Utah

Standing

• Cedar Mountain Enviornmental v. Tooele County, 2009 UT 48, 214 P.3d 95 (2010)

Zoning Ordinance Validity

• Gillmore v. Summity County, 2010 UT 69

Non-Conforming Use

• Thompson v. Logan City, 2009 UT App 335, 221 P. 3rd 907
• Vial v. Provo City, 2009 UT 122, 210 P. 3d 947

Constituionality of Municipal Inspection Fee

• Tooele Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Tooele City Corp., 2011 UT 04,

Rezoning Standard of Review

• Petersen v. Riverton City, 2010 UT 58, 243 P. 3d. 1261

Importance of the Record

• Morra v. Grand County, 2010 UT 21, 230 P. 3d. 1022,
• Pacific West Communities, Inc. v. Grantsville City, 2009 UT App 291, 221 P.3d 280
• Pen & Ink, LLC v Alpine City, 2010 UT App 203, 238 P. 3d 63,

Enforcement of Development Agreement

• Toole Association Ltd. v. Toole City, 2011 UT App 36

Ombundsman’s Scope of Authority

• Selman v. Box Elder County, 2009 UT App 99, 208 P.3d 535

Referendum

• Friends of Maple Mountain v. Mapleton City, 2010 UT 11
• BRAVE v. Beaver County, 203 P.3d 937 (Utah 2009)

Montana

• Plains Grains Limited Partnership V. Board of County Commisioners of Cascade County, 357 Mont. 6, 238 P.3d 332 (2010)
• Aspen Trails Ranch, LLC v. Simmons, 356 Mont. 41, 230 P.3d 808 (2010)
• MM &I, LLC v. Board of Conty Commsioners of Gallatin County, __ Mont. __, ___ P.3d ___ (2010)
• Hansen v. Granite County, 356 Mont. 269, 232 P.3d 409 (201)

Colorado

Outdoor Sign Code Regulation

• Mountain States Media, LLC v. Adams County, Colo. 289 Fed. Appx. 829 (10th Cir. 2010) – Adams County regulates the construction of outdoor signs via use permit; however, exempts signs that promote “civic events” from same permitting requirement.  The 10th Circuit upheld district courts finding that the exemption violated neither the First Amendment nor the Equal Protection Clause.  Moreover, the Court upheld the County’s special treatment of governmental civic event signs over private party civic event signs.

Arizona

Takings

• Dos Picos Land Limited Partnership v. Pima County, 225 Ariz. 458, 240 P. 3d 853 (Arizona App. 2010). Where private property is surrounded by mountain preserve owned by Pima County, and landowner is twice denied a special use permit to develop a road to connect the northern and southern portions of the property, the county’s attempt to maintain the status quo on undeveloped, private land constituted a regulatory taking.  The Court’s dicta further distinguishes REGULATORY and PHYSICAL takings as folowings:   Physical Taking – “direct government appropriation or physical invasion of private property.”  Regulatory Taking – “government regulation that deprive an owner of the economic benefit of the property.”

• Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Mesa, 226 Ariz. 7, 243 P.3d 610 (Ariz. App. 2010) HBACA sought a declaration that Mesa’s “cultural facilities development fee” was unlawful under ARS 9-463.05 which authorizes municipalities to impose development fees to offset costs that are necessary public services to a development.  HBACA argued unsuccessfully that (i) the cultural facilites were not “necessary”; (ii) no beneficial use to most new development; and (iii) fee was not reasonably related to the burden imposed by new development.  ”Necessary” public services was construed broadly by the AZ Court of Appeals to include existing services already provided by the City or those identified in the city’s general plan or infrastructure improvement plan.  The Court held that the City could impose the fee because it had traditionally provided cultural facilities and the City had sufficiently demonstrated that the fees would benefit new development and that the was a rational basis for the amount of the fee.  Goldwater Institute Statement.

• Tohono O’Odham v. City of Glendale  ___ Ariz. __, (App. 2011 ) CA-CV 10-034 Where a property owner timely challenges the validity of an annexation ordinance prior to it going to affect, the ordinance doesn’t automatically become final within 30-days.  (see helpful timeline and chronology of case at AzCentral.com)  Glendale plans to appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court.

CHRONOLOGY

1. NATION SUES GLENDALE (annexation case)

• November 27, 2001 – Glendale adopt ordinance on “Annexation Area 137″
• December 27, 2001 Land owner files a protests and petition with the Superior Court to set aside the annexation
• May 28, 2002 – Glendale adopts ordinance “repealing ‘Annexation Area 137.’”
• October 7, 2002 – Court dismisses petition from inactive calendar
• 2003 -  Tohono O’odham Nation buys land within “Annexation Area 137″ from the same land owner who had filed 2001 petition challenging annexation.
• January 2009 – Nation announces plans for “West Valley Resort & Casino”
• April 2009 – Council votes 6-1 to OPPOSE the Casino
• June 23, 2009 – Glendale adopts ordinance which claims its “interior boundary to have been extended and increase inclusive of the territory described as Annexation Area 137 as of December 27, 2001.”
• July 22, 2009 – Nation sued Glendale argues for the strict interpretation of ARS 9-471(D) and claiming (i) that “Area 137″ was timely challenged in 2001; (ii) Glendale’s own actions to repealed the annexation; (iii) annexation never became final or effective.  Nation filed SJM.  Glendale countered with SJM.
• March 2010 – Superior Court denied Nations Motion and granted summary judgment in favor of Glendale.  Subject property was annexed.
• May 3, 2011 – Arizona Court of Appeals reversed and remanded in favor of the Nation holding that “a timely challenged annexation does not automatically become final thirty days after the annexation ordinance [is] adopted; rather, the annexation becomes final when the judicial determination has been made as to the challenged annexation validity.”
• ARS 9-471(D)  ”The annexation shall become final after the expiration of thirty days from the adoption of the ordinance …., subject to the review of the court to determine the validity thereof if petitions in objection have been filed.”

2.  NATION SUES DEPT. OF INTERIOR (reservation designation case)

• March 2010 –  Nation sues Department of Interior (DOI) claiming it is stalling on accepting the application for its 135 acres.
• July 2010 – DOI accepts application on undisputed 54 acres.

3.  NATION SUES STATE (legislative act case)

• Feb 2, 2011 – Gov Brewer signs legislation that allows Glendales annexation to be approved within 90-days of the end of the legislative session.
• Feb 10, 2011 – Nation sues state

4.  STATE OF ARIZONA SUES NATION (gaming compact case)

• Attorney General Horne & GRIC sues claiming violation of State Gaming Compact

For a comprehensive analysis of current land use law cases presented at the 2011 Rocky Mountain Land Use Law Institue conference see the following presenters’ materials.

Doug Jorden (Arizona, Montana cases)

Neil A. Lindberg (Utah cases)

Jefferson H. Parker (Colorado cases)