254 P.3d 24
Idaho2011Background
- CDA Paving leases multiple parcels from Beacon West, with Open Pit Lots zoned for mining used for rock crushing; adjacent Agricultural Lots and Mining Lots are Rural Residential; all are within the County Comprehensive Plan.
- CDA Paving sought to rezone Agricultural Lots to mining and Mining Lots to agriculture via a single Case No. ZON08-0001 application.
- BOCC held hearings; after initial recommendation to deny, a second hearing led to approval of the rezones and enactment of Ordinance No. 417.
- Nearby landowners, including Ciszek, filed a declaratory judgment challenging the validity of the rezones.
- District court granted summary judgment for Respondents, treating the action as a legislative decision; this Court reviews de novo.
- Appellants argue lack of statutory authority for multiple rezones in one application, due process issues, and alleged contract to zone; Respondents argue no injury to standing and proper LLUPA compliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to rezone two parcels under one application | Ciszek lacks standing; swap zoning not authorized | BOCC may combine related permits; LLUPA allows efficiency | Yes; BOCC may approve two rezones in one application. |
| Standing to challenge zoning action | Ciszek has particularized injury (dust, noise, health, value) | No injury in fact sufficient for standing | Ciszek has standing; redressable harm shown. |
| Due process in combined rezones | Combined hearings deny opportunity to rebut per-rezone evidence | Due process met; adequate notice and opportunity to present evidence | Due process not violated. |
| Contract to zone / contract zoning claim | Combined rezones show pre-agreement to rezone | No agreement, proper notice and hearing; not contract zoning | Not a contract to zone. |
| BOCC did not capriciously limit legislative discretion | Single-application constraint restricted options | Actions within constitutional police powers; LLUPA complied | BOCC did not deprive itself of legislative authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Butters v. Hauser, 131 Idaho 498 (1998) (particularized harm shown near to property adjacent to new zoning)
- Gay v. County Comm'rs of Bonneville County, 103 Idaho 626 (1982) (notice and hearing with transcribable record required for due process)
- Ada County v. Walter, 96 Idaho 630 (1975) (contract zoning prohibited where procedures not followed)
- Cowan v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Fremont County, 143 Idaho 501 (2006) (due process protections in zoning proceedings; flexible due process standard)
- Taylor v. Canyon County Bd. of Comm'rs, 147 Idaho 424 (2009) (compliance with comprehensive plan not strictly required for validity)
- Burns Holdings, LLC v. Madison County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 147 Idaho 660 (2009) (standing and declaratory relief; first-impression issues analyzed)