07/01/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 10, 2010 Volume 41 No. 9 . i denial on Cedar Ridge's "failure to provide `Base Flood Elevation' in- formation with respect to the proposed subdivision." Cedar Ridge challenged the Board's denial in court. Among other things, Cedar Ridge alleged "that the Board conducted its visit to the site of the proposed subdivision in a manner that violated Idaho's open meeting laws, I.C. § 67-2340, et seq., and was a violation of [Cedar Ridge's] due process rights." In its challenge, Cedar Ridge acknowledged .that proper notice of the public hearing/site visit was provided. Cedar Ridge alleged, howev- er, that "the Board acted in bad faith by intentionally avoiding a group that was gathered near the entrance to the site location, thereby pre- cluding the interested parties from actually attending." The district court affirmed the Board's denial of Cedar Ridge's Application. Cedar Ridge appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of district court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Idaho held that the Board's site visit vio- lated Idaho's open meetings laws. Still, the court concluded that this procedural error did not prejudice a substantial right of Cedar Ridge. Accordingly, the court affirmed the Board's decision to deny Cedar ^) Ridge's Application. In issuing its decision, the court explained that the Board was a governing body of a public agency. As such, it was required to com- ply with Idaho's open meeting law, I.C. $ 67-2342(1). Under that law, all Board meetings had to be "open to the public," and the Board had to allow "all persons... to attend any meeting except as otherwise pro- vided by [Idaho's open meeting laws]," The court said that the law did not require the Board to "allow comments from the public" during the meeting/site visit. However, the court said that, at the very least, the law required that "the public must be permitted to get close enough to the hearing body to hear what is being said." In other words, said the court, while "[t]here are clear reasons why it may be preferable not to allow comments or the submission of evidence during a site visit, ...the interested public must be provided with notice of the scope of the visit and, at a minimum, must be given the opportunity to accompany the hearing body, close enough to hear what is being said." Here, the court found that the Board intentionally avoided a group that was gathered near the entrance to the site location and conducted the site visit without that group. The court agreed with Cedar Ridge that these actions made "it practically impossible for the public to be present while the visit was conducted." Therefore, the court concluded that the site visit was held in violation of Idaho's open meeting laws. However, the court noted, it would not overturn the Board's de- nial unless Cedar Ridge's substantial rights had been prejudiced by the Board's violation of the open meeting laws. The court found that © 2010 Thomson Reuters o 45