A state judge has refused to block the quarrying of granite from the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon, saying procedures were followed and no one has been harmed.
In a 10-page ruling issued Friday morning, 3rd District Judge Stephen L. Henriod rejected all the legal claims raised by Bruce and Karen Cunningham in their bid to stop the quarrying under way near their home."I expected the ruling," Karen Cunningham said outside Henriod's courtroom. "It's tough to sue the county and the LDS Church."
Her attorney, W. Cullen Battle, said he and his clients will review the judge's ruling and decide whether to appeal within the next few days.
At stake is not just the work at the LDS quarry site, Battle said, "but the bigger issue of whether we are going to have mining operations in Big and Little Cottonwood canyons."
The Cunninghams went to court May 21, the day after the Salt Lake County Planning Commission approved a conditional-use permit allowing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to extract granite from its historic quarry.
The church plans to mine 2,500 tons of granite from the site for the facade of its huge new assembly hall across the street from Temple Square. Granite from the same quarry was used to build the LDS Temple more than a century ago.
The Cunninghams, who live about 1,500 feet from quarry, alleged the permit was approved without adequate supporting information. They also said a quarry service road exceeds allowable slope restrictions and that residential properties are being damaged by runoff, erosion and the blasting at the site.
Henriod said state law limits the scope of judicial review of a land-use decision to whether the decision is arbitrary, capricious or illegal.
"It is not this court's function to weigh the evidence or make any independent judgment regarding what is best for the parties or citizens at large," he said.
However, Henriod said the evidence shows the county required the LDS Church to provide detailed grading, geotechnical and drainage plans and extensive information about the impact of the work on the environment and neighborhood.
"In short, water, air, vegetation, wildlife, geology, safety, master plan, noise and visual impact were all considered, in addition to every other issue raised by the Planning Commission . . . and every single issue raised by the public," Henriod said.
"Neither the Planning Commission nor the Board of County Commissioners acted arbitrarily or capriciously in granting the conditional-use permit."
The judge said the only substantive issue raised by the Cun-ning-hams was whether the County Commission had the authority to waive a 30 percent slope limit in the hillside protection ordinance. It does have that authority, he said.
Henriod also questioned the Cunninghams' standing to seek a review of the county's decision, saying such petitions require evidence of personal injury, not just a general interest shared with the public at large. The Cunninghams contended they had suffered water runoff damage and that the blasting was causing vibration damage to their home. They said several glass items were broken.
However, Henriod said, "The evidence presented at the hearing fails utterly to show that the Cunninghams have suffered any distinct, palpable injury."
Finally, the judge said the Cunninghams had administrative remedies for all their complaints except the road slope issue.
Karen Cunningham said she tried those administrative remedies, and they didn't work.
"I went to every single administrative hearing. (Commissioner Randy) Horiuchi told me at the last one that my only option was to take it to court," she said. "I had hoped they would listen."
Tom Larson, the quarry project manager, said he was pleased with the court's ruling. "It was our argument that we followed the process and satisfied in every way the public concerns," including mitigating impacts, he said.