511 P.3d 1207
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- Cobblestone purchased a residence with a pool in South Weber (an agricultural zone) in Aug 2018 and began operating it as a short-term rental (STR).
- In May 2019 South Weber adopted an ordinance requiring a conditional use permit (CUP) and a city business license for any STR; STRs were not a listed permitted use in the agricultural zone.
- Cobblestone applied for a CUP and business license; the Planning Commission approved the CUP subject to conditions, but later issued strikes and revoked the CUP; the City Council affirmed the revocation after remand issues were addressed.
- Police were dispatched after a July 2020 incident involving occupants discharging a firearm; South Weber sued and sought an injunction to stop STR and other commercial uses without a business license; parties stipulated to a partial injunction limiting other commercial activity.
- The district court granted South Weber’s motion and enjoined Cobblestone from operating the Property as an STR without a valid business license, holding the STR use was not a legal nonconforming use and rejecting equitable estoppel; the court’s injunction was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cobblestone’s pre-ordinance use as an STR was a lawful nonconforming use exempting it from the new licensing requirement | Cobblestone: STR is a "dwelling" or fits within prior permitted uses so it became a legal nonconforming use | South Weber: STRs are excluded from the "dwelling" definition (boarding/lodging) and were not a permitted use in the agricultural zone | Court: STR use falls within excluded lodging/boarding categories and is not a permitted legal nonconforming use; injunction affirmed |
| Whether South Weber is equitably estopped from enforcing the ordinance/licensing requirement | Cobblestone: South Weber knew of unlicensed STR operation and the city website indicated no business license required for rentals, so city should be estopped | South Weber: Website language concerned month-or-longer rental units, not STRs; government estoppel requires a specific, clear, written representation and is disfavored | Court: No specific, well-substantiated representation covering STRs; failure to enforce earlier does not bar later enforcement; estoppel rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Town of Alta v. Ben Hame Corp., 836 P.2d 797 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (same standard of review applies to ordinance interpretation; failure to enforce zoning does not forfeit enforcement power)
- Anderson v. Public Service Comm’n, 839 P.2d 822 (Utah 1992) (estoppel against government requires specific written representation)
- Eldredge v. Utah State Ret. Board, 795 P.2d 671 (Utah Ct. App. 1990) (narrow exception to general rule against estopping government in unusual circumstances)
- Myers v. Utah Transit Auth., 341 P.3d 935 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (governmental estoppel requires very clear, well-substantiated representations)
- Iota, LLC v. Davco Mgmt. Co., 284 P.3d 681 (Utah Ct. App. 2012) (estoppel is a mixed question of fact and law; appellate review affords deference to trial court)
- Carrier v. Lindquist, 37 P.3d 1112 (Utah 2001) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing injunctions)