Linda Ciszik v. Kootenai County Bd of Commissioners
151 Idaho 123
| Idaho | 2011Background
- CDA Paving leases Beacon West property, including Open Pit Lots (mining) and Agricultural Lots (agriculture), adjacent to others; Mining Lots near by.
- CDA filed a single rezone application (Case No. ZON08-0001) to swap Agricultural to mining and Mining to agriculture to create a contiguous mining zone.
- Board of County Commissioners held hearings, heard examiner's denial, then approved the two rezones in July 2008 and enacted Ordinance No. 417.
- Ciszek and nearby landowners sued in declaratory and original action challenging the BOCC’s authority and process.
- District court granted summary judgment for Respondents, treating the action as a legislative LLUPA matter; appeal followed.
- This Court affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling, holding BOCC could approve two rezones in one application and addressing standing and due process issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek declaratory relief | Ciszek has particularized harm (dust, noise, health risk, property value). | No standing; injury not sufficiently particularized or redressable. | Ciszek has standing; redressable harms shown. |
| Authority to rezone two parcels from a single application | Statute I.C. § 67-6511 limits to a single rezone per application. | LLUPA contemplates multiple land-use actions; combining related permits permitted. | BOCC may approve two rezones based on one application. |
| Due process under combined notices/hearings | Combined hearings precluded separate rebuttals for each rezone. | Procedures satisfied; rezones legislative, so due process not violated. | Due process not violated; adequate notice, opportunity to present evidence, considering the matter as a whole. |
| Contract to zone (illegal contract zoning) | Combining rezones evidences an advance zoning agreement. | No agreement to zone; proper notice/hearing performed. | No contract zoning; proper procedures followed. |
| Attorney fees on appeal | Prevailing party entitled to fees; standards unmet. | Respondents prevailed; fees only if unreasonable conduct. | No attorney fees awarded to either side. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burns Holdings, LLC v. Madison County Bd. of County Comm’rs, 147 Idaho 660 (2009) (declaratory relief and LLUPA review of zoning actions)
- Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 145 Idaho 958 (2008) (declaratory relief for zoning decisions; LLUPA compliance)
- Plummer v. City of Fruitland, 139 Idaho 810 (2004) (constitutional police power complementing LLUPA; multiple zone changes)
- Ada County v. Walter, 96 Idaho 630 (1975) (contract zoning prohibition; need proper procedure)
- Taylor v. Canyon County Bd. of Comm’rs, 147 Idaho 424 (2009) (concept of substantial compliance in LLUPA decisions)