Grantsville council and planning commission receive training on conditional-use permits

Grantsville held a joint training session Nov. 18, 2025, where Jordan Kolimore, lead attorney at the Property Rights Ombudsman's Office, advised the City Council and Planning Commission on how to handle conditional-use permits and related land-use decisions.

Kolimore opened by distinguishing legislative actions from administrative decisions, telling the commission that "when you're making legislative decisions ... you make recommendations to the city council on legislative decisions" and that legislative choices (such as zone maps or annexations) receive greater deference from courts than administrative rulings. He said administrative reviews — including many conditional-use, subdivision and site-plan approvals — are largely exercises in compliance with objective rules.

Kolimore stressed the role of objective standards in protecting decision-makers from legal challenge. "You have to connect every condition that you impose to some standard in the ordinance," he said, adding that common standards address street service levels, traffic impacts, utilities and hours of operation. He recommended collecting targeted evidence, such as traffic or engineering studies, when a proposed use could reasonably create detrimental effects.

The ombudsman urged councils to ensure conditions and findings are stated on the record. "Decision makers must provide reasons ... make findings of fact and conclusions of law that are adequately detailed," he said, summarizing court guidance that failing to "show your work" can render a decision arbitrary and capricious.

Kolimore also cautioned that denials of conditional-use permits are rarely upheld but gave a recent appellate example from Springdale, where a court upheld a denial because the city produced evidence that no reasonable condition could mitigate the impacts. "If you are in that mindset of, 'I think we should deny this,' consult your legal counsel and staff and make sure you have the evidence to support that kind of a conclusion," he advised.

As a practical reform, he suggested converting frequently recurring conditional uses into permitted uses with clear design standards so applicants know requirements in advance. He cited Provo City's approach to RV and boat sales lots as an example where codified standards reduced repetitive case-by-case conditions.

The presentation also covered the public's role in administrative decisions: Kolimore noted that state law does not require a public hearing for every administrative application and that public input is most useful when it supplies factual information relevant to a specific standard (for example, a previously undocumented irrigation ditch). Local ordinances, he said, may still require hearings if the city chooses.

Attendees discussed whether the city should amend its process to allow certain staff approvals where objective conditions are met; several members replied that delegations should include a review or appeal path because staff opinions (for example from public works) have differed in past cases. Kolimore recommended consistency and tying any delegation to clear standards to reduce risk.

He closed by offering his office's resources and contact information and encouraged staff and council members to follow up with specific questions or materials.

The joint meeting returned to the regular council agenda after the training.