Hungate v. Bonner Cnty.
| Decision Date | 25 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 46114 |
| Citation | 458 P.3d 966,166 Idaho 388 |
| Parties | Frank P. HUNGATE and Thomas K. Hungate, as Trustees of the Hungate Trust; The A&E Family L.L.C., an Idaho limited liability company; Anne E. Ashburn, an individual; Eleanor Jones, an individual; Frank Hungate, an individual; and John Hungate, an individual; Petitioners-Appellants, v. BONNER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, acting through the Bonner County Board of Commissioners, Respondent, and Stejer's Inc., a Washington corporation, Intervenor-Respondent. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Givens Pursley LLP, Boise, attorneys for Appellant. Deborah E. Nelson argued.
Bonner County Prosecutor, Sandpoint, attorneys for Respondent. William S. Wilson argued.
Finney & Finney, Sandpoint, attorneys for Intervenor-Respondent Stejer's Inc. John A. Finney argued.
This is an appeal from a district court sitting in its intermediate appellate capacity. Below, the Board of County Commissioners for Bonner County ("Board") granted Stejer's, Inc.’s request for three variances ("the Variances") from applicable lot setbacks required by the Bonner County Revised Code. Neighboring land owners—Frank P. Hungate and Thomas K. Hungate, as trustees of the Hungate Trust, the A&E Family L.L.C., Anne E. Ashburn, Eleanor Jones, Frank Hungate, and John Hungate (collectively "the Hungates") appealed the Board's decision. The district court held that the Board erred in approving the Variances, but ultimately affirmed the Board's decision after it determined that the Hungates failed to show that their substantial rights were prejudiced. The Hungates appealed to this Court. We affirm.
Between 1967 and 1972 Norma Stejer acquired three oddly shaped parcels located on the north end of Priest Lake referred to as Tax-2, Tax-9, and Tax-10. In 1967, the Hungates acquired neighboring property located north and east of Tax-2, Tax-9, and Tax-10. The parcels are zoned R-5 rural, which allows for one dwelling per five acre density.
Bonner County Revised Code ("BCRC") § 12-323. Additionally, dwellings on R-5 parcels require minimum front yard setbacks of twenty-five feet, minimum rear yard setbacks of twenty-five feet, and minimum side yard setbacks of twenty-five feet. BCRC § 12-411. In 1981, Norma Stejer quitclaimed the three parcels to Stejer's, Inc. The Variances at the center of this dispute resulted from buildings Stejer's, Inc. constructed on Tax-9 and Tax-10.
In 1997, Stejer's, Inc. built a 30’ x 40’ garage on Tax-10 (the "Beige Building") without a permit. The Beige Building originally encroached one and a half feet onto Thistledo Lane, a private road owned by the Hungates; however, after realizing the encroachment, Stejer's, Inc. moved the building to its current location about five feet away from Thistledo Lane. At some point following its construction, Stejer's, Inc. began using the Beige Building as a three-bedroom residence without obtaining the proper septic permits. There is also a two-bedroom cabin on Tax-10 (the "Yellow Building").
In 1999, Stejer's, Inc. obtained a permit to construct a storage garage (the "Green Building") on Tax-9; however, as constructed, it straddles the line between Tax-9 and Tax-10. The building permit for the Green Building described the structure as "Garage + Storage" which was approved with a twenty-five-foot setback. However, the Green Building was not built in compliance with the building permit. At some point following construction, Stejer's, Inc. started using the Green Building as a six-bedroom residence without first obtaining the proper septic permits. In 2015, the "next generation" of Stejers assumed control of the parcels.
The Panhandle Health Department sent Stejer's, Inc. a notice of violation for the construction of residential homes on Tax-9 and Tax-10 without the necessary septic permits and approvals in December 2015. By February 2016, the Health Department and Stejer's, Inc. entered into a Consent Order which required Stejer's, Inc. to: (1) convert the Green Building from a six-bedroom duplex to a one-bedroom single-family residence; (2) convert the Beige Building from a three-bedroom dwelling to a two-bedroom dwelling; and (3) convert the Yellow Building from a two-bedroom bunkhouse to a storage building.
Nearly a year later, Stejer's, Inc. applied for variances from the applicable setbacks on Tax-9 and Tax-10. In Tax 9, Stejer's, Inc. requested a six-foot rear yard setback and a seventeen-foot front yard setback, even though twenty-five foot setbacks are required. Additionally, Stejer's, Inc. sought a variance authorizing the conversion of the Green Building into a single-family dwelling. In Tax 10, Stejer's, Inc. sought a seven-foot front yard setback where twenty-five feet is required, and a variance authorizing the Beige Building to be a single-family dwelling.
On May 4, 2017, the Bonner County Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Variances. The Planning and Zoning Commission denied the Variances after finding that the need for the Variances arose out of Stejer's, Inc.’s own improper actions; as such, the Variances were inconsistent with Bonner County Revised Code, which only allowed a variance to be granted when the "circumstances of the proposal" had their origin in "circumstances over which the applicant has no control." BCRC § 12-234.
Stejer's, Inc. appealed the denial of the Variances to the Board. On June 21, 2017, the Board held a public hearing in which it considered testimony as well as letters in support of and in opposition to the Variances. Ultimately, the Board approved the Variances. The Board explained that denying the Variances would be punishing the new generation of Stejers for "the sins of the father" when they were trying to do the right thing and bring the structures into compliance. The Board was not persuaded that this was anything more than a neighborhood squabble and, because the buildings had been there for twenty years, there would be no additional harm in granting the Variances.
On September 18, 2017, the Hungates petitioned for judicial review of the Board's decision. Stejer's, Inc. moved to intervene, to which the Hungates and the County stipulated. The Hungates alleged the Board's decision to grant the Variances was in error under Idaho Code section 67-5279(3) and that the decision prejudiced their substantial rights. In response, the County did not dispute the Hungates’ contention that the Board had erred under Idaho Code section 67-5279, but the County maintained that the Board's decision should be upheld because the Hungates could not show that any of their substantial rights were prejudiced. Stejer's, Inc. defended against the petition by maintaining that Board did not err under section 67-5279, nor could the Hungates show prejudice to a substantial right.
After a hearing, the district court found that the Board committed several errors in approving the Variances. Even so, the court affirmed the Board's decision after holding that the Hungates had failed to demonstrate that a substantial right had been prejudiced. The Hungates timely appealed to this Court.
1. Whether the Hungates have shown that the Board committed reversible error in a manner specified in Idaho Code section 67-5279(3).
2. Whether the Hungates have shown that a substantial right was prejudiced by the Board's decision to approve the Variances.
3. Whether the district court erred in declining to award the Hungates attorney fees and costs under Idaho Code section 12-117 and whether the Hungates should be awarded attorney fees and costs on appeal.
"The Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) allows an affected person to seek judicial review of an approval or denial of a land use application, as provided for in the Idaho Administrative Procedure Act (IDAPA)." 917 Lusk, LLC v. City of Boise , 158 Idaho 12, 14, 343 P.3d 41, 43 (2015) ; I.C. § 67-6521(1)(d). "For the purposes of judicial review of LLUPA decisions, a local agency making a land use decision, such as the Board of Commissioners, is treated as a government agency under IDAPA." In re Variance ZV2011-2 , 156 Idaho 491, 494, 328 P.3d 471, 474 (2014). Variance permits fall under LLUPA, and "an applicant denied a variance permit by a county board of commissioners, or aggrieved by the decision of the board, may seek judicial review under IDAPA." Wohrle v. Kootenai Cnty., 147 Idaho 267, 271, 207 P.3d 998, 1002 (2009).
When a district court acts in its appellate capacity under IDAPA, "we review the district court's decision as a matter of procedure." Lusk , 158 Idaho at 14, 343 P.3d at 43 (quoting Williams v. Idaho State Bd. of Real Estate Appraisers , 157 Idaho 496, 502, 337 P.3d 655, 661 (2014) ). When doing so, we conduct an independent review of the agency record. Id. (citing Dry Creek Partners, LLC, v. Ada Cnty. Com'rs, ex rel. State , 148 Idaho 11, 16, 217 P.3d 1282, 1287 (2009) ). "There is a strong presumption that the zoning board's actions were valid and that it has correctly interpreted its own zoning ordinances." Hawkins v. Bonneville Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs, 151 Idaho 228, 231, 254 P.3d 1224, 1227 (2011) (citing Sanders Orchard v. Gem Cnty. ex rel. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs , 137 Idaho 695, 698, 52 P.3d 840, 843 (2002) ). When the district court has affirmed the Board's actions, we will uphold its decision provided the Board's findings were supported by substantial and competent evidence; however, we freely review the district court's conclusions of law. Id. (internal citation omitted).
The Hungates must do two things to set the Board's decision aside: (i) establish the Board erred in one of the ways specified in Idaho Code section 67-5279(3) ; and (ii) show the decision has prejudiced the Hungates’ substantial rights. Hawkins , 151 Idaho at 232, 254 P.3d at 1228.
To continue reading
Request your trial