Eddins v. City of Lewiston
244 P.3d 174
Idaho2010Background
- Eddins owns and operates a manufactured home park in Lewiston, Idaho, since 2000, with spaces for manufactured homes and RVs.
- In 2006, Lewiston amended Ordinance 4398 prohibiting RVs in manufactured home parks and creating a grandfather provision for pre-existing parks.
- Section 23-17(a) allows such parks to continue as established uses and exempts them from 23-14, but 23-17(d) limits replacement units to Class A or B without increasing nonconformity.
- In 2008, Eddins sought a permit to replace an RV with a newer RV; the permit was denied as allowed by the new ordinance.
- The Lewiston Planning Commission and City Council upheld the denial, and the district court affirmed, upholding the interpretation of 23-17(d).
- Eddins appeals to the Idaho Supreme Court, which reverses, holding replacement of an RV is a continuation of the nonconforming use protected by due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does replacing an RV in a grandfathered park amount to a protected nonconforming-use continuation? | Eddins argues replacement preserves the primary use and is not an expansion. | City argues replacement is not allowed under 23-17(d) and does not preserve the primary use. | Yes; replacement is a continuation protected by due process. |
| Has Eddins shown substantial prejudice to his substantial rights? | Due process rights are violated, thus substantial rights are prejudiced. | Due process rights are not violated because replacement is not permitted. | Yes; due process violation entails prejudiced substantial rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Connor v. City of Moscow, 69 Idaho 37 (Idaho 1949) (nonconforming use protection extends to fundamental primary use)
- Baxter v. City of Preston, 115 Idaho 607 (Idaho 1989) (nonconforming use may not be expanded; protection limited to preexisting use)
- Ada County v. Schemm, 96 Idaho 396 (Idaho 1974) (nonconforming uses should not be allowed to expand; gradual elimination favored)
- Lewis-Clark Memorial Gardens, Inc. v. City of Lewiston, 99 Idaho 680 (Idaho 1978) (fundamental/primary use protected; adding crypts did not enlarge use)
- Gordon Paving Co. v. Blaine Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 98 Idaho 730 (Idaho 1977) (reasonable substitution of modern equipment in a protected nonconforming use does not enlarge)