Sanders Orchard v. Gem County

• Decision Date: 31 May 2002
• Docket Number: No. 26629.,26629.
• Citation: 52 P.3d 840,137 Idaho 695
• Parties: SANDERS ORCHARD, a partnership, composed of Maurice Sanders and Sandy Sanders; and Sands Orchards, Inc., Petitioners-Respondents, v. GEM COUNTY, Idaho, by and through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondent-Appellant.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

52 P.3d 840

137 Idaho 695

SANDERS ORCHARD, a partnership, composed of Maurice Sanders and Sandy Sanders; and Sands Orchards, Inc., Petitioners-Respondents, v. GEM COUNTY, Idaho, by and through its BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 26629.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, January 2002 Term.

May 31, 2002.

Rehearing Denied August 6, 2002.

Richard K. Linville, Gem County Prosecuting Attorney, Emmett, for appellant.

Westberg, McCabe & Collins, Boise, for respondents. P. Larry Westberg argued. EISMANN, Justice.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Sanders Orchard desires to sell for residential development approximately 131 acres of its real property located near the city of Emmett in Gem County, Idaho. Under the Gem County Comprehensive Plan, that property was designated as Agricultural/Natural Resources, which only permitted limited residential development. On April 1, 1997, Sanders Orchard initiated proceedings to change the Comprehensive Plan designation with respect to that property from Agricultural/Natural Resources to Urban Residential, which would permit residential development. On May 4, 1998, the Gem County Board of Commissioners (Board) approved the change.

Sanders Orchard then instituted proceedings to change the zoning classification of the property from A-4 Agricultural Residential, which requires a five-acre minimum lot size, to B-1 Residential, which requires a one-half acre minimum lot size. On September 14, 1998, the Gem County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the rezone be denied. Sanders Orchard appealed that decision to the Board, who approved the zoning change on November 9, 1998. When approving the change, the Board included a requirement that any subdivision developed on the property must have a minimum lot size of one acre.

On August 21, 1998, while the rezoning proceedings were pending, Properties West, Inc., submitted for approval a subdivision application and preliminary plat. It sought to subdivide approximately 62 acres of the Sanders Orchard property into a 46 lot subdivision that had minimum lot sizes of one acre. The application indicated that the lots would each have their own water and sewer.

Under the Gem County Subdivision Ordinance, a request to approve a preliminary plat for a subdivision is first heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission. A party aggrieved by the decision of the Commission can then appeal to the Board who, after a public hearing and considering any additional information, can uphold, conditionally uphold, or overrule the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

On November 9, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the application for the preliminary plat. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission denied the application because, "The Preliminary Plat did not have a proposal for central water and sewer system as required by the Gem County Zoning Ordinance." Sanders Orchard and Properties West, Inc., then appealed that denial to the Board, who heard the appeal on December 7, 1998.

By order issued on February 1, 1999, the Board upheld the action of the Planning and Zoning Commission denying approval of the preliminary subdivision plat. In doing so, it concluded, "[I]t is reasonable and consistent with the Gem County Zoning Ordinance to require central water and sewer systems in this application given the close proximity of the subdivision to the City of Emmett and the future development of residential subdivisions in that area."

On March 1, 1999, Sanders Orchard filed this action seeking judicial review of the Board's action denying approval for the preliminary subdivision plat. The district court determined that the Board exceeded its statutory authority in requiring that the subdivision have central water and sewer and that the Board's findings of fact and conclusions of law were not supported by substantial evidence considering the record as a whole. The district court set aside the Board's order issued on February 1, 1999, and awarded Sanders Orchard costs and attorney fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 12-117. Gem County then filed this appeal.

II. ANALYSIS

A person aggrieved by a planning and zoning decision may seek judicial review of that decision under the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IAPA). IDAHO CODE § 67-6521(d) (2001). On an appeal from a decision of a district court acting in its appellate capacity under the IAPA, this Court reviews the agency record independently of the district court's decision. Price v. Payette County Board of County Commissioners, 131 Idaho 426, 958 P.2d 583 (1998). This Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the agency as to the weight of the evidence presented. Id.; IDAHO CODE § 67-5279(1) (2001). Rather, this Court defers to the agency's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Price v. Payette County Board of County Commissioners, 131 Idaho 426, 958 P.2d 583 (1998). There is a strong presumption of favoring the validity of the actions of zoning boards, which includes the application and interpretation of their own zoning ordinances. Rural Kootenai Org., Inc. v. Board of Commissioners, 133 Idaho 833, 993 P.2d 596 (1999). The Board's zoning decision may be overturned only where it: (a) violates statutory or constitutional provisions; (b) exceeds the agency's statutory authority; (c) was made upon unlawful procedure; (d) is not supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole; or (e) is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Price v. Payette County Board of County Commissioners, 131 Idaho 426, 958 P.2d 583 (1998); IDAHO CODE § 67-5279(3) (2001). In addition, the Board's zoning decision must be upheld if substantial rights of the appellant have not been prejudiced. Payette River Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Board of Commissioners, 132 Idaho 551, 976 P.2d 477 (1999); IDAHO CODE § 67-5279(4) (2001).

a. Did the Board have discretion to require that there be a proposal for central water and sewer submitted in connection with the preliminary subdivision plat?

The real property at issue is zoned B-1 Residential. The zoning ordinance describes that zone as follows:

The purpose of this zone is to provide and protect residential lands properly located for families who desire to live in an environment of single family dwellings. Because of the smaller lot sizes permitted, this zone shall be confined to those areas which can be served by central water, and which may in the future reach densities of development which can be served by central sewage systems.

The zoning ordinance also provides a schedule of minimum lot sizes within the various zones. The minimum lot size for each dwelling unit in the B-1 zone is½ but that lot size "[m]ay be reduced if on central water and sewer." Sanders Orchard argues that because the zoning ordinance does not expressly require central water and sewer facilities in the B-1 zone, the Board had no authority to impose that requirement.

Idaho Code § 67-6519¹ grants the governing board of the county the discretion to grant or deny an application for a permit authorized or mandated by the Local Land Use Planning Act, Idaho Code §§ 67-6501 et seq. McCuskey v. Canyon County, 123 Idaho 657, 851 P.2d 953 (1993)

. See also Brown v. Schafer, 96 Idaho 599, 532 P.2d 941 (1975) (holding that the decision of county commissioners approving a subdivision is reviewed under abuse of discretion standard). That discretion is not unbounded, however. Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353, 2 P.3d 738 (2000). The Gem County Subdivision Ordinance lists several factors that the Board is to consider when deciding whether or not to approve a preliminary plat.² Those factors include, "The conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Plan."

The Subdivision Ordinance's requirement that the Board consider the "conformance of the subdivision with the Comprehensive Plan" does not incorporate by reference all of the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan into the Subdivision Ordinance. Id. When exercising discretion to approve or deny a subdivision application, the governing board can consider whether the application is consistent with the overall goals of the comprehensive plan. Id. at 359, 2 P.3d at 744 ("[T]he Board erred in relying completely on the comprehensive plan in denying the applications, and should instead have crafted its findings of fact and conclusions of law to demonstrate that the goals of the comprehensive plan were considered, but were simply used in conjunction with the zoning ordinances, the subdivision ordinance and any other applicable ordinances in evaluating the proposed developments."); South Fork Coalition v. Board of Commissioners, 117 Idaho 857, 863-64, 792 P.2d 882, 888-89 (1990) ("The Board of County Commissioners' Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision, demonstrates careful consideration of the requirements of ordinance § 1-2520 as well as a factual inquiry into whether or not the proposal was in accordance with the Bonneville County Comprehensive Plan. The Board's conclusion should be reversed only if found to be arbitrary and capricious.") The governing board cannot, however, deny a use that is specifically permitted by the zoning ordinance on the ground that such use would conflict with the comprehensive plan. Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353, 359, 2 P.3d 738, 744 (2000). "A comprehensive plan reflects the `desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situations' for the land within a jurisdiction", Id. at 357, 2 P.3d at 742, but it does not operate as a legally controlling zoning law. Id. If there is a conflict between the comprehensive plan and a use permitted under the zoning ordinance, the zoning ordinance controls. Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353, 2 P.3d 738 (2000); Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 693 P.2d 1046 (1984).

The land upon which Sanders Orchard desires to construct the subdivision is within the City of...