Johnson v. City of Homedale, 17879

Decision Date25 July 1990
Docket NumberNo. 17879,17879
Citation796 P.2d 162,118 Idaho 285
PartiesMelladean JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF HOMEDALE, Mayor and Members of the City Council, Defendants-Respondents.
CourtIdaho Court of Appeals

Melladean Johnson, Homedale, plaintiff-appellant pro se.

Gary L. Morgan, Caldwell, for defendants-respondents.

BURNETT, Judge. *

This case involves a dispute over the issuance of a special use permit. The primary issue on appeal is whether the permit should have been denied on the ground that the application for the permit did not contain a narrative statement and concept plan, as required by municipal ordinance, at the time it was submitted. For reasons discussed below, we vacate the district court judgment and remand for additional factual findings. We will briefly address other issues raised, for guidance on remand.

The facts are as follows. In November, 1987, the South Board of Control, an irrigation district in Owyhee County, applied to the City of Homedale's Planning and Zoning Commission for a special use permit which would allow it to build an automotive and equipment storage yard (an industrial use) in an area currently zoned commercial. The Planning and Zoning Commission held a special meeting on May 5, 1988, and decided to place conditions on the use permit, including a requirement that the storage yard be surrounded by cement block walls. On June 2, a public hearing was held on the matter. At that time, the attorney for the irrigation district suggested that a chain link fence be used to encircle the storage yard, instead of the eight-foot concrete block walls. Several local residents, including Melladean Johnson, then objected to the special use permit being issued. On June 7, the Homedale City Council held a regular meeting and, based on the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission, approved the issuance of the special use permit. Johnson subsequently filed a complaint in the district court, alleging that the permit had been granted illegally. The City of Homedale moved for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion and this appeal followed.

The primary issue on appeal is whether the application for a special use permit in the City of Homedale must contain a concept plan and narrative statement when it is submitted. Johnson argues these items should be submitted with the application. The city contends they can be submitted at a later date. We agree with Johnson.

We begin our analysis of this issue with the language of the City of Homedale's zoning ordinance. Article X states in pertinent part:

SECTION B. CONTENTS OF APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL USE PERMIT

* * * * * *

6. A concept plan of the proposed site for the special use showing the location of all buildings, parking and loading area, traffic access and traffic circulation, open spaces, landscaping, refuse and service areas, utilities, signs, yards and such other information as the Commission or City may require to determine if the proposed special use meets the intent and requirements of this Ordinance; and

7. A narrative statement evaluating the effects on adjoining property; the effect of such elements as noise, glare, odor, fumes and vibration on adjoining property; a discussion of the general compatibility with adjacent and other properties in the district; and the relationship of the proposed use to the Comprehensive Plan. [Emphasis added.]

From this language, it is clear that an application for a special use permit must include a concept plan and narrative statement to put the public on notice of the effects of the proposed special use. This notice allows citizens to make informed arguments and objections when a public hearing is held on the proposed land use. Absent these attachments, citizens are left with a dearth of information on whether--and in what regard--to object to the proposal. Citizens should not be forced to attend a public hearing to find out what a developer proposes to do. That information must be available in advance.

In addition, we observe that adequate notice, such as that required in Homedale's ordinance, is statutorily mandated when zoning authorities are requested to change the authorized use for a particular parcel of property. See I.C. §§ 67-6509 and 67-6512; Gay v. County Commissioners of Bonneville County, 103 Idaho 626, 651 P.2d 560 (Ct.App.1982) (review denied). Consequently, we believe the concept plan and narrative statement must be submitted with the application. It is not sufficient that they be provided at some later date, such as the date of the public hearing itself.

Having reached this conclusion, we must now determine whether the application in this case contained a concept plan and narrative statement when it was submitted. The record is not clear on this point. The district court stated in its memorandum decision that the application met all ordinance requirements. However, the court appeared to base this statement on its belief that the ordinance requirements were satisfied as long as a public hearing was held in lieu of the submission of the narrative statement and concept plan. Therefore, we are unable to discern whether the court's statement in its memorandum decision constituted a finding that the application was in fact submitted with the concept plan and narrative statement attached. Our review of the record has revealed some indications...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • S Bar Ranch v. Elmore Cnty.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 18 mai 2022
    ...was changed during the February 9, 2018, hearings and no copy of that revised agreement was provided to the public.S Bar relies on Johnson v. City of Homedale , for the premise that the failure to provide all materials required to be submitted with an application prior to the hearing on tha......
  • Neighbors for the Pres. of the Big & Little Creek Cmty., an Unincorporated Corp. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners of Payette Cnty.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 25 septembre 2015
    ...request." Payette County Code § 8–5–11A; see also I.C. § 67–6511A. H–Hook directs our attention to Johnson v. City of Homedale, 118 Idaho 285, 796 P.2d 162 (Ct.App.1990) and Fischer v. City of Ketchum, 141 Idaho 349, 109 P.3d 1091 (2005). In both cases, applications to Planning and Zoning C......
  • Von Puckett v. Oakfabco, Inc.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 2 juin 1999
    ...authenticity. See Shacocass, Inc. v. Arrington Constr. Co., 116 Idaho 460, 463, 776 P.2d 469, 472 (Ct.App.1989); Johnson v. Homedale, 118 Idaho 285, 796 P.2d 162 (Ct.App.1990). Because Puckett submitted the items mentioned above to the lower court and now to this Court merely as attachments......
  • Win of Michigan, Inc. v. Yreka United, Inc.
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • 7 juin 2002
    ...oral testimony or depositions. The decision whether to admit oral testimony on a motion is discretionary. See Johnson v. City of Homedale, 118 Idaho 285, 796 P.2d 162 (Ct.App.1990). Miller had previously submitted affidavits in which he outlined information concerning assets of Yreka report......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT