Opinion ID: 2601845
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: direction to trial courts facing marakis determinations

Text: ¶ 19 Again, Marakis requires a four step, sequential analysis. First, [t]he trial court must consider adequate notice as a threshold matter when petitioners claim that the enacting authority did not give citizens proper notice of the zoning change in question. Citizen's Awareness Now v. Marakis, 873 P.2d 1117, 1123 (Utah 1994). [I]f the trial court concludes that the notice was adequate, it must then determine whether the change was legislative or administrative using the three policy elements. Id. Second, the trial court asks whether the newly enacted zoning change falls within the general purpose and policy of the original zoning ordinance. Id. at 1124. [I]f the zoning change does not comport with the general purpose and policy of the original ordinance, a legislative presumption attaches and the trial court must then consider the final two elements. Id. Third, [t]he trial court must decide whether the zoning change `constitutes such a material variation from the basic zoning law of the governmental unit as to constitute ... the making of a new law rather than merely ... implementing the comprehensive plan and adjusting it to current conditions.' Id. (quoting Wilson v. Manning, 657 P.2d 251, 254 (Utah 1982)) (ellipses in original). If a material variance is found, a legislative presumption again attaches and the court proceeds to the final step. Id. at 1124-25. In the fourth step, the trial court determines whether the zoning change implicates a policy-making decision amenable to voter control. Under this element, even if the zoning change was not within the general purpose and policy of the original ordinance and even if it amounts to a material variance, the change should nevertheless be ruled administrative if voter participation is inappropriate. Id. at 1125. ¶ 20 This sequential approach creates problems on appeal. An appellate court may overturn a trial court's decision on an early element of the Marakis test, and then, lacking findings on the subsequent elements of the test, be forced to remand the case for a trial court's determination of additional Marakis elements. This process is inefficient and expensive. In order to facilitate appellate review, reduce expenses for all parties, and promote judicial economy, we now provide direction to the trial courts. ¶ 21 In the future, trial courts faced with a Marakis evaluation should consider all four factors of the test. Findings of fact and conclusions of law should be made for each element. Having made findings and reached conclusions, the trial court is then to apply them sequentially as outlined in Marakis. Thus, if a trial court finds, for example, that a party has not met the notice requirement and subsequently an appellate court disagrees, the appellate court may then proceed with a review of the trial court's findings on the remaining three elements, eliminating the need for remand on those issues.