In 2002, the Grand County Council (the Council) approved a 2,000-acre planned unit development (the “Cloudrock Development”) located on a mesa above the Glen Canyon Aquifer, which serves as the main source of culinary water for Moab, Utah. The Council’s approval of the Cloudrock Development (the Development) was conditioned upon terms set out in a development agreement executed between the County and the developer. A group of citizens (the Citizens) appealed the Council’s approval of the Development to the Board of Adjustment (the Board), which upheld the Council’s decision.
In 2006, after four years of litigation unrelated to the issues in this case, Cloudrock Land Company, LLC (Cloudrock) succeeded to the rights of the original developer and, in October 2006, presented an Amended Plan and Preliminary Phase 1 Plat (the Amended Plan) to the Grand County Planning Commission (the Planning Commission), which was substantially similar to the original development master plan, but did reallocate densities and make changes to the development’s wilderness lodge use-on-review provisions.
The Planning Commission conditionally approved the Amended Plan, subject to certain changes being made in the development agreement. The Amended Plan, together with an amended version of the development agreement, was submitted to the Council in 2007, and the Citizens lobbied the Council in opposition. Nevertheless, the Council passed Ordinance 454, which approved both the Amended Plan for the Development and an amended version of the development agreement.
Just as in 2002, The Citizens appealed the Council’s decision to the Board, but this time, this Grand County Attorney issued a statement of opinion that the Board lacked jurisdiction over the appeal since the approval of Ordinance 454 was legislative, rather than administrative, in nature, and the Board took no further action of the Citizens’ appeal.
The Citizens then turned to the district court, where, as a precautionary measure, they had previously filed an action contesting the Council’s decision. The Citizens sought declaratory relief deeming Ordinance 454 invalid and the amended development agreement null and void. Cloudrock moved to intervene, and the district court granted the motion.
The Citizens and Cloudrock filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and Grand County and the Council joined in Cloudrock’s motion. In their motion, the Citizens objected to the fact that Grand County had failed to provide the district court with a record of the proceedings before the Council, and in response, Cloudrock presented a letter certifying that the documents attached to its motion were true and correct copies of the record of the proceedings before the Council. The Citizens objected to Cloudrock’s certification, arguing that it was both untimely and incomplete.
The district court ultimately granted Cloudrock’s summary judgment motion, ruling that (1) the district court had jurisdiction over the Citizen’s appeal because Ordinance 454 was a legislative act, (2) because Ordinance 454 was a legislative act, it was presumptively legal, and (3) the Citizens had failed to carry their burden to prove that Ordinance 454 did not serve a legitimate land use purpose or was otherwise illegal.
The Citizens appealed the district court’s determinations to the Supreme Court of Utah, which found that the Citizens have standing to challenge the Council’s decision because they have alleged personal, particularized injuries resulting from the Council’s approval of Ordinance 454. The Court did not reach the merits of the Citizens’ claims of error, however, because it concluded that the district court should have required the County to transmit a record of the Council’s proceedings before addressing the Citizens’ claims. The Court remanded the case to the district court with the instruction to order the County to transmit the complete record and resolve the Citizens’ challenge on its merits.
Morra v. Grand County, 2010 WL 1189818 (Utah 3/30/2010).
The opinion is available here.
