Can Utah counties modify agriculture protection area applications? Farley v. Utah County Explained

In Farley v. Utah County, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether counties have discretion to modify applications for agriculture protection areas, even when the proposed land meets all statutory criteria.

Background and Facts
The Farleys submitted an application to Utah County requesting creation of an agriculture protection area to shield their land from future zoning decisions and municipal regulations that would interfere with agricultural use. Utah County received modification requests from Payson City and the County Engineer’s Office, seeking to exclude portions of the Farleys’ land that might be needed for road widening or utility line installation. After public hearings and conflicting recommendations from the Advisory Board and Planning Commission, Utah County approved the application with the requested modifications. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Utah County.

Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether Utah County had discretion to modify the application under the Agricultural and Industrial Protection Areas Act, or whether the county was required to approve the application without modification once the statutory criteria in Utah Code section 17-41-305 were met. Secondary issues included whether the county’s action violated the Farleys’ due process and equal protection rights.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court of appeals examined the statutory scheme as a whole, focusing on Utah Code sections 17-41-303 through 17-41-305. The court found that while section 17-41-305 requires consideration of specific criteria, it does not mandate approval when those criteria are met. The statute grants legislative bodies discretion to “approve, modify and approve, or reject” applications. The court emphasized that some criteria involve forward-looking inquiries requiring analysis of “anticipated trends in agricultural and technological conditions,” which cannot be mechanically applied. Additionally, the court noted that the Farleys failed to marshal evidence supporting Utah County’s decision, which was fatal to their arbitrary and capricious claim.

Practice Implications
This decision clarifies that counties retain significant discretion in agriculture protection area applications. Practitioners should advise clients that meeting the statutory criteria does not guarantee approval without modifications. When challenging county decisions, thorough marshaling of evidence is essential to avoid failing the burden of persuasion on appeal. The decision also demonstrates that without a legitimate property interest, landowners cannot establish due process violations based merely on unilateral expectations of favorable treatment.