Can district courts hear evidence when reviewing county land use decisions? B.A.M. v. Salt Lake County Explained

In B.A.M. v. Salt Lake County, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important procedural question about the scope of district court review in county land use appeals. The decision clarifies the limits on judicial review under Utah Code section 17-27-1001 and has significant implications for how practitioners approach county land use appeals.

Background and Facts

B.A.M. Development sought to develop a subdivision in Salt Lake County. Initially, the County required a 40-foot land dedication for road widening along 3500 South. However, after consulting with UDOT, the County increased the requirement to 53 feet. B.A.M. objected, arguing the additional dedication constituted an unconstitutional taking. Both the Planning Commission and Board of Commissioners denied B.A.M.’s appeal without conducting hearings or receiving evidence. B.A.M. then filed suit in district court, claiming the dedication requirement was unconstitutional.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether the district court properly received evidence to determine the constitutionality of the County’s land dedication requirement. This required interpreting Utah Code section 17-27-1001, which governs appeals from county land use decisions. The court also had to determine whether the absence of an administrative record affected the scope of judicial review.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals held that the district court exceeded its authority by conducting an evidentiary hearing. Under section 17-27-1001, district courts reviewing county land use decisions must presume the decisions are valid and determine only whether they are arbitrary, capricious, or illegal. Unlike section 17-27-708 governing board of adjustment appeals, section 17-27-1001 contains no provision authorizing courts to receive evidence. The court found that the absence of an administrative record meant the Board of Commissioners acted arbitrarily and capriciously in deciding B.A.M.’s takings claim without a hearing.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the critical importance of creating an adequate administrative record at the county level. Practitioners must ensure that all relevant evidence and arguments are presented during administrative proceedings, as district courts cannot supplement the record on appeal. When county agencies fail to conduct proper hearings, the appropriate remedy is to find their decisions arbitrary and capricious, not to cure the deficiency through judicial fact-finding. The decision also provides guidance on development exactions and suggests that future county hearings on such claims should apply the Nollan/Dolan “rough proportionality” test.