general illumination

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.

County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) granted a special exception to a property owner for construction of a banquet hall within an agricultural zoning district despite neighbor objections based on adverse effects to community. The court ruled that the BZA did not act outside of its statutory authorization and the proposed facility was acceptable for a special exception.

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.

Environmental activists brought action against federal government challenging Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approval of applications for permit to drill fracked wells on public lands, alleging that BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Nationa Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). District Court judged in favor of BLM; activists appealed. Activists had standing to bring action; environmental assessments adequately analyzed cumulative effects of granting drill applications as required by NEPA; activists failed to show BLM acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

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.