May 30, 2025
Utah Court of Appeals
2025 UT App 85 (click for full text of opinion)
The Utah Court of Appeals held that a resident could not challenge a rezone approval on the basis of a due process violation for alleged missteps in city council rules of procedure.
A developer applied to Ivins City for a zoning change on a 113-acre property from single-family residential to resort commercial to allow for the construction of a resort and other commercial buildings. Following a favorable recommendation by the city’s planning commission, a public hearing was held at a city council meeting, during which local residents, including Michael Cook, voiced opposition to the project.
After a motion to approve the zoning change failed to get a second, a council member moved to deny the change. That motion was seconded but failed in a 2-2 tie. Subsequently, a council member who had voted against the denial motion moved to approve the zoning change, and this motion passed 3-2.
Cook and other residents filed a lawsuit, arguing that the City Council’s approval was an invalid because it violated the city council rules of procedure in Ivins City code. Cook argued that the final vote to approve the zoning change was an improper “reconsideration” of the previous denial motion. He claimed that under the Ivins City Code, a request to reconsider a matter must be made by a member who voted with the majority on the initial vote. The council member who made the final motion had voted with the minority on the denial motion. Cook also asserted that the City violated his due process rights by failing to follow its own procedures, thereby depriving him and other citizens of a meaningful opportunity to be heard.
The Utah Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of Ivins City and found no reversible error. The court determined that the council’s final vote was not a “reconsideration” of the prior denial. Instead, it was a separate, independent motion on the same agenda item. The court noted that a failed motion is not a final action and does not need to be reconsidered. Because the council’s action was not a reconsideration, the procedural rules governing reconsideration did not apply. The court also concluded that Cook’s due process rights were not violated. He and other citizens had a meaningful opportunity to be heard at the public hearing, where they were able to express their concerns. The court emphasized that due process in legislative matters, like zoning, requires only notice and a fair opportunity to be heard, which the city provided. Cook failed to demonstrate that the procedural issues he alleged actually prejudiced him or prevented the council from engaging in a fair process.
