Opinion ID: 2543536
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enforcement Claims

Text: ¶ 29 Section 1001 of the County Land Use Development and Management Act (Land Use Act) provides that [n]o person may challenge in district court a county's land use decisions made under this chapter or under the regulation made under authority of this chapter until they have exhausted their administrative remedies. Utah Code Ann. § 17-27-1001(1) (1996). The County asserts that plaintiffs were required under section 1001 to exhaust all administrative remedies, including those prescribed by, the Culbertson I court before filing their enforcement claims in district court. We disagree. ¶ 30 Section 1001 applies only when a party desires to challenge a land use decision. [13] Plaintiffs do not challenge any decisions made under the Land Use Act, but instead seek enforcement of decisions made pursuant to it, i.e., zoning ordinance and the CUP. Enforcement of the act and ordinances made pursuant to it is addressed in 1002, which provides that (a) ... any owner of real estate within the county in which violations of this chapter or ordinances enacted under the authority of this chapter occur or are about to occur may, in addition to other remedies provided by law, institute: (i) injunctions, mandamus, abatement, or any other appropriate actions; or (ii) proceedings to prevent, enjoin, abate, or remove the unlawful building, use, or act. Utah Code Ann. § 17-27-1002 (1999). ¶ 31 Because plaintiffs own real estate in Salt Lake County where the alleged violations of the Land Use Act occurred, they are permitted to seek enforcement of ordinances made pursuant to the Act directly in district court without first exhausting administrative remedies. Thus, the Culbertson I court's ruling that plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies before refiling their zoning ordinance and CUP enforcement claims was erroneous.