Utah Supreme Court
Can county councils rescind zoning ordinances before they take effect? L.C. Canyon Partners v. Salt Lake County Explained
Summary
L.C. Canyon Partners purchased property zoned FR-20 requiring twenty-acre minimums, obtained council approval for rezoning to FR-2.5, but the council rescinded the ordinance before its effective date. The district court granted summary judgment for the county on due process, rescission authority, and takings claims.
Analysis
In a significant decision for Utah land use practitioners, the Utah Supreme Court in L.C. Canyon Partners v. Salt Lake County clarified that municipal legislative bodies retain broad authority to rescind ordinances before their effective date, even when property owners have expectations about favorable zoning changes.
Background and Facts
L.C. Canyon Partners purchased a 15.359-acre parcel near Little Cottonwood Canyon that was zoned FR-20, requiring twenty-acre minimums for residential construction. After obtaining planning commission approval, the Salt Lake County Council voted 5-2 to approve rezoning 3.543 acres from FR-20 to FR-2.5 on October 18, 2005. However, one week later, citing confusion about the property’s location, a council member moved for reconsideration. On November 1—one day before the ordinance’s effective date—the council voted 5-2 to rescind the rezoning ordinance.
Key Legal Issues
L.C. Canyon Partners challenged three aspects of the county’s actions: (1) whether the FR-20 zoning violated due process as applied to their property; (2) whether the council had authority to rescind the approved ordinance; and (3) whether the rescission constituted a regulatory taking.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the county on all claims. On the due process challenge, the court found that general zoning rules need only bear a rational relationship to legitimate government objectives, noting that “zoning regulations are neither designed nor required to advance their public purposes with perfect precision.”
Regarding rescission authority, the court analyzed Robert’s Rules of Order, which govern county procedures. The court distinguished between Rule 36 (reconsideration with a one-day deadline) and Rule 37 (rescission with broader authority). Because the ordinance had not yet taken effect and no party had reasonably relied on it, the council properly exercised its Rule 37 authority to rescind.
Finally, the court rejected the takings claim, holding that L.C. Canyon Partners had “only a unilateral hope” regarding the zoning change, not a vested property interest entitled to constitutional protection.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that statutory waiting periods for municipal ordinances serve purposes beyond mere notice—they preserve legislative bodies’ authority to reconsider hasty decisions. Property owners should not assume zoning approvals create immediate vested rights. Practitioners representing developers should consider protective contract language regarding rescission risks and pursue variance procedures when challenging particularized applications of general zoning rules.
Case Details
Case Name
L.C. Canyon Partners v. Salt Lake County
Citation
2011 UT 63
Court
Utah Supreme Court
Case Number
No. 20090569
Date Decided
October 18, 2011
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
County councils have authority under Robert’s Rules to rescind ordinances before their effective date when no vested rights have been created.
Standard of Review
De novo for summary judgment
Practice Tip
When drafting development agreements contingent on zoning changes, include specific language protecting against rescission during statutory waiting periods.
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.