Former state property‑rights ombudsman briefs Morgan County planning commission on land‑use law

Morgan County planning commissioners received a land‑use law training from Craig Call, a former Utah property‑rights ombudsman, at their Aug. 14 meeting to review the difference between legislative rulemaking and administrative decisionmaking, how courts review each, and practical steps staff and commissioners should follow when handling zoning, subdivision and conditional‑use requests. Call spoke for roughly 90 minutes and answered commissioners’ questions.

Call told the commission the most important legal dividing line is whether an action is legislative — creating or changing land‑use rules and the future land‑use map — or administrative — applying those rules to a particular application. “On the legislative side, if an ordinance could promote the general welfare or it’s reasonably debatable that it is in the interest of the general welfare, then we will uphold it,” Call said, summarizing the standard of judicial deference to local policy decisions.

He contrasted that deference with the higher evidentiary requirement for administrative acts. “An administrative land use decision will be upheld if it’s supported by substantial evidence in the record and is legal,” Call said. He told commissioners that appeals of administrative denials frequently lose if the county’s decision is supported by experts, staff analysis and evidence presented at hearings; conversely, appeals often succeed when decisions rest only on public clamor or unsupported assertions.

Call also reviewed conditional uses and mitigation: the legislature requires that a conditional use “shall be approved if reasonable conditions are proposed or can be imposed to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use in accordance with applicable standards,” he said. He advised the commission to “show your work” on the record: identify negative aspects, identify conditions that mitigate those aspects, and explain why the conditions are reasonable rather than attempting to use conditions to eliminate a use entirely.

Using published court decisions and local examples, Call illustrated common pitfalls: (1) assuming the general plan binds the zoning map; (2) denying conditional uses without articulating mitigations tied to the specific aspects of the proposed change; and (3) imposing requirements not authorized by ordinance (for example, using financial viability as a denial ground when the ordinance does not provide for it). He reviewed nonconforming uses, exactions (impact fees and required improvements), and how ambiguous ordinance language is typically interpreted in favor of the property owner.

Call said the Property Rights Ombudsman program — funded in part by a 1% fee on building permits — provides advisory opinions and training; he directed commissioners and staff to utahlanduse.org for a short handbook and said copies of a longer guide were available. Commissioners asked follow‑up questions about conditional‑use standards, subdivision review, planned‑community clustering, and how and when fire, road‑safety and slope/geology reviews come into the administrative phase of a development review.

The briefing concluded with Call offering copies of his handbook for commissioners and staff and an invitation to return for future training.