Utah Supreme Court
Must counties obtain planning commission approval before selling public land? Toone v. Weber County Explained
Summary
Weber County sold 160 acres of recreational land to a private individual for $200 per acre without submitting the proposal to the planning commission or holding a public hearing. Plaintiffs challenged the sale over two years later, arguing it violated CLUDMA procedures and lacked adequate consideration. The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants, ruling the challenge was time-barred.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Toone v. Weber County clarifies important procedural requirements that counties must follow when disposing of public property under the County Land Use Development and Management Act (CLUDMA).
Background and Facts
Weber County sold 160 acres of mountain property known as Wolf Creek Park to a private individual for $200 per acre without obtaining planning commission review or holding a public hearing. The property had been used for public recreation, including hunting. After the sale, the new owner restricted access and charged fees for hunting privileges. Former users of the property filed suit over two years later, challenging the sale under CLUDMA and arguing it lacked adequate consideration.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed three primary issues: whether the challenge was time-barred by CLUDMA’s 30-day limitation period, whether section 17-27-305(2) requires planning commission review before selling county land, and whether the sale violated adequate consideration requirements under section 17-50-312.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the 30-day limitation applies only to challenges of substantive land use decisions, not to violations of CLUDMA’s procedural requirements. The court distinguished between decisions made “in exercise of” CLUDMA provisions and failures to comply with the Act’s mandates. Regarding section 17-27-305(2), the court found the language unambiguous: counties must submit proposed sales to the planning commission for review regardless of whether the property’s use will change. The court emphasized that CLUDMA and section 17-50-312 work in tandem—the latter provides authority to sell while the former mandates procedural safeguards.
Practice Implications
This decision establishes that procedural violations under CLUDMA may be challenged under section 17-27-1002 without time restrictions, unlike substantive land use decisions governed by section 17-27-1001. Counties must ensure compliance with planning commission review requirements even when selling property under separate statutory authority. The decision also highlights the importance of distinguishing between the county’s authority to act and the procedures required when exercising that authority.
Case Details
Case Name
Toone v. Weber County
Citation
2002 UT 103
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20010142
Date Decided
October 25, 2002
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A county’s sale of public property is void if the county fails to submit the proposed sale to its planning commission for review and recommendation as required by CLUDMA section 17-27-305(2).
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law and summary judgment
Practice Tip
When challenging county land sales under CLUDMA, distinguish between substantive land use decisions subject to the 30-day limitation period and procedural violations which may be pursued under section 17-27-1002 without time restrictions.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.