Moulding Inv. v. Box Elder Cty.

545 P.3d 781

2024 UT App 23

MOULDING INVESTMENTS, LLC and Franklin Hill Regional Landfill, LLC, Appellants,

v.BOX ELDER COUNTY, Jeff Hadfield, Jeff Scott, and Stan Summers, Appellees.

No. 20220433-CA

Court of Appeals of Utah.

Filed February 23, 2024

First District Court, Brigham City Department, The Honorable Spencer D. Walsh, No. 200100101

Chris R. Hogle and Michelle Quist, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellants

Barton H. Kunz II, Salt Lake City, Attorney for Appellees

Judge Ryan D. Tenney authored this Opinion, in which Judges Ryan M. Harris and Amy J. Oliver concurred.

Opinion

TENNEY, Judge:

¶1 Moulding Investments, LLC (Moulding¹) wants to operate a landfill on property that it owns in Box Elder County (the County). After the County denied Moulding’s request for a necessary zoning change, Moulding sued, alleging that the County had violated Moulding’s equal protection rights by improperly favoring another proposed landfill within the County. The district court dismissed Moulding’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Moulding now appeals. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

BACKGROUND²

The Promontory Point Landfill

¶2 In 2003, some landowners petitioned the County for a conditional use permit to operate a commercial landfill that would be referred to as the Promontory Point Landfill (the PPL). The PPL would be located near the Promontory Point peninsula in the southernmost portion of the County and "within a half-mile from the Great Salt Lake." The PPL would be accessible by rail, but it would otherwise be accessible only "by several miles of county road," the last few miles of which were unpaved. When the Box Elder County Planning Commission (the Planning Commission) held a public meeting on the petition in June 2003, there was some opposition. After the Planning Commission discussed access, public safety, and environmental concerns with the owners, the Planning Commission recommended approving the petition. The petition then went to the Box Elder County Commission (the County Commission), which unanimously approved it. The proposed PPL was not subsequently put into operation, however, and this conditional use permit expired by 2009.

¶3 Around the time that this conditional use permit expired, the County Commission adopted Ordinance 319. This ordinance required all landfills to be located in a newly created Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) zone. The PPL had a new owner by this point, and this owner applied to have the PPL property rezoned as an MSW zone. The Planning Commission discussed this application at a November 2009 meeting. The minutes from this meeting show that just a single comment was made about the MSW application, with a citizen asking "if re-zoning this property would have any effect on the land value of his property in the area." The Planning Commission ultimately voted to recommend that the County Commission approve the rezoning request. When the matter was brought to the County Commission in January 2010, another citizen expressed concern about the effects that the proposed zoning change (and, presumably, a landfill) would "have on private property." At the close of the discussion, the County Commission voted to approve the PPL’s request for a zone change to a MSW zone. In September 2011, the PPL received a permit from the Utah Department of Environmental Quality (the DEQ) to operate a landfill. After receiving this permit, however, the PPL did not obtain another conditional use permit at that time, which was necessary to allow it to. begin operating the landfill.

Moulding’s Proposed Landfill

¶4 Moulding owns 2,200 acres of private property in the County, located approximately eight miles southeast of Snowville within the Hansel Valley. The property has been and still is unzoned. In April 2014, Moulding submitted an application to the County seeking to rezone 225 acres of its property as an MSW zone, with the intent to operate a landfill on it. That same day, Moulding also applied to the DEQ for a. permit to operate the proposed landfill. At that time, the PPL was still not operating, and the County had only one operating landfill.

¶5 During a May 2014 meeting, the Planning Commission considered Moulding’s application for an MSW zoning change. During the public comment period, several people raised concerns about culinary water contamination, seismic activity, flooding, local wildlife, the location of the landfill, and traffic to the site. At Moulding’s request, the Planning Commission tabled Moulding’s application so "that the concerns raised at the public hearing could be addressed by the appropriate agency within" the DEQ.

The PPL Receives a Conditional Use Permit

¶6 In March 2015, the PPL and the County signed a letter of intent for the County to purchase the PPL. The letter laid out the general terms of a proposed purchase agreement, but it was not binding on either party. In August 2015, as part of ongoing negotiations, the County contemplated the possibility of instead entering into a profit share agreement by which the County would own 60% of the PPL and share in its profits. But after the county attorney expressed concerns about the proposal and the public mounted considerable opposition, the County decided not to go through with this purchase, leaving the PPL fully private.

¶7 In November 2015, the County Commission was comprised of Jeff Hadfield, Jeff Scott, and Stan Summers. Of some note for this appeal, these commissioners were not the same commissioners who had approved the PPL’s earlier zoning application. This new County Commission approved Ordinance 414, which essentially overhauled the County’s MSW zoning ordinances. Among the changes was a reclassification of the MSW zone to a Solid Waste (SW) zone.

¶8 Due to an "oversight," the PPL’s zone was not updated when Ordinance 414 was enacted, meaning that it was still zoned as the now-defunct MSW zone. The Planning Commission approved a rezoning of the PPL to a SW zone at a June 2016 meeting, noting that the PPL was "overlooked when the other MSW zones in the county were re-zoned correctly." The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed rezoning, and the County Commission approved it a month later.

¶9 In March 2017, the Planning Commission approved a second conditional use permit (replacing the one that had expired in 2009) for the PPL to operate a landfill.

Moulding’s Renewed Request for a Zone Change

¶10 In the fall of 2019, the DEQ issued a decision granting Moulding a Class I landfill permit. Despite public comments that raised concerns about potential environmental or wildlife impacts, DEQ officials concluded that none of these issues warranted denial of the request.

¶11 After Moulding’s DEQ permit was issued, the relevant County authorities again considered Moulding’s previously tabled 2014 application for a zone change. On August 20, 2020, the Planning Commission met to consider Moulding’s application. At that meeting, Planning Commission members discussed several potential reasons for denying the application, including the likelihood of flooding in the area, potential safety impacts on the groundwater, public opposition to the possibility of bringing other counties’ garbage into the County, and the fact that "the existing capacity of the landfill presently in Box Elder County … has a 100-year lifespan." At the close of the discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended denying Moulding’s application based on the following findings:

public opposition, aquifer recharge area issue, elevation of the watershed being prone to flash flooding, it is a known seismic zone, adverse’ effect on neighboring properties, property values and future growth of the area … no existing need for an additional landfill in Box Elder County[, and] … the proposal is not harmonious with the general plan and presentation of Box Elder County.

The motion recommending denial passed unanimously.

¶12 On September 2, 2020, the County Commission met and reviewed the Planning Commission’s recommendation to deny Moulding’s application for a zone change. At that meeting, a commissioner stated that "the Planning Commission doesn’t take anything lightly and they do their due diligence when making decisions." Another commissioner noted that he "was at the public hearing and saw the public outcry against" Moulding’s proposed landfill and that he thought there were "legitimate concerns" with the application. And another commissioner pointed out that even if concerns with the application were "mitigated," there was "still overwhelming opposition[ ] to [Moulding’s] landfill."

¶13 At the close of the discussion, a commissioner made a motion to deny Moulding’s application based on the following findings:

Public opposition; Located in an aquifer recharge area; Location is prone to flash flooding; Location is in an area prone to seismic activity; Adverse effects on neighboring properties (value, litter, smell, traffic); Not a need (especially when considering existing capacity in the county, the adverse impacts, and public opposition); [and] Adverse impact (visual, litter) on the 1-84 Corridor, a corridor frequently used by travelers in the western U.S.

This motion passed unanimously.

Procedural History

¶14 In October 2020, Moulding sued the County as well as Commissioners Jeff Hadfield, Jeff Scott, and Stan Summers.³ In an amended complaint that ultimately governed the case (and which, for simplicity, we’ll refer to as "the complaint" moving forward), Moulding alleged that the County had violated its equal protection rights under both the Utah and the United States Constitutions. The complaint alleged that the County had violated Moulding’s rights "under [the] color of state law" by treating Moulding "differently from others similarly situated"—namely, the PPL—and that the County had "done so with ill will and without any rational or legitimate basis"

¶15 The complaint identified some...