Opinion

DAVIS, Judge:

¶ 1 Susan D. Johnson, Chris L. Johnson, Christina Granath, and Lonnie Cassidy Verhaal (the Residents) appeal the grant of summary judgment in favor of Weber County (the County). We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 This is an appeal from the district court's review of the Weber County Board of Adjustment's (the BOA) decision. The Green Valley Academy Private Education Institution (Green Valley) submitted a design review application to the Ogden Valley Planning Commission seeking to establish a "`private, non-public specialty school serving students with specific needs in the areas of learning, depression, anxiety, and pervasive developmental problems,'" to be located within an "Agricultural Valley 3 (AV-3) Zone" in Huntsville, Utah. Green Valley explained that its educational program would be fully accredited and structured in accordance with the guidelines for public high school graduation and that "[t]he main activity" at the academy would be "educating and instructing students (46.5 hours per week)." Green Valley described the other services offered at the academy, such as "[c]ounseling and therapy sessions" and on-site lodging, as "ancillary to the educational program." The Planning Commission approved the design review application, concluding that Green Valley constitutes a "school" under the Weber County Zoning Ordinance (the Ordinance) and is therefore a permitted use within the proposed AV-3 Zone.

¶ 3 The Residents appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the BOA, arguing that the Planning Commission "failed to support its decision to call [Green Valley's] proposed use a school with substantial evidence and illegally approved the use as a school instead of as a residential treatment center according to the strict requirements of the Zoning Ordinance." The BOA disagreed with the Residents and upheld the Planning Commission's approval of Green Valley's design application.

¶ 4 The Residents then filed a Petition for Review and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief with the district court, seeking de novo review of the BOA's determination. The Residents argued that the BOA's decision was illegal and arbitrary and capricious because

¶ 5 The district court denied the Residents' petition and granted Green Valley's motion for summary judgment, which was joined by Weber County. The Residents now appeal.

ISSUE AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 6 The Residents argue that the district court erred in granting Green Valley's motion for summary judgment. "We review the district court's grant of a motion for summary judgment for correctness." Overstock.com, Inc. v. SmartBargains, Inc., 2008 UT 55, ¶ 12, 192 P.3d 858.

ANALYSIS

¶ 7 The Residents contend that the BOA's decision was arbitrary, capricious, illegal, and not supported by substantial evidence, thereby rendering summary judgment in favor of Green Valley inappropriate. "A final decision of a land use authority or an appeal authority is valid if the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not arbitrary, capricious, or illegal." Utah Code Ann. § 17-27a-801(3)(c) (LexisNexis 2009). "A determination of illegality requires a determination that the decision, ordinance, or regulation violates a law, statute, or ordinance in effect at the time the decision was made or the ordinance or regulation adopted." Id. § 17-27a-801(3)(d).

¶ 8 The Residents contend that the BOA's decision was illegal and arbitrary and capricious because it was made in violation of the Ordinance and was not supported by substantial evidence. Though the Residents "concede that the instruction and education" aspect of Green Valley "would, in fact, qualify as a school ... under Weber County's Ordinance and under the Crist [v. Bishop, 520 P.2d 196 (Utah 1974)] decision," they argue that Green Valley nonetheless fails to qualify as a school because its "residential component ... [is] otherwise not" permitted in the AV-3 Zone. The Residents assert that Green Valley's main use is as a residence for troubled youth and that by calling it a school, Green Valley attempts to make "an end run around the [O]rdinance." In other words, the Residents argue that the school is not enough of a school. We disagree.

¶ 9 The Ordinance defines a school as follows:

Weber County, Utah, Zoning Ordinance, § 1-6, available at http://www.co.weber.ut.us/mediawiki/index.php/General_Provisions_ Definitions (last visited May 13, 2013). The term "schools" was also defined in Crist, in which the supreme court was asked to construe a zoning ordinance that did not define that term. See Crist, 520 P.2d at 197. The Crist court noted "that it is not the name used that determines the character of an institution[;] ... this is to be ascertained from what it actually consists of and its method of operation." Id. The court interpreted "schools" to mean, "institutions for education and training[, t]he requisites of [which] ... are: some physical facility, teachers, a curriculum for study or training, and students who are the objective thereof." Id. at 198-99 (footnote omitted).

¶ 10 The defendants in Crist argued that the plaintiffs' facility was not a school but a juvenile detention and correctional institution in light of the facility's mission to serve "maladjusted boys with mental or emotional problems, who need detention and control in connection with their education and training." Id. at 197. Specifically, the "mal-adjusted boys" would receive "residential treatment with a therapeutically designed round-the-clock living program including medical care, psychiatry, and professional discipline," i.e., the use of forcible restraints like chains and manacles. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The supreme court rejected the defendants' argument and affirmed the district court's characterization of the facility as a school, stating,

Id. at 199.

¶ 11 The Residents argue that reliance on Crist is inappropriate because the Ordinance already contains a definition of "school" and because the facts are distinguishable in that the facility at issue in Crist was to be located in an existing building. Green Valley contends that this case is basically a repeat of Crist in that the main issue is what constitutes a school. To affirm its status as a school, Green Valley, employing a familiar analogy, explains that all this court needs to do is apply the "duck test," meaning if its design application "looks like a duck [and] it quacks like a duck, it's a school." The duck here is the definition of "school," and according to Green Valley, the definition is the same in the Ordinance and Crist. Thus, Green Valley concludes its argument by stating, "[A]ll [we are] here to say is quack."

¶ 12 We are not persuaded that the differences the Residents focus on in Crist render that case inapplicable. Crist injected common sense into the zoning ordinance at issue in that case by recognizing that "school" is an umbrella term, each iteration of which need not be specifically identified in an ordinance to be encompassed within its meaning so long as the core "requisites are met." Id. at 198-99. Here, the parties do not dispute that those requisites — that the proposed "private educational institution hav[e] a curriculum similar to that ordinarily given in grades one through twelve in the public school system," and that it not be a post high school educational institution — are met by Green Valley's proposal. Thus, Green Valley, like the facility in Crist, is rightfully characterized as a school even though it also offers on-site housing and therapeutic services.

¶ 13 The Residents next contend that specific language in other parts of the Ordinance unequivocally prove that Green Valley's proposed school is not a permitted use in the AV-3 Zone. Specifically, the Residents explain that because the Ordinance states, "[U]ses not listed are not allowed," see Weber County, Utah, Zoning Ordinance, § 1-3, available at http://www.co.weber.ut.us/mediawiki/index.php/General_Provisions__ Definitions (last visited May 13, 2013), and boarding schools are not a listed use in the AV-3 Zone, it necessarily follows that boarding schools, like Green Valley, are not allowed in that zone, see generally id. § 5B-2 to -4. Further, they contend that because the Ordinance specifically permits boarding schools in other zones, had such a use been intended for the AV-3 Zone it would have been explicitly enumerated in the Ordinance. The Residents also cite the stated purpose of the AV-3 Zone — "to direct orderly low-density residential development in a continuing rural environment" — and the fact that the residential uses permitted in the zone are limited to single family homes and multi-unit housing facilities with eight or fewer residents, as additional proof that Green Valley's housing facility, which the Residents describe as a dormitory large enough for thirty-six students and up to sixteen staff members, does not belong in the AV-3 Zone. See generally id. § 5B-1 to -4.

¶ 14 However, as stated above, because schools are a type of permitted use in the AV-3 Zone and Green Valley meets the definition of "school" provided in the Ordinance, the fact that Green Valley also includes amenities and programs not specifically identified in the Ordinance does not, under the facts and circumstances of this case, mean it no longer qualifies as a school. As observed in Crist, despite variations in teaching style, discipline, or amenities available for students, certain requisites are "present in greater or lesser degree in practically all schools; and they may vary greatly without preventing one from being properly so characterized." Crist v. Bishop, 520 P.2d 196, 199 (Utah 1974). Thus, while the Ordinance does contain the limitation that "uses not listed are not allowed," we do not interpret that to mean that every type of school that is actually permitted by the Ordinance must be enumerated, rather than evaluated on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the definition provided in the Ordinance. Additionally, the Residents' assertion that boarding schools are permitted in other zones is incorrect; no part of the Ordinance specifically provides for boarding schools, though boarding houses are permitted in different zones. Likewise, the multi-unit residential facilities permitted in the AV-3 Zone are not all limited to eight residents; convalescent or rest homes are a conditional use allowed in the zone, and the Ordinance does not explicitly cap the number of people such facilities can house.1 In other words, it is not clear how large the Green Valley housing facility would have to be for the district court to necessarily conclude that it is not in keeping with the purpose of the AV-3 Zone.

¶ 15 Accordingly, the BOA's decision upholding the Planning Commission's grant of Green Valley's design application was not in contravention of the Ordinance.2 Therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment to Green Valley. We affirm.3

Judges GREGORY K. ORME and CAROLYN B. McHUGH concur.