Appellant's Brief
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS NORTHERN MONTICELLO ALLIANCE, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, BRIEF OF NORTHERN Plaintiff/Appellant, MONTICELLO ALLIANCE, LLC v. SAN JUAN COUNTY COMMISSION, a Appellate Case No. 20180225‐CA political subdivision of the State of Utah and SAN JUAN COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah. District Court Case No. 170700006 Defendants/Appellees. SUSTAINABLE POWER GROUP, LLC and LATIGO WIND PARK, LLC, Intervening Respondents. Appeal from the Seventh Judicial District Court, San Juan County, Utah The Honorable Lyle Anderson, District Court Judge J. Craig Smith (4143) Barton H. Kunz II [email protected] GOEBEL ANDERSON PC Jennie B. Garner (5486) 405 South Main Suite 200 [email protected] Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 SMITH HARTVIGSEN, PLLC Attorneys for Appellees 257 East 200 South, Suite 500 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Paul W Shakespear Telephone: (801) 413-1600 Elizabeth M. Brereton Facsimile: (801) 413-1620 SNELL & WILMER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff/Appellant 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Gateway Tower West Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Attorneys for Intervenors LIST OF CURRENT PARTIES Northern Monticello Alliance, LLC, Plaintiff/Appellant San Juan County Commission, Defendant/Appellee San Juan County, Defendants/Appellee Sustainable Power Group, LLC, Intervening Respondent Latigo Wind Park, LLC, Intervening Respondents ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF CURRENT PARTIES .......................................................................................... ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................................................................... v JURISDICTION .................................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1 ISSUES AND STANDARDS OF REVIEW ...................................................................... 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ........................................................................................... 5 A. Issuance of the Amended CUP ................................................................................. 5 B. Proceedings to Revoke Amended CUP .................................................................... 7 C. Appeal of Decision Not to Revoke Amended CUP ................................................. 9 D. Reconsideration of Remand to the Planning Commission ..................................... 10 E. First Appeal to District Court. ................................................................................ 12 F. Remand to County Commission ............................................................................. 13 G. Second Appeal to District Court ............................................................................ 14 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................................... 16 ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 18 I. The District Court Erred in Declining to Review Whether the Planning Commission’s Decision was Supported by Substantial Evidence Under the McElhaney v. City of Moab Standard. .............................................................................................. 18 A. The failure of the Planning Commission to produce written findings renders its decision not to revoke the Amended CUP arbitrary and capricious. ..................... 18 B. The only remedy is remand to the Planning Commission. ................................ 20 iii C. Mitigation conditions in the Amended CUP have been violated. ..................... 22 1. sPower failed to fulfill financial mitigation conditions ................................ 23 2. Any failure by the Planning Commission to clearly enunciate the financial mitigation condition does not excuse its violation. .......................................... 26 3. Alternate mitigation conditions have been violated. .................................... 28 II. The District Court’s Final Order deprived NMA Members of their due process rights under the United States Constitution and the Utah Constitution. ........................ 34 A. NMA Members are entitled to due process protections. ................................... 35 B. NMA Members have never been given a meaningful opportunity to be heard. 36 C. The Planning Commission lacked the evidence it needed to make a fair decision on revocation. ......................................................................................................... 37 D. NMA Members were deprived of due process. ................................................. 39 III. The District Court erroneously ruled that reconsideration by the County Commission of its issued Final Written Decision was legal, where no state statute or county ordinance authorizes the County Commission to reconsider its final and announced decisions. ..................................................................................................... 40 A. The County has no authority or mechanism for rehearing or reconsideration. 41 B. Reconsideration was ultra vires, illegal and void. ............................................ 43 CONCLUSION………………………………………………………………………………....44 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH UTAH RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 24(A)(11) .................................................................................................. 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .......................................................................................... 47 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Augustus v. Vernal City, 2017 UT App 195, 407 P.3d 1007 ............................................... 3 Career Serv. Review Bd. v. Utah Dep't of Corr., 942 P.2d 933 (Utah 1997).................... 42 Clark v. Hansen, 631 P.2d 914 (Utah 1981) ..................................................................... 41 Gillett v. Price, 2006 UT 24, 135 P.3d 861 ....................................................................... 42 Grace Drilling Co. v. Bd. of Review of Indus. Comm'n of Utah, 776 P.2d 63 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) ..................................................................................................................... 22 Hansen v. Hansen, 958 P.2d 931 (Utah Ct. App. 1998) ..................................................... 2 McElhaney v. City of Moab, 2017 UT 65, __ P.3d __. ................... 2, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 22 Outfront Media, LLC v. Salt Lake City Corp., 2017 UT 74, 416 P.3d 389 ......................... 4 Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Network, 2012 UT 84, 299 P.3d 990 17, 34, 40 State v. Pena, 869 P.2d 932 (Utah 1994) .................................................................... 2, 3, 4 T.B. v. M.M.J., (State ex rel. R.N.J.), 908 P.2d 345 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) ......................... 2 United States v. James Daniel Good Real Prop., 510 U.S. 43, 54 (1993) ........................ 35 View Condominium Owners Ass’n v. MSICO, L.L.C., 2004 UT App 104, ¶ 17, 90 P.3d 1042 ................................................................................................................................ 35 v Constitutions U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 ........................................................................................... 31 UTAH CONST. Art. I, § 7 .................................................................................................... 31 Statutes Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-101 ............................................................................................. 2 Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-103 ............................................................................................. 1 Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-701 ................................................................................. 1, 41, 42 Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-706 ........................................................................................... 42 Utah Code Ann § 17-27a-707 .................................................................................. 9, 10, 18 Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-708 ........................................................................................... 40 Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-801 ......................................................................... 19, 20, 36, 41 Utah Code Ann. § 78A-4-103(2)(j) ..................................................................................... 1 vi JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78A-4- 103(2)(j). INTRODUCTION This appeal arises from an administrative land use decision originally made by the San Juan County Planning and Zoning Commission (“Planning Commission”) as the “land use authority” pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-103(29), upheld by the San Juan County Commission (“County Commission”) as the “land use appeal authority” under Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-701(1), and upheld on further appeal by the Seventh Judicial District Court in and for San Juan County, State of Utah (the “District Court”). The land use decision at issue is the September 14, 2015 decision of the Planning Commission (the “P&Z Decision”) not to revoke an amended conditional use permit (the “Amended CUP”) held by Sustainable Power Group, LLC (“sPower”) to construct and operate a large wind turbine electric generating facility (the “Wind Facility”), comprising 27 wind turbines (“Turbines”) that are approximately 453 tall – taller than any other building in the entire state