UT Appeals Court Upholds Denial of Conditional Use Permit for Parking Lot

This post was authored by Tyler Doan of Vermont Law School  

Property owner applied for a conditional use permit to use their three-acre parcel as a parking lot. The parcel sits on a road connecting to an entrance to Zion National Park. The area the parcel is in is zoned “Valley Residential,” where zones must be attractive for residential development while preserving the open agriculture and farm type of the area. The property is adjacent to residences. The surrounding area is zoned for a mix of both residential and commercial uses. The south and southwest area is zoned Village commercial, which allowed low impact commercial and services uses.

When the property owner applied for the permit, parking lots were allowed as conditional uses in the Valley Residential zone. At the time, the code required denial of the permit if the anticipated detrimental effects could not be substantially mitigated by the proposal or imposition of reasonable conditions. Before a Planning Commission vote, a memorandum from the Director of Community Development outlined the potential impacts that a parking lot on the property would produce, including increased noise, traffic, and noxious odor. The memorandum further recommended adding additional conditions such as requiring additional landscape buffers and limiting the hours of use.

After a public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended denying the permit application. The Planning Commission found the proposed lot cannot be screened adequately from surrounding properties citing that the code provides that the allowed uses are generated to avoid incompatible uses in close proximity and preserve the peace, quiet, and privacy in residential zones. The Planning Commission concluded that the proposed lot would change the property’s Village Residential designation’s appearance and character. The issue then went before the Town Council, which denied the permit application after a public hearing. It agreed with the Planning Commission and found the proposed lot is in the middle of an existing residential neighborhood, less than twenty feet from a residence, and would substantially increase traffic, activity, and noise in an existing neighborhood, among other issues.

Landowner appealed the denial, arguing the Town Council did not correctly apply the conditional use standards, and the decision was arbitrary and capricious. After another hearing, the Appeal Authority affirmed the denial of the permit. The Appeal Authority also found that the Planning Commission and Town Council thoroughly discussed site conditions, surrounding uses, potentially adverse impacts, and whether they could be mitigated and all the Town Council’s additional findings. The Appeal Authority concluded the Town Council’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious and emphasized. However, parking was an allowable use, and it was only conditionally allowable subject to reasonable conditions to mitigate reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed lot following applicable standards.

The landowner then appealed to the district court, claiming the decision was arbitrary and capricious because it was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. It was illegal because it was based on the incorrect interpretations of land use regulations contrary to law. The district court dismissed the petition with prejudice. It determined the decision was not illegal, as there was no evidence that the decision was based on the incorrect interpretation or contrary to law. Secondly, the court found the decision was one a reasonable mind could reach and was based on substantial evidence in the record.

Landowner appeals the district court decision as having erred in dismissing the petition for review because the Appeal Authority’s decision was illegal and not supported by substantial evidence. The Court of Appeals of Utah addresses two arguments by the landowner. First being the district court incorrectly concluded that substantial evidence supported the Appeal Authority’s decision to deny his conditional use permit application. Second, the district court incorrectly concluded that the Appeal Authority’s decision was not illegal.

For the first argument, the Appeals Court of Utah reasoned all previous decisions were correct in their rulings as the proposed lot would interfere with the lawful use of the surrounding properties. Since the proposed lot was close to residential lots, there would be impacts from traffic, lights, noise, garbage, odors, and possible loitering; the previous decisions were correct. Additionally, the Planning Commission and Town Council meetings had taken public opinion and had used them to help their decision. The Appeals Court of Utah determined that while the public’s opinion was considered, it was not relied on. The Court determined that there was substantial evidence from which the reasonable mind could conclude that the proposed lot would reasonably interfere with the surrounding properties’ lawful use.

The Court further holds that there is further substantial evidence that the proposed mitigation conditions proposed and considered would not substantially mitigate the anticipated detrimental effects. The Court again relied on the information provided in the DCD memorandum and the findings of the Appeals Authority to conclude substantial evidence had been entered to determine that even if the mitigating conditions had been complied with, they would not do enough to substantially mitigate the detrimental effects the proposed lot would generate.

On the second issue of illegality, the Appeals Court of Utah reasoned that, unlike Waikiki Marketplace, the issue constitutes a lawful use and not how to measure the term of lawful use. The Court stated that it is reasonable to deny a conditional use where the use is determined to be incompatible with surrounding uses when applying relevant legal standards. The Court determined the interpretations the Appeal Authority made and the district court confirmed were not incorrect interpretations of land use regulation or otherwise contrary to law.

Staker v Town of Springdale, 2020 WL 7779019 (UT App. 12/31/2020)