526 P.3d 829
Utah Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2012 the San Juan County Planning Commission issued a conditional use permit (CUP) authorizing a wind farm; an amendment to the CUP was memorialized only in hearing minutes and transcript, not in a written findings document.
- Northern Monticello Alliance (NMA) complained in 2015 that operator sPower violated the CUP; the Planning Commission held two hearings, permitted only sPower to present evidence, and voted not to revoke the CUP—but produced no written factual findings.
- NMA appealed to the San Juan County Commission, which initially reversed and remanded but then amended its decision after receiving sPower materials and ultimately upheld the Planning Commission’s nonrevocation.
- NMA appealed to district court; the district court found substantial evidence supported the County’s Remand Decision and granted summary judgment to appellees; this was appealed through prior proceedings including a Utah Supreme Court decision addressing NMA’s procedural rights (NMA lacked a right to present evidence in the revocation hearing).
- On the issues left after the Utah Supreme Court remand, this Court held that only the Planning Commission was authorized to take evidence and make factual findings, and because the Planning Commission failed to produce adequate written findings, the County Commission’s and district court’s affirmances were unsupported by substantial evidence and therefore arbitrary and capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Planning Commission’s failure to issue written findings renders the County Commission’s and district court’s affirmances unsupported by substantial evidence (arbitrary and capricious). | NMA: Lack of written findings from the Planning Commission prevents appellate/substantial-evidence review and is fatal. | County/sPower: The record (minutes, later submissions, County’s Amended Decision) supplies the evidence and rationale required. | Held: Planning Commission alone was authorized to find facts; its cursory minutes/email brief were inadequate under McElhaney; absence of sufficient written findings rendered the later decisions unsupported by substantial evidence and arbitrary and capricious. |
| Whether the County Commission or district court could consider new evidence or make independent factual findings on appeal. | NMA: Appeals are limited to the record and Planning Commission’s findings; new evidence or factfinding on appeal is improper. | County/sPower: County relied on binders/evidence it said Planning Commission had received and argued reconsideration was proper. | Held: Both the County Commission (by ordinance) and district court were limited to the Planning Commission record and findings; they could not perform factfinding or properly rely on new evidence to cure the lack of original findings. |
| Proper standard and scope of review for appeals of land-use decisions and the role of McElhaney. | NMA: McElhaney requires written findings to permit substantial-evidence review; district court must apply that standard. | Appellees: Procedural objections and reliance on the existing record suffice; preservation arguments challenged NMA’s claim. | Held: Review is of the intermediate court’s decision with no deference; McElhaney’s requirement of sufficiently detailed written findings applies and governs substantial-evidence review. |
Key Cases Cited
- McElhaney v. City of Moab, 423 P.3d 1284 (Utah 2017) (land‑use decisions must include sufficiently detailed written findings to permit substantial‑evidence review)
- Northern Monticello All., LLC v. San Juan County, 506 P.3d 593 (Utah 2022) (supreme court addressed NMA’s procedural rights and remanded for further proceedings)
- Uintah Mountain RTC, LLC v. Duchesne County, 127 P.3d 1270 (Utah Ct. App. 2005) (a land‑use decision is arbitrary and capricious if unsupported by substantial evidence)
- Springville Citizens for a Better Cmty. v. City of Springville, 979 P.2d 332 (Utah 1999) (same substantial‑evidence principle for municipal land‑use decisions)
- Davis County v. Clearfield City, 756 P.2d 704 (Utah Ct. App. 1988) (planning commission’s refusal to furnish written findings can suggest lack of rational basis for decision)