Laserfiche WebLink
May 10, 2010 ]Volume 41 No. 9 Zoning Bulletin <br />Notice and Hearing—Board intentionally avoids (� <br />group at visit to site of proposed subdivision <br />Applicant says Board actions violate state open meeting laws <br />Citation: Noble v. Kootenai County, 2010 WL 1241522 (Idaho 2010) <br />IDAHO (04/01/10)—This case addressed the issue of whether a <br />county board of commissioners' visit to a site of proposed development <br />was conducted in violation of Idaho's open meeting laws. <br />The Background/Facts: John Noble and Cedar Ridge Homes, Inc. <br />(collectively, "Cedar Ridge") owned approximately 1S2 acres (the <br />"Property") in the county. In February 2006, Cedar Ridge filed an ap- <br />plication (the "Application") to construct a 20 lot subdivision on its <br />Property. <br />After an initial public hearing on Cedar Ridge's Application, the <br />county Hearing Examiner recommended apprgval of the Application. <br />A second public hearing was then held by the County Board of Com- <br />missioners (the "Board"). At the conclusion of that hearing, the Board <br />chose to leave the hearing open. The Board scheduled a visit to Ce- <br />dar Ridge's Property. Subsequent to that site visit, the Board issued a <br />written order denying Cedar Ridge's Application. The Board based its <br />2 <br />44 <br />WESTo <br />I •. <br />610 Opperman Drive • P.O. Box 64526 • St Paul, MN 55164-0526 <br />1-800-229-2084 • email: west.customemervice@thomsonreuters.com • westthomson.com/quinlan <br />ISSN 0514-7905 • ® 2010 Thomson Reuters. All Rights Reserved. <br />Quinlan" is a Thomson Reuters brand. <br />m 2010 Thomson Reuters <br />