Utah Court of Appeals
Can boards of adjustment grant variances from strict zoning road requirements? Save Our Canyons v. Salt Lake County Board of Adjustment Explained
Summary
Save Our Canyons challenged the Salt Lake County Board of Adjustment’s decision granting three variances from the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone ordinances for an access road to Wasatch Pacific’s property. The variances were needed because security concerns at the nearby water treatment plant required relocating the originally approved access road.
Analysis
In Save Our Canyons v. Salt Lake County Board of Adjustment, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a board of adjustment could grant variances from strict zoning ordinance requirements that prohibit roads from crossing slopes greater than fifty percent.
Background and Facts
Wasatch Pacific owned property approved for a 52-lot subdivision with an access road adjacent to the Salt Lake City Water Treatment Plant. After September 11, 2001, the Water Department objected to the road’s location due to security concerns and refused to provide service unless the road was relocated. Wasatch redesigned the access road but needed three variances from the Foothills and Canyons Overlay Zone ordinances, including one that stated “under no circumstances” shall any road cross slopes greater than fifty percent except for minor ski resort improvements.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented two main issues: whether the Board of Adjustment had authority to grant variances from ordinance provisions containing absolute prohibitions, and whether substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that the statutory variance criteria were met under Utah Code section 17-27-707.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court held that boards of adjustment retain authority to grant variances from zoning ordinance requirements, even those containing seemingly absolute language, when the statutory criteria are satisfied. The ordinance provision merely set development standards and did not explicitly prohibit variances. The court applied the substantial evidence standard for arbitrary and capricious challenges and correctness review for legal interpretation questions. Critically, the court refused to address Save Our Canyons’ substantial evidence challenge because they failed to marshal the evidence supporting the Board’s decision.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that appellants challenging administrative decisions must marshal all supporting evidence or risk dismissal of their claims. The ruling also clarifies that boards of adjustment retain broad variance authority unless explicitly limited by ordinance language. For land use practitioners, the case demonstrates the importance of developing a complete factual record showing compliance with all five statutory variance criteria under section 17-27-707.
Case Details
Case Name
Save Our Canyons v. Salt Lake County Board of Adjustment
Citation
2005 UT App 285
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20040766-CA
Date Decided
June 23, 2005
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A board of adjustment may grant variances from zoning ordinance road standards when the statutory criteria are met and substantial evidence supports the decision.
Standard of Review
Substantial evidence for whether the Board’s decision was arbitrary or capricious; correctness for whether the Board’s decision violated a statute, ordinance, or existing law, with some level of non-binding deference to the Board’s interpretation
Practice Tip
When challenging board of adjustment decisions, appellants must marshal all evidence supporting the board’s findings or risk having their claims dismissed for failure to properly brief the issue.
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.