Bone v. City of Lewiston
| Decision Date | 10 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 15002,15002 |
| Citation | 693 P.2d 1046,107 Idaho 844 |
| Parties | John BONE, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CITY OF LEWISTON, Gene Mueller, James Havelin, Marion Shinn, Leonard Williams, Peg Haas-James Douglass "Pat" MacKelvie, and Marlene Schaefer, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Jerry V. Smith of Smith & Cannon, Lewiston, for plaintiff-respondent.
On February 9, 1982, Mr. John Bone filed an application with the City of Lewiston Planning and Zoning Commission requesting that his land be rezoned from a low-density residential use to a limited commercial use. The City's land use plan map shows Mr. Bone's land as being zoned for commercial use.
The Commission recommended to the City Council that Mr. Bone's request be denied for the following reasons: (1) The uses allowed in the zoning classification Mr. Bone seeks would not be compatible with the established low-density residential uses of the various properties bordering Mr. Bone's land; and (2) Lewiston has an over-abundance of unused commercial properties. No need presently exists for further classification of property for commercial use. The City Council, without adopting any findings of fact and conclusions of law, agreed with the Commission's recommendation and denied Mr. Bone's application.
Mr. Bone subsequently filed suit in district court against the City, requesting declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus forcing the City to enact a zoning ordinance in conformity with its comprehensive plan pursuant to I.C. § 67-6511. 1 The City moved to limit review of the City Council's action to the Administrative Procedures Act provisions of I.C. § 67-5215(b-g). 2 The district court denied the City's motion. Mr. Bone then moved for summary judgment. The district court granted Mr. Bone's motion and issued a writ of mandamus ordering the City to rezone Mr. Bone's property for limited commercial uses. The City is appealing the district court's granting of summary judgment. Agreeing with the City, we reverse the district court.
Two issues are raised on this appeal: (1) What is the proper procedure for seeking judicial review of the City's decision to deny Mr. Bone's rezoning application; and (2) what is the meaning of I.C. § 67-6511, which requires a zoning ordinance to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive plan. We will address each issue in order.
The City first contends that the district court erred by allowing Mr. Bone to seek both a declaration of the parties' rights and obligations under I.C. Title 67, Chapter 65 and a writ of mandamus requiring the City to comply with its comprehensive plan. The City argues that this method of review is outside of I.C. §§ 67-6519 and -5215(b-g), which are the exclusive procedures for appealing an adverse zoning decision. We agree.
I.C. § 67-6519 sets forth the procedure an individual must follow in obtaining judicial review of decisions made under Idaho's Local Planning Act. It states in part:
An applicant denied a permit or aggrieved by a decision may within sixty (60) days after all avenues have been exhausted under the local ordinance seek judicial review under the procedures provided by sections 67-5215(b) through (g) and 67-5216, IDAHO CODE3.
I.C. § 67-5215(b-g), see note 2 supra, outlines in detail the scope of a court's review and the bases upon which a court may reverse the agency's decision. In particular, § 67-5215(f) states that the court's review shall be confined to the record while § 67-5215(g) states six grounds upon which a court may reverse the agency: the agency's decision is (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency's statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by error of law, (5) clearly erroneous in view of the evidence in the record; or (6) arbitrary, or capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion.
We find § 67-5215(b-g) to be a complete, detailed, and exhaustive remedy upon which an aggrieved party can appeal an adverse zoning decision. We also find that the legislature's intent in outlining the scope of review and the bases upon which a court may reverse a governing body's zoning decision to be clear. We find no evidence that the legislature intended other avenues of appeal to be available or that bases for reversal or the scope of review should be broader than that found in § 67-5215(b-g). Thus, we hold that § 67-5215(b-g) is the exclusive source of appeal for adverse zoning decisions. To hold otherwise would render the mandate of § 67-5215(b-g) meaningless, for it would allow an applicant to bypass § 67-5215(b-g) by seeking different avenues of appeal with different levels of judicial scrutiny. This is what Mr. Bone has improperly done here.
Section 67-6519 makes no mention of § 67-5215(a), 4 which allows an appellate court broader leeway than § 67-5215(b-g) in reviewing an agency decision. In denying the City's motion to limit the district court's review to the parameters outlined in § 67-5215(b-g), the district court stated:
Plaintiff brings this action for a declaration of the rights and obligations of the party and seeks a Writ of Mandamus requiring the defendants to comply with and enact a certain zoning ordinance in conformity with a comprehensive plan. The city contends that the action is an appeal and seeks to limit the scope of the matter to the appeal procedures.
It might be that the ultimate result could be reached by either an appeal or by the vehicle of the suit brought by the plaintiff. The court is of the opinion that the plaintiff should be entitled to seek his relief by whatever vehicle is available to him under the law. It does not appear that the court at this stage of the proceedings should attempt to limit a litigant in its theory of the case.
THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the motion to limit is denied.
(Emphasis added.)
The effect of this order was to allow Mr. Bone to pursue his appeal under § 67-5215(a). As we have noted, however, this was improper, for § 67-5219 states that appeals of zoning decisions are only to be brought under § 67-5215(b-g).
The facts of this case also indicate that the district court reviewed the City's decision under § 67-5215(a) and not § 67-5215(b-g). Section 67-5215(f) states that a court shall confine its review to the record. In this case there was no record; the City did not make any findings of fact or conclusions of law in denying Mr. Bone's rezone application. 5 Thus, the district court's decision here is in violation of § 67-5215(f), for it resulted from a review not on the record. The proper step for the district court to have taken should have been to remand to the City Council for the making of findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Our holding today is consistent with what we have said in the past concerning § 67-5215(b-g). In Workman Family Partnership v. City of Twin Falls, 104 Idaho 32, 34 n. 1, 655 P.2d 926, 928 n. 1 (1982), we said: "The district court was correct in ruling that the review of the denial of the application to rezone the property is governed by the procedures set forth in I.C. § 67-5215(b) through (g)." Accord : Hill v. Board of County Commissioners, 101 Idaho 850, 851, 623 P.2d 462, 463 (1981); Walker-Schmidt Ranch v. Blaine County, 101 Idaho 420, 422, 614 P.2d 960, 962 (1980); Cooper v. Board of County Commissioners, 101 Idaho 407, 411 n. 1, 614 P.2d 947, 951 n. 1 (1980).
Mr. Bone argues, however, that I.C. §§ 67-6519 and -5215(b-g) do not preclude him from bringing his cause of action. Mr. Bone contends that, notwithstanding § 67-5215(b-g), he can seek a declaratory judgment interpreting the statute and a writ of mandamus requiring the City to comply with the statute as interpreted. His reason is that he is not appealing his zoning decision but rather seeking an interpretation of the statute. Such an argument exalts form over substance. The fact is that Mr. Bone applied for a rezoning. The City denied his application, and because his application was denied, he subsequently appealed to the district court. Simply because Mr. Bone's theory in appealing his rezone application is that § 67-6511 entitles him to the rezone does not mean that he is not appealing the City's decision. Accordingly, his appeal should have been reviewed under § 67-5215(b-g)'s guidelines.
The second issue involves the correct interpretation of I.C. § 67-6511. Since we are remanding to the district court with directions to remand to the Lewiston City Council for the adoption of findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is appropriate for us to decide this issue so that this case will be dealt with properly by the City Council.
Mr. Bone argues that he is entitled to have his property zoned in conformance with the City's land use map. He cites I.C. § 67-6511 as support for his position. 6 That section states that zoning ordinances shall be "in accordance with" a comprehensive plan. For Mr. Bone, § 67-6511's terminology "in accordance with" means as a matter of law that a zoning applicant is entitled to have his or her property zoned exactly as the City's land use map shows it to be zoned. We do not agree with such a proposition for two reasons. 7
First, construing § 67-6511 as Mr. Bone would have us read it results in an interpretation of the section that contradicts itself. Subsections 67-6511(a) and (b) discuss the amendment process of zoning districts. In subsection (b) it states that if a rezone request is in accordance with the applicable comprehensive plan, the planning and zoning commission "may recommend and the governing board may adopt or reject the [zoning] amendment [request]" as proposed. (Emphasis added.)
Requiring all rezone applications to be granted when they agree with the land use map's designation of the property ignores the permissive language used in subsection (b). Had the legislature intended the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Weick
...impermissibly elevates form over substance, and this Court will not exalt form over substance. See, e.g., Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 849, 693 P.2d 1046, 1052 (1984). Weick's argument hinges on the fact that the second order is titled an "amended order." Had the second order be......
-
Taylor v. Canyon County Bd. of Com'Rs
...Therefore, the land use map is merely one subpart of a component of the county comprehensive plan. See Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 849, n. 7, 693 P.2d 1046, 1051, n. 7 (1984). In this case, Savala made a request to rezone his property in conjunction with his request to amend th......
-
Lowery v. Board of County Com'rs for Ada County
...Idaho Code § 62-5215(b-g) provides the exclusive procedure for appealing adverse decisions under I.C. § 67-6519. Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 693 P.2d 1046 (1984). Ordinarily, once an appeal has been filed or a petition for review granted, the lower tribunal is deprived of the j......
-
White v. Bannock County Commissioners
...by the district court to support its decision to consider White's appeal and remand the matter to Bannock County, Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 693 P.2d 1046 (1984) is nevertheless relevant to this case. The Bone Court concluded that Bone had improperly bypassed the exclusive sou......
-
An Environmental Understanding of the Local Land Use System
...Cal. Rptr. 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). 5 See Pennsylvania Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). 6 Bone v. City of Lewiston, 693 P.2d 1046 (Idaho 1984). 7 Haines v. City of Phoenix, 727 P.2d 339 (Ariz. 1986). 8 Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. §1451 [ELR citation] (2012).......
-
An Environmental Understanding of the Local Land Use System
...Rptr. 226 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986). 3. See Pennsylvania Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978). 4. Bone v. City of Lewiston, 693 P.2d 1046 (Idaho 1984). 5. Haines v. City of Phoenix, 727 P.2d 339 (Ariz. 1986). Copyright © 2015 Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, DC. Reprinte......