMA had due-process rights—statute and ordinance grant adversely affected parties appeal rights and the appeal authority must respect due process throughout; mitigation conditions created an entitlement to enforcement and a right to be heard |
| Whether denial of opportunity to present evidence violated due process | NMA: exclusion from presenting evidence made hearings meaningless and foreclosed meaningful review | Appellees: allowing NMA to argue (but not present new evidence) on remand complied with due process; district court did not intend to require new evidence | Held: denial of opportunity to present evidence violated due process; oral argument alone was insufficient where evidence was critical to revocation determination |
| Effect of sPower’s ex parte communication and County Commission’s reconsideration | NMA: ex parte contact and reversal without hearing compounded the deprivation, requiring full remedial hearing | sPower/County: reconsideration was permissible and procedural safeguards (argument on remand) cured any defect | Held: ex parte-driven reversal without affording NMA a chance to respond was a procedural defect that required remediation by allowing NMA to present evidence |
| Appropriate remedy | NMA: remand for plenary evidentiary hearing permitting NMA to present evidence or remand back to Planning Commission | Appellees: no further evidentiary hearing necessary; argument suffice | Held: case remanded so County Commission must receive NMA’s evidence or remand to Planning Commission to take that evidence before reconsidering the revocation decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Petersen v. Riverton City, 243 P.3d 1261 (Utah 2010) (to state due-process claim must show a property or liberty interest)
- Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Network, 299 P.3d 990 (Utah 2012) (due process requires adequate notice and meaningful opportunity to be heard, including chance to present evidence)
- Morra v. Grand County, 230 P.3d 1022 (Utah 2010) (definition of "person adversely affected" for land-use appeals)
- Patterson v. Utah County Bd. of Adjustment, 893 P.2d 602 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (review requires considering all evidence in the record, both favorable and contrary)
- Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1972) (property interests are created by state law; "legitimate claim of entitlement" test)
- Lucas v. Murray City Civil Serv. Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (state-created entitlements define protected property interests)
- Fusco v. Connecticut, 815 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1987) (position that appellate procedural rights alone do not create a Fourteenth Amendment property interest)