Walker-Schmidt Ranch v. Blaine County
| Decision Date | 25 July 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 13021,WALKER-SCHMIDT,13021 |
| Citation | 614 P.2d 960,101 Idaho 420 |
| Parties | RANCH, a partnership composed of Margaret I. Hamilton, William G. Schmidt, and Lloyd J. Walker, partners and co-tenants, Plaintiffs-Appellants and Cross-Respondents, v. BLAINE COUNTY, a body politic and corporate of the State of Idaho, Defendant-Respondent and Cross-Appellant |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Lloyd J. Walker of Walker & Associates, Twin Falls, for plaintiffs-appellants and cross-respondents.
R. Keith Roark, Blaine County Pros. Atty., Hailey, for defendant-respondent and cross-appellant.
On April 22, 1971, defendant-respondent Blaine County adopted its first zoning ordinance and its first zoning map. Those ordinances established a 26 acre commercial district (C-1) immediately north of the City of Hailey, straddling U.S. highway 93. The land lying to the north and west of the commercial zone was classified as high density residential (R-1) and low density residential (R-2).
In December, 1971, plaintiff-appellant Walker-Schmidt Ranch, a partnership, purchased a tract of approximately 140 acres which had been owned by the Walker family for many years and which was located immediately north of the C-1 district. At that time, plaintiff's land was zoned R-1 and R-2.
Approximately two years after its purchase of this tract, the plaintiff requested a rezone of approximately 11.90 acres from the R-1 and R-2 classifications to C-1, commercial. This 11.90 acre parcel tract is the subject of this dispute. It lies north and west of the C-1 district, north of Hailey. Subsequently the plaintiff discovered that about 2.0 acres of the 11.90 were already zoned commercial. Plaintiff then sold the two commercially zoned acres. Therefore, only about 9.90 acres is actually at issue herein.
The subject property is undeveloped land. It is bounded on the east by U.S. highway 93 and on the south by a portion of the C-1 commercial zone. The remaining portion of the southern and western boundary is the R-1 high density residential zone. The property is bounded on the north by undeveloped land zoned R-2, low density residential.
The Blaine County Planning and Zoning Commission did not take any immediate action on the rezone application. Instead, by mutual agreement of the parties, action on the rezone application was deferred some fourteen months pending further commission work on the proposed Blaine County Comprehensive Plan.
On May 28, 1975, plaintiff asked that its rezone application be acted upon. Accordingly, the Planning and Zoning Commission considered plaintiff's rezone application at its meetings on June 5, 1975, and on July 8, 1975. Finally, at its meeting on July 15, 1975, the Blaine County Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial of plaintiff's rezone application.
Plaintiff appealed the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Blaine County Board of Zoning Appeals which, on October 8, 1975, recommended denial of the rezone application.
Plaintiff then appealed the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the Blaine County Board of County Commissioners. On January 26, 1976, the Board denied plaintiff's rezone application. No verbatim record was kept of the proceedings before the various governing bodies, nor were written findings of fact and conclusions made and entered in the record.
Plaintiff then appealed to the district court and instituted an action therein, challenging the county's denial of its rezone application and seeking damages, injunctive and declaratory relief. The case was tried to the court sitting without a jury and judgment was entered in favor of defendant county. Plaintiff appeals from the judgment and defendant has cross-appealed on the issue of the proper procedure for judicial review of a rezone denial.
It appears to the Court this appeal is squarely controlled by our recent decision in Cooper v. Board of County Com'rs of Ada County, 101 Idaho 407, 614 P.2d 947(1980). Here, as in Cooper, the action of the Board in deciding appellants'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burt v. City of Idaho Falls
...the legislative/quasi-judicial distinctions adopted in Cooper to decisions of local zoning authorities. In Walker-Schmidt Ranch v. Blaine County, 101 Idaho 420, 614 P.2d 960 (1980), and in Hill v. Board of County Comm'rs of Ada County, 101 Idaho 850, 623 P.2d 462 (1981), both of which were ......
-
South Fork Coalition v. Board of Com'rs of Bonneville County
...104 Idaho 32, 655 P.2d 926 (1982); Hill v. Board of County Commrs., 101 Idaho 850, 623 P.2d 462 (1981); Walker-Schmidt Ranch v. Blaine County, 101 Idaho 420, 614 P.2d 960 (1980); Cooper v. Board of County Commrs., 101 Idaho 407, 614 P.2d 947 This Court's responsibility and role in reviewing......
-
Gay v. County Com'rs of Bonneville County
...However, the court applied its holding on procedural due process to the facts of that case. Similarly, in Walker-Schmidt Ranch v. Blaine County, 101 Idaho 420, 614 P.2d 960 (1980)--a rezoning case pending when Cooper was decided--the Supreme Court reversed a determination by zoning authorit......
-
Clow v. Board of County Com'rs of Payette County
...be confined to the record. See Hill v. Board of County Commissioners, 101 Idaho 850, 623 P.2d 462 (1981); Walker-Schmidt Ranch v. Blaine County, 101 Idaho 420, 614 P.2d 960 (1980); Cooper v. Board of County Commissioners, 101 Idaho 407, 614 P.2d 947 (1980). Admitting additional evidence whe......