Opinion ID: 2640723
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Disconnection Is an Appropriate Remedy

Text: ¶ 76 Bluffdale argues that disconnection is precluded because the Plaintiffs' only remedies lie either in an appeal of the City's land use decision or in the application of the boundary adjustment statute. We disagree and affirm the district court's holding that disconnection is an appropriate remedy in this case. 1. The Plaintiffs Are Not Limited to an Appeal of the Zoning Decision ¶ 77 Utah Code section 10-9a-801 provides that any person adversely affected by a municipality's land use decision may file an appeal with the district court. [67] Bluffdale argues that the Plaintiffs were required to seek this remedy but did not because they would not have been able to meet the arbitrary and capricious standard of review. [68] Although it was the Plaintiffs' right to appeal Bluffdale's December 9, 2003 rejection of the General Plan Amendment, the Plaintiffs were not precluded from also filing a disconnection petition with the district court pursuant to section 10-2-502.5. Indeed, the Plaintiffs properly filed a request for disconnection with the City, and only thereafter did they seek relief from the district court as provided by statute. ¶ 78 Bluffdale further suggests that landowners will now attempt to disconnect from a municipality every time they disagree with a municipality's land use decision. But as the district court noted, It is a rare circumstance that a landowner affected by a planning and zoning decision could meet all the tests required for a successful disconnection case. Moreover, if landowners do meet all of the tests under the statute, as in this case, then, consistent with the legislative intent of the statute, they should be granted disconnection. 2. The Boundary Adjustment Statute Is a Remedy Solely for Municipalities, While the Disconnection Statute Is a Remedy for Private Property Owners ¶ 79 Bluffdale argues that section 10-2-419 provides the exclusive remedy for any municipal boundary adjustment. This argument is belied by the text of that statute, as well as by section 10-2-510. ¶ 80 The plain language of section 10-2-419(1) limits the boundary adjustment remedy to neighboring municipalities. Section 10-2-419(1) states as follows: The legislative bodies of two or more municipalities having common boundaries may adjust their common boundaries as provided in this section. [69] Only municipalities having common boundaries may adjust their boundaries under this section. Furthermore, Bluffdale ignores the plain language of the disconnection statute, which explicitly gives private property owners a means of adjusting municipal boundaries. Indeed, every disconnection, by its very nature, will adjust municipal boundaries. ¶ 81 While section 10-2-510 provides that the disconnection statute shall not be construed to abrogate, modify, or replace the boundary adjustment procedure provided in Section 10-2-419, the fact that private property owners may use a disconnection does not abrogate, modify, or replace the right of municipalities to use the boundary adjustment procedure. Neighboring municipalities are still free to adjust their boundaries. ¶ 82 Accordingly, the Plaintiffs could have appealed Bluffdale's land use decision to the district court, but were not precluded from filing a disconnection petition with the district court after the City denied a request for disconnection. [70]