Opinion ID: 6317299
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: nma had the right to appeal the planning

Text: COMMISSION‘S DECISION TO THE COUNTY COMMISSION ¶18 We agree with the court of appeals that NMA had the right to appeal to the County Commission. ¶19 At the relevant time, Utah Code section 17-27a-703(1) (2009)8 provided that, ―any person adversely affected by the land use authority‘s decision administering or interpreting a land use ordinance may . . . appeal that decision to the appeal authority by alleging that there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the land use authority in the administration or interpretation of the land use ordinance.‖ We agree with the court of appeals, and sPower and the County do not dispute, that NMA is adversely affected by the Planning Commission‘s decision.9 See N. Monticello All. LLC v. San Juan Cnty., 2020 UT 79, ¶ 12, 468 P.3d 537. ¶20 The County and sPower argue that NMA did not have a right to appeal the Planning Commission‘s decision not to revoke the CUP to the County Commission under section 17-27a-703(1) because the decision was not a decision ―administering or interpreting‖ a land use ordinance. We disagree. The decision was administering the section of the Zoning Ordinance regarding revocation of CUPs. SJCZO § 6-10 (2011). So, NMA had a right to appeal the Planning Commission‘s decision to the County Commission, which sat as the appeal authority under Utah Code section 17-27a-701. ¶21 Even finding that NMA had a right to appeal to the County Commission, we disagree with the court of appeals that this right to appeal, coupled with the generic language requiring the County Commission to ―respect the due process rights‖ of participants to the appeal, means that NMA had a due process right to be heard by the Planning Commission. _____________________________________________________________ 8 The statute was amended slightly in 2020 and so we cite here to the version that went in effect in 2009 and was current in 2015 when NMA appealed the Planning Commission‘s decision to the County Commission. Compare UTAH CODE § 17-27a-703(1) (current), with id. § 17-27a-703(1) (2009). 9 While NMA, a limited liability company comprised of individual landowners, is not a ―person‖ in the colloquial sense, it meets CLUDMA‘s definition of person: ―[A]n individual, corporation, partnership, organization, association, trust, governmental agency, or any other legal entity.‖ UTAH CODE § 1727a-103(51). 9 NORTHERN MONTICELLO ALLIANCE v. SAN JUAN COUNTY Opinion of the Court