Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
State property-rights ombudsman outlines advisory opinions, appeals and pitfalls for Emigration Canyon planning commission
Summary
Richard Plaine of the Utah Property Rights Ombudsman’s office told the Emigration Canyon planning commission that advisory opinions (added to statute in 2006) are nonbinding but influential, can lead to attorney-fee awards if a court reaches the same result, and can be requested by property owners, neighbors with standing or local governments. Plaine also reviewed vested rights, pending-ordinance holds and limits on local design controls.
Richard Plaine, an attorney with the Utah Property Rights Ombudsman’s office, told the Emigration Canyon planning commission that the office issues nonbinding advisory opinions that are written like judicial analyses and often resolve land-use disputes without litigation.
"We write an opinion as if we were a judge," Plaine said, describing the office’s work since the advisory-opinion authority was added to its statute in 2006. He said the office was created by the legislature in 1997 to mediate eminent‑domain disputes and later expanded its role into land‑use advisory opinions.
Plaine explained how advisory opinions interact with courts: an opinion is not itself binding, but if a party ignores an ombudsman opinion and later loses in court on the same issue, the court may award attorney’s fees against the government. "If we issue an opinion and the court rules on the same issues the same way we did, then the court could award attorney’s fees," he said.
The ombudsman clarified who can request an opinion and when: property…
Already have an account? Log in
Subscribe to keep reading
Unlock the rest of this article — and every article on Citizen Portal.
- Unlimited articles
- AI-powered breakdowns of topics, speakers, decisions, and budgets
- Instant alerts when your location has a new meeting
- Follow topics and more locations
- 1,000 AI Insights / month, plus AI Chat