2017 UT App 75
THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
RICHARD SPECHT,
Appellant,
v.
BIG WATER TOWN, PAUL HYDE, AND DEBBIE HYDE,
Appellees.
Opinion
No. 20150775-CA
Filed May 4, 2017
Sixth District Court, Kanab Department
The Honorable Wallace A. Lee
No. 040600075
Bruce R. Baird and Dallis Nordstrom Rohde,
Attorneys for Appellant
Jeremy G. Knight and S. Spencer Brown, Attorneys
for Appellees
JUDGE KATE A. TOOMEY authored this Opinion, in which JUDGES
STEPHEN L. ROTH and MICHELE M. CHRISTIANSEN concurred.
TOOMEY, Judge:
¶1 Richard Specht challenges a land use variance and the
vacation1 of a cul-de-sac in Big Water (the Town), which the
1. In the land use context, the term ‚vacation‛ is defined as ‚a
termination of the public interest in a street or highway by
formal or positive action of the public authority.‛ Private
Easement in Way Vacated, Abandoned, or Closed by Public, 150
A.L.R. 644 (1944). We note that a vacation may affect only a part
of a road, plat, or subdivision. 11 McQuillin, Municipal
Corporations § 30:188 (3d ed. 2010). Both parties refer to the
vacation as a ‚reduction‛ in their briefing. Although the terms
(continued<)
Specht v. Big Water Town
Town’s Board of Adjustment (the Board) and Town Council (the
Council) granted in favor of Specht’s neighbors, Paul Hyde and
Debbie Hyde (the Hydes). Specht appeals the district court’s
order denying his motion for summary judgment and granting
the Hydes’ cross-motion for summary judgment. Specht makes
two principal arguments. First, he argues the variance was
arbitrary, capricious, and illegal because the Board did not make
findings as to each of the required conditions of a variance and
did not have substantial evidence to support its decision to grant
it. Second, Specht contends the cul-de-sac vacation was arbitrary,
capricious, and illegal because the Council did not have good
cause to support it and did not provide proper notice of its
hearings. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
¶2 The Hydes own two adjoining lots, lots 9 and 10, at the
end of the Rose Garden cul-de-sac in Big Water, Utah. Each lot is
smaller than one quarter of an acre.
The Variance
¶3 In July 2004, the Hydes applied for a building permit to
construct a house on lot 9. One week later, they applied for a
variance to decrease the rear yard setback requirement on the lot
from twenty feet to ten feet to ameliorate the steep downhill
grade from the cul-de-sac to their lot and to provide room to
install a septic tank. In their variance application, the Hydes
explained that, unlike the other lots in the Rose Garden cul-de-
sac, theirs was ten feet below the cul-de-sac. They stated that the
requested variance would not be contrary to the public interest
(