Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

(); (J! /-- \ L) -Zoning Bulletin November 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 21 Phase IT, ACDS determined that Dry Creek cauld nat, under the Cade, receive a .secand extensian. Dry Creek appealed ACDS's decisian to. the Baard. It argued that a secand extensian shauld have been granted based an equita- ble cansideratians, including that: (1) neighbaring praperty awners were delaying the canstructian af the praject; (2) the caunty high-- way district refused to.' apprave a final plat until a dispute regard- ing an easement aver the prapertywas resalved; and (3) Dry Creek had "made every effart to. ... camply with all regu~atary and ad- ministrative legal requirements." . . The Baard eventually affirmed the denial af Dry Creek's request far a secand time extensian. The Baard cancluded that ACDS hadpraper- ly denied the extensian request because the "request exceeded the num- ber af permissible time extensians far filing the secand phase." Dry Creek asked the Baard to. recansider its decisian. The Baard de- nied that request. . Dry Creek appealed to. the district caurt. . . The district caurt cancluded that the Baard properly denied the ex- . tensian request because the Co. de anly autharized ane time extensian per applicant. . Dry Creek again appealed. Amang ather things, it argued that the Co. de was arbitrary, capricio.us, and an abuse af discretian. Mare spe- cifically, it argued that, "by allowing anly ane time extensian per ap- plicant, the [Co. de] arbitrarily and capriciausly provide[d] affected per- sans 'a taal at the final plat stage to. defeat a subdivisian plat rather than filing a timely appeal after appravaIaf the preliminary plat.''' The Baard cauntered that the Co. de was nat arbitrary, capriciaus, ar an abuse af discretian. It maintained that the Cade was necessary because "[t]imelines are extremely impartant to. bath the applicant and the [c]aunty." Thelimitatian periad wasimpartant because it "ensures the Baard will make decisians in a timely manner." It said the limita- tian periad benefited the caunty because it "ensures applicants carry out subdivisian plans and camplete canstructian within a specified time, preventing develapment sites fram being 'tarn up' indefinitely." DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Caurt af Idaho. held that the Cade, which pravided far anly ane extensian 9f time to. abtain subdivisian plat approval, was nat arbitrary, capriciaus, ar discriminatary. Thus, the denial af Dry Creek's request far a secand extensian af time was proper. In sa halding, the caurt explained that far the Cade to. be invalid, it had to. be unreasanable. It wauld be unreasanable, anly if it was "arbi- trary, capriciaus, ar discriminatary." That wauld be the case anlyif it bare "no. substantial relatianship to. the public health, safety, maraIs, and @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 5 33