Potential Legal Challenges

In my career I’ve had some exposure to legal issues, but I’m not a lawyer – so take the following with a grain of salt.

Overview
As I’ve talked to people about the Old Stage Road project, one concern I hear often is that Alterra/Solitude might sue the town if the project is blocked administratively. I don’t think it’s going to happen. A lawsuit would be costly, time-consuming, and bad PR. Legal precedent in Utah suggests litigation won’t succeed – and Solitude has more practical options if they remain determined to building the parking lots.

Potential Legal Claims
Again, I don’t believe litigation would be in Alterra/Solitude’s best interest. But here are the potential claims they might raise in a legal action against the town:

Arbitrary and Capricious Zoning Change
Risk: Low
Reasoning: Courts in Utah generally defer to local governments when zoning changes are consistent with a general plan update and applied uniformly. Hard to overturn unless clear procedural flaws exist. (Update 10/21/25: The Town of Brighton should consider voluntarily accepting liability for the loss in the Old Stage Road property value due to zoning changes – here’s why)

Vested Rights
Risk: Low
Reasoning: In Utah, vested rights only apply if a complete Conditional Use Permit application (CUP) was submitted before the zoning change. Unless Solitude had a fully complete CUP application on file, this argument is weak.

Lack of Due Process
Risk: Low
Reasoning: The town provided notice and hearing opportunities, which satisfies due process requirements. Courts rarely overturn zoning changes if procedures were followed.

Regulatory Taking (Fifth Amendment Takings Clause)
Risk: Low
Reasoning: The property retains economic value even under new zoning. Courts typically require near-total loss of use to sustain a takings claim, which doesn’t apply here.

Exclusion from Ski Resort Boundary
Risk: Medium
Reasoning: This is Solitude’s strongest argument. If other non-contiguous or undeveloped parcels are included in Brighton Resort’s official ski resort boundary (e.g., Brighton’s Hidden Canyon parcel), Solitude could argue Old Stage Road was excluded unfairly, arbitrarily, and inconsistently. This argument has more traction because it challenges the town’s internal logic and fairness in drawing the Ski Resort boundaries.

Will Alterra/Solitude Litigate?
While nothing is certain, the past provides some clues. I couldn’t find evidence that Alterra Mountain Company or Solitude Mountain Resort have a strong track record as aggressors in filing lawsuits.

Alterra has defended itself in cases like the Palisades Tahoe dispute. However, the only instance I could find of Alterra being the plaintiff was when they sued their insurer over denied COVID-related business interruption coverage. This doesn’t mean all of Alterra’s ski resort properties have the same approach, just that as far as I can tell Alterra HQ seems to try to stay out of the courtroom.

Solitude’s record appears similar. I believe over the years they have been defendants in sporadic personal injury or labor dispute lawsuits, but I can’t find much that they’ve initiated. The only notable exception is in 2024 when Solitude teamed up with Deer Valley as plaintiffs in a trademark infringement case.

All things considered, it seems unlikely that Alterra or Solitude would rush into litigation against the Town of Brighton. Litigation might be initiated if the dispute is viewed as especially consequential, and tied to broader issues like how ski resort boundaries are defined and the implications for future development flexibility.

But the stronger likelihood is they won’t bother. If Solitude remains committed to the parking lots, the play isn’t in the courtroom but at the Capitol – lobbying the Utah Legislature for a developer-friendly exemption that bypasses the town’s land-use authority altogether and potentially resolves their easement issue with Salt Lake City Public Utilities as well.

Legal Precedents in Utah Ski Resort Land Use Lawsuits
The following cases offer guidance on how Utah courts interpret local land use authority, property rights, and development boundaries in mountain communities.

Click the boxes below to expand

Park City Mountain Resort – Lift Upgrades Dispute (Summit County, 2022-2025)

VR CPC Holdings, Inc. v. Park City Municipal Corporation
Background
In 2022 Vail Resorts, owner of Park City Mountain Resort, proposed upgrading the Eagle and Silverlode lifts, claiming the project qualified for expedited approval under its 1998 Development Agreement. In April 2022, the city’s Planning Director granted an Administrative Conditional Use Permit (ACUP).
Residents appealed, arguing the upgrades violated the 1998 agreement. Key concerns included Vail’s unverified “Comfortable Carrying Capacity” (CCC) calculations, inadequate parking plans, and inconsistencies with the Mountain Upgrade Plan. In July 2022, the Planning Commission sided with residents and overturned the approval.

Legal Battle
In 2023, Vail Resorts sued Park City in Utah’s Third District Court, claiming the Planning Commission’s decision was unlawful and driven by public outcry. The judge disagreed, ruling that the commission acted within its authority and based its decision on reasonable evidence.
Vail appealed, but in August 2025 the Utah Court of Appeals upheld the lower court’s ruling in favor of Park City Municipal Corporation (Park City’s town government).

Lessons for Brighton
This case demonstates:

Local authority is strong – Utah courts defer to municipal land-use decisions when they are evidence-based and procedurally sound.
Developers cannot rely on outdated agreements to bypass review
Public input can play a decisive role in shaping land-use outcomes
Courts require “substantial evidence,” not perfect analysis, to uphold local decisions – which may be relevant if future disputes revolve around ski resort boundary lines

Sources:
KPCW. Judge upholds decision to block Park City Mountain Silverlode, Eagle upgrades. November 13, 2023. https://www.kpcw.org/park-city/2023-11-13/judge-upholds-decision-to-block-park-city-mountain-silverlode-eagle-upgrades

Justia Law. VR CPC Holdings v. Park City Municipal Corp. 2025 UT App 130. https://law.justia.com/cases/utah/court-of-appeals-published/2025/20240065-ca.html

Park Record. Utah judges side with citizens in dispute about Park City Mountain lift upgrades. August 28, 2025. https://www.parkrecord.com/2025/08/28/utah-judges-side-with-citizens-in-dispute-about-park-city-mountain-lift-upgrades/

TownLift. Utah Court of Appeals upholds Park City’s rejection of ski lift shortcut. September 2, 2025. https://townlift.com/2025/09/utah-court-of-appeals-upholds-park-citys-rejection-of-ski-lift-shortcut/

Wasatch Peaks Ranch Litigation (Morgan County, 2023-2024)

Croft et al. v. Morgan County, Wasatch Peaks Ranch LLC, Case No. 1:2023cv00114
Background
Wasatch Peaks Ranch (WPR) is a private luxury mountain community and ski resort for ultra-wealthy members in Morgan County, Utah. The development spans 12,000 acres of largely undeveloped land and includes skiing, golf, and other recreation amenities.

Legal Battle
The conflict began in 2019, when the Morgan County Council voted 6–1 to rezone the land from forestry/multiple use to a special resort district, clearing the way for the project despite more than 1,000 residents signing a letter of opposition.

Local residents petitioned for a referendum on the rezoning, but the county clerk rejected it
The residents sued in Utah’s Second District Court to force the referendum onto the ballot
WPR retaliated with civil lawsuits against the residents, seeking $5 million each (later increased to $10 million), alleging the petition harmed investor funding

In September 2023, the court ruled in favor of the residents’ referendum claim, prompting them to seek punitive damages against WPR. The ruling was immediately appealed, but in December 2023 the court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction halting all construction and sales.

In January 2024, the parties reached a settlement. WPR agreed to:

Place a 2,300-acre conservation easement on its property
Create a $4 million community foundation for Morgan County
Allow public trails across parts of its property for access to U.S. Forest Service land

Lessons for Brighton
This case shows how determined residents can influence major resort projects through legal action. The referendum strategy forced WPR into court and ultimately secured community concessions.

That said, the fight was long, expensive, and divisive – stretching over five years and involving high-stakes litigation. Brighton is unlikely to face the same dynamic, since its planning commission appears less likely to approve a deeply unpopular project.

Still, if future disputes escalate – such as over Old Stage Road – this case illustrates that organized, citizen-led legal challenges can halt development and push resorts to the negotiating table.

Sources:
vLex. Croft v. Morgan County. 2021 UT 64. August 12, 2021 https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/croft-v-morgan-cnty-899537446

Justia Dockets. Croft et al v. Morgan County et al. Case No. 1:23-cv-00114. October 19, 2023 https://dockets.justia.com/docket/utah/utdce/1:2023cv00114/143580

SnowBrains. Legal battle between Wasatch Peaks Ranch private resort and the residents of Morgan County, UT comes to an abrupt resolution. January 26, 2024 https://snowbrains.com/legal-battle-between-wasatch-peaks-ranch-private-resort-and-the-residents-of-morgan-county-ut-comes-to-an-abrupt-resolution

Salt Lake Tribune. Wasatch Peaks Ranch resort and Morgan County residents reach agreement in lawsuit. January 26, 2024 https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2024/01/26/wasatch-peaks-ranch-resort-morgan/

KPCW. Construction resumes as Wasatch Peaks Ranch and residents reach agreement in lawsuit. January 26, 2024 https://www.kpcw.org/2024-01-26/construction-resumes-as-wasatch-peaks-ranch-and-residents-reach-agreement-in-lawsuit

Standard-Examiner. Agreement reached regarding Wasatch Peaks Ranch between county, resort, concerned citizens. January 26, 2024 https://www.standard.net/news/local/2024/jan/26/agreement-reached-regarding-wasatch-peaks-ranch-between-county-resort-concerned-citizens/

Cherry Peak Ski Area Permit Challenge (Cache County, 2012)

Background
In February 2012, the Cache County Planning Commission approved a conditional use permit for Cherry Peak, a proposed 270-acre privately owned ski area near Richmond, Utah (about 30 minutes north of Logan). The resort plan included four chairlifts, a tubing hill, and a day lodge.

Local residents and conservation groups appealed, citing environmental impacts, questionable evidence submitted by the developers, and concerns that taxpayers would end up footing the bill for costly road improvements.

In April 2012, the Cache County Board of Adjustment unanimously denied the residents’ appeal, upholding the planning commission’s approval.

Legal Battle
In July 2012, five residents filed a lawsuit in Utah’s First District Court to overturn the county’s decision. In March 2013, the court ruled against the residents and in favor of the county and developers, clearing the way for construction. Cherry Peak Resort ultimately opened for skiing in the 2015/16 season.

Lessons for Brighton
This case stands in contrast to Brighton’s situation, as the county planning commission supported the development rather than blocking it. Public opinion was divided, but the takeaways are:

Utah courts defer strongly to local land-use authorities when proper process and evidence support their decisions
Community opposition alone is not enough; successful challenges require well-documented, evidence-based claims of harm

Sources:
Herald Journal. Ski resort unsustainable. January 13, 2012. https://www.hjnews.com/opinion/ski-resort-unsustainable/article_2ab95360-3564-11e1-ada3-0019bb2963f4.html

Herald Journal. Ski resort will impact Richmond. January 18, 2012. https://www.hjnews.com/opinion/ski-resort-will-impact-richmond/article_a943c71e-407d-11e1-ae8d-0019bb2963f4.html#comments

Cache Valley Daily. Residents file petition in First District Court to stop Cherry Peak Ski Area. June 20, 2012. https://www.cachevalleydaily.com/news/local/residents-file-petition-in-first-district-court-to-stop-cherry-peak-ski-area/article_8fef7f55-fa8e-5ea1-b877-e3b8654ad4a9.html

SAM Magazine. Cherry Peak Resort proposal goes to court. July 25, 2012. https://www.saminfo.com/news/sam-headline-news/7671-376-cherry-peak-resort-proposal-goes-to-court

FOX 13 News. Newest Utah ski resort opens in Cache County. December 21, 2015. https://www.fox13now.com/2015/12/21/newest-utah-ski-resort-opens-in-cache-county

Ogden Valley Suing Weber County Over Nordic Valley Ski Village (Weber County, 2025)

Carver v. Weber County
Background
In November 2024, residents of Eden, Liberty, and Wolf Creek voted by a 2-to-1 margin to incorporate a new city, tentatively named Ogden Valley. The new city will cover 63.3 square miles, border three major ski resorts (Nordic Valley, Powder Mountain, and Snowbasin), and be home to about 7,600 people.

Incorporation of the town, set to take effect in January 2026, was driven largely out of frustration with the current land use authority, Weber County, and their aggressive approach to development and the belief that local control would provide better protection for the valley’s character.

Shortly after the incorporation vote, Weber County Commissioners approved permits for a massive Nordic Valley base village project – 428 condos, 159 chalets, 230 hotel rooms, plus retail and commercial space – squarely within the boundaries of the soon-to-be city.

Legal Battle
In response, an Ogden Valley resident and the nonprofit Ogden Valley Smart Growth sued Weber County, arguing the county should act only as a caretaker until the city officially takes over in January 2026. They contended that major land-use decisions should be left to the incoming city government.

In August 2025 a Utah Second District Court judge denied a preliminary injunction, allowing Weber County to continue exercising land-use authority until the transition. The ruling leaves county officials free to greenlight additional development before local officials take control.

Lessons for Brighton
In November 2018, Brighton residents voted 106–63 to incorporate, driven largely by the desire for local planning authority and frustration with Salt Lake County and state inaction on basic needs.

When land-use power officially shifted from the Mountainous Planning Commission to the new town on January 1, 2020, critics warned that putting Big Cottonwood Canyon’s future in the hands of a small community was a mistake. Environmental groups feared incorporation would weaken protections, and even Brighton and Solitude ski resorts asked Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox to exclude them from town boundaries.

Nearly six years later, those fears haven’t materialized. Brighton has shown that local control better protects the canyon than county or state oversight ever was able to. The real threat now comes from efforts by ski corporations to bypass town authority through the state legislature. As Ogden Valley struggles with Weber County’s developer-friendly decisions, Brighton stands as evidence that small-town governance can safeguard natural resources more effectively than higher levels of government.

Sources:
Salt Lake Tribune. Big Cottonwood Canyon town on the horizon? Brighton residents seek incorporation, local control. December 26, 2017. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2017/12/26/big-cottonwood-canyon-town-on-the-horizon-brighton-residents-seek-incorporation-local-control

KUER. Questions remain a year before Brighton Township incorporation becomes official. January 14, 2019. https://www.kuer.org/local-government/2019-01-14/questions-remain-a-year-before-brighton-township-incorporation-becomes-official

Standard-Examiner. Ogden Valley group sues Weber County over Nordic Valley expansion plans. February 17, 2025. https://www.standard.net/news/local/2025/feb/17/ogden-valley-group-sues-weber-county-over-nordic-valley-expansion-plans

KSL.com. Ogden Valley incorporation boosters sue Weber County over ski village development moves. July 2, 2025. https://www.ksl.com/article/51251781/ogden-valley-incorporation-boosters-sue-weber-county-over-ski-village-development-moves

KSL.com. Judge rebuffs Ogden Valley boosters’ push to temper Weber County’s land use authority. September 12, 2025. https://www.ksl.com/article/51366081/judge-rebuffs-ogden-valley-boosters-push-to-temper-weber-countys-land-use-authority

Return to the Old Stage Road Essay