Smith Investment Company v. Sandy City

Utah Court of Appeals

958 P.2d 245 (Utah Ct. App. 1998)

     A zoning ordinance must be reasonably related to serving the public health, safety, or general welfare.  If a land use restriction is unreasonable or irrational, it may be found to violate the substantive component of the due process clause. 

     If an ordinance could promote the general welfare; or even if it is reasonably debateable that it is in the interest of the general welfare, it is valid.  The focus is not on the alleged or potential effects, but on the ordinance itself, and the justification for adopting it. 

     The selection of one method or approach over another is entirely within a local government’s discretion.

Full Text of Smith Investment Company v. Sandy City

RETURN to Appellate Decisions Section