Can property owners challenge zoning ordinances in CLUDMA petitions for review? Gillmor v. Summit County Explained

The Utah Supreme Court’s decision in Gillmor v. Summit County provides important guidance for practitioners challenging county land use decisions under the County Land Use Development and Management Act (CLUDMA). The court clarified the scope of claims that may be raised in petitions for review and rejected restrictive interpretations of statute of limitations periods for facial challenges.

Background and Facts

Nadine Gillmor owned over 500 acres in Summit County’s Synderville Basin area. In 1998, the county adopted a general plan and development code governing the area. After unsuccessful attempts to sell her property due to zoning restrictions, Gillmor submitted applications in 2004 to amend the development code and develop her property at higher densities. The county denied both applications. Gillmor then filed a petition for review under CLUDMA section 801(2)(a) within thirty days of the denials, challenging both the county’s decisions and the facial validity of the underlying zoning ordinances.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two primary issues: whether Gillmor’s claims were time-barred, and whether property owners may assert facial challenges to zoning ordinances in CLUDMA petitions for review. The county argued that facial challenges to zoning ordinances must be brought within thirty days of enactment, not when the ordinance is applied to deny a specific application.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Utah Supreme Court reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment. The court held that Gillmor’s petition satisfied CLUDMA’s jurisdictional requirements because: (1) the county’s denials adversely affected her interests, (2) the decisions were made in exercise of CLUDMA provisions, and (3) her petition was filed within thirty days. Importantly, the court rejected the county’s argument that facial challenges must be brought within thirty days of ordinance enactment, explaining that such challenges accrue when injury occurs—typically when an ordinance is applied to deny a property owner’s request.

Practice Implications

This decision significantly expands the scope of challenges available in CLUDMA petitions for review. Practitioners may now include facial constitutional challenges to zoning ordinances when seeking to demonstrate that a county’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, or illegal. The ruling protects property owners from the harsh result of losing their right to challenge unconstitutional ordinances simply due to the passage of time since enactment, ensuring constitutional violations can be addressed when they actually cause injury through enforcement.