Case Name: Thomas F. HERR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, et al., Defendants and Appellants
Court: Utah Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Utah
Decision Date: 1974-08-14
Citations: 525 P.2d 728
Docket Number: No. 13549
Parties: Thomas F. HERR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, et al., Defendants and Appellants.
Judges: CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 525
Pages: 728–730

Head Matter:
Thomas F. HERR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SALT LAKE COUNTY, a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, et al., Defendants and Appellants.
No. 13549.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Aug. 14, 1974.
Carl J. Nemelka, Salt Lake Co. Atty., Kent S. Lewis, Deputy Salt Lake Co. Atty., Salt Lake City, for defendants and appellants.
Robert S. Campbell, Jr., R. G. Grouss-man, and Glen E. Davies, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

Opinion:
ELLETT, Justice:
Plaintiff owns approximately 28 acres of land in Salt Lake County. On or about November 22, 1972, he made application to the Salt Lake County Planning Commission for authority to construct a condominium village. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application and on February 13, 1973, unanimously approved the application subject to the subsequent setting forth of certain conditions to be imposed upon the unit development. On February 21, 1973, an appeal was taken to the Board of Commissioners of Salt Lake County from the order of the Planning Commission by residents of the community wherein the condominium was to be constructed. The appeal was heard March 8, 1973, and was taken under advisement until March 19, 1973, at which time the County Commissioners reversed and overturned the unanimous decision of the Planning Commission.
Plaitniff then brought an action in the District Court pursuant to Rule 65B (b)(3), U.R.C.P., to review and vacate the ruling of the County Commissioners and to compel them to issue the permit as granted by the Planning Commission. The trial court reversed the order of the County Commission and granted the application for a conditional use of the planned development. It is from that judgment that this appeal was taken.
The issue involved in this matter is the interpretation to be placed upon Section 22-31-2(6) (b) of the Revised Ordinances of Salt Lake County, which reads:
The Board of County Commissioners, after proper review of the decision of the Planning Commission, may affirm, reverse, alter or remand for further review and consideration any action taken by said Planning Commission and shall make such decision within seven (7) days of the hearing of the appeal. [Emphasis added.]
The question is: Does the word shall quoted above mean that the decision must be rendered within seven days of the hearing, or is it merely advisory and does not require a decision to be rendered at any particular time?
The meaning of the word shall is ordinarily that of command. It is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as follows: "2. . d. Compulsion, with the force of must, in statutes, deeds, and other legal documents." The United States Supreme Court distinguished between the words may and shall in the case of Anderson v. Yungkau, 329 U.S. 482, 67 S.Ct. 428, 91 L.Ed. 436 (1946) as follows.
The word "shall" is ordinarily "language of command." Escoe v. Zerbst, 295 U.S. 490, 493, 55 S.Ct. 818, 819, 79 L.Ed. 1566. And when the same Rule uses both "may" and "shall", the normal inference is that each is used in its usual sense — the one act being permissive, the other mandatory.
The County Commission did not act within seven days but took eleven days after the hearing before it attempted to reverse the Planning Commission. Did it thereby lose jurisdiction to make its ruling? The trial court thought that it did.
This court had a related problem before it in Lund v. Cottonwood Meadows Co., 15 Utah 2d 305, 392 P.2d 40 (1964). Involved in that case was an ordinance of Salt Lake County which provided that an aggrieved party might appeal from a ruling of the Planning Commission to the Board of Adjustment within ninety days after the decision. This court held that the ninety-day period was jurisdictional, saying:
The 90-day limitation of Sec. 17-27-16 is designed to assure speedy appeal to the proper tribunal any grievance that a party may have who is adversed by a decision of an administrative agency. The evident purpose of the statute is to assure the expeditious and orderly development of a community, etc. . . .
We think the County Commission should abide by its/ own ordinance which says it shall make its decision within seven days after the hearing, and if it fails so to do, it loses its jurisdiction in the matter.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed. No costs are awarded.
CALLISTER, C. J., and HENRIOD and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.
. Such as the height of the building, the slope of the roof, water and sewer connections, fire protection, nearness to ridge line, etc.