Krempasky v. Nez Perce County Planning & Zoning
150 Idaho 231
| Idaho | 2010Background
- Kazda applied for CUP-2008-3 to develop a Tuscan Wedding and Event Center on a five-acre parcel; residence would not be used for the commercial venture.
- Staff recommended approval, finding the project met the Comprehensive Plan and the relevant ordinances (72cc and 72z).
- A public hearing on September 16, 2008 featured testimony from Kazda and neighbors concerned about noise and traffic; the neighborhood opposed CUP-2008-3.
- The Commission unanimously approved the CUP, but lowered the maximum noise from 75 to 65 decibels; Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law were adopted November 10, 2008.
- Krempasky appealed to the Nez Perce County Commissioners on November 24, 2008; the district court affirmed the CUP, and Krempasky appealed alleging violations of I.C. § 67-5279(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prejudice to substantial rights | Krempasky contends noise/traffic prejudiced her property rights. | No substantial prejudice shown; district court found lack of prejudice. | Affirmed; no prejudice shown. |
| Due process of a zoning decision | Commission biased; pre-determined outcome violated due process. | Argument waived for failure to raise below; record shows quasi-judicial process. | Waived; due-process argument not considered. |
| Arbitrary, capricious, or abuse of discretion | Commission failed to properly apply the Comprehensive Plan and acted arbitrarily. | Commission weighed evidence and used plan as guidance; acted within discretion. | Not arbitrary or an abuse of discretion. |
| Lawful procedure and substantial evidence | Foundings of Fact not independently made; reliance on Staff Report; home-occupation issue. | Findings of Fact supported by substantial evidence; procedure lawful; home-occupation issue not applicable. | Findings and procedure lawful; substantial evidence supports CUP. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | requesting fees under I.C. § 12-117(1). | No prevailing party; appeal not a civil action; no fees under §12-121. | No attorney fees awarded on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lane Ranch Partnership v. City of Sun Valley, 145 Idaho 87 (2007) (denial of access or development prejudices a substantial property right)
- Evans v. Bd. of Comm'rs, 137 Idaho 428 (2002) (strong presumption of validity to zoning interpretations; defer to agency)
- Urrutia v. Blaine Cnty., 134 Idaho 353 (2000) (comprehensive plan guides, not controls; zoning complies with ordinance)
- Whitted v. Blaine Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 137 Idaho 118 (2002) (extensive review of comprehensive plan; harmonious determination)
- Price v. Payette Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 131 Idaho 426 (1998) (standards for reviewing agency decisions under LLUPA)
- Eacret v. Bonner Cnty., 139 Idaho 780 (2004) (due process constraints on quasi-judicial zoning decisions)