Company

Proposed natural gas pipeline project would impact wetlands. State found the project to be water dependent and the least environmentally damaging option. An environmental organization filed a petition for review. Court found that it has jurisdiction, State's interpretation of water dependency should be upheld, and that State's rejection of a compression alternative was reasonable and nonarbitrary.

Landowner applied to the Board of Adjustment for a permit to develop a medical clinic, which was denied based on concerns for the neighborhood. Court found that the landowner should have had a second chance to present evidence, and that the Board must make reviewable findings of fact based solely on the testimony and evidence presented at hearings.

Property owner sought to rezone land from residential to business. Application was denied by County Board of Commissioners due to potential adverse effects. The court held that the property owner was entitled to de novo review by trial court.

The Utah County Board of Adjustment (the Board) denied the plantiff company's application for a permit to use 65-foot silos due to public concerns about that the increased height of the silos. The Court found there was insufficient evidence to support the Board's decision in denying the permit and found that the plaintiff had met its burden of proof that the additional height of the silos would not have a negative effect on the public health, safety, and welfare or surrounding property
values. The Court affirmed the district court's decision to set aside the Board's denial.

Environmental activists brought action against the Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife Service, and electric utility company for violating Clean Water Act (CWA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the process of obtaining a permit to construct a new coal-fired power plant. Court ruled that irreparable harm, balance of hardship, and public interest supported injunction.

Plaintiff developer applied for a conditional use permit to build condominiums on his property. The County Board of Adjustment denied the application following laywitness testimony about concerns with regard to increased traffic, noise, litter, and light pollution. The Court found that the laywitness concerns were contained in the list of reasons set out in section 408.4 of the Code which support the denial of a request for a conditional use permit. The Court affirmed the trial court's judgment that the County Board of Adjustment did not err in denying plaintiff developer the application for a conditional use permit.

Landowners brought action against the City for nuisance caused by lighting system at a nearby city park. Trial court dismissed landowners' petition. Court of Appeals held that landowners were entitled to amend their petition to plead claim of inverse condemnation on remand.

Plaintiff company brought a suit for private nuisance against defendant gas station due to illumination intereference by the gas station on plaintiff's plans to expand its drive-in theater experience. The Court affirmed the circuit court's judgment to set aside the trial court's judgment and damages awarded in favor of plaintiff due to legally insufficient evidence to support a private nuisance claim against defendant.

City of Tucson outdoor lighting code prohibited bottom-mounted lighting on billboards. Whiteco Outdoor Advertising sought to enjoin city from enforcing lighting code against their existing billboards. The Court held that the City's charter provides general police power to regulate billboard lighting.