Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 1 In 2008, Eddins applied for a permit from the city's Community De- velopment Department (the "Department "). Eddins sought the permit to allow one of his current tenants to replace an existing recreational ve- hicle with a newer recreational vehicle. The Department denied Eddins' requested permit. The Department told Eddins that the Ordinance pro- hibited him from placing additional recreational vehicles in his park. Eddins appealed the Department's decision to the city's Planning and Zoning Commission (the "PZC "). He argued that he had a grandfather right to replace existing recreational vehicles with* new or substitute recre- ational vehicles. The PZC upheld the Department's decision. The PZC con- cluded that Eddins' grandfather right under the Ordinance only permitted him to keep existing recreational vehicles in the mobile home • park; it did not allow him to bring in additional or substitute recreational vehicles. Eddins appealed to the city council. The city council upheld the PZC's decision. Eddins then filed an action in district court. He argued that he had a due process right to continue his nonconforming use of renting spaces for both manufactured homes and recreational vehicles after the Ordi- nance was enacted. The city argued that Eddins did not have a right to substitute new rec- reational vehicles because the grandfather right in the Ordinance did not allow it. The district court upheld the PZC's decision. Eddins appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The Supreme Court of Idaho held that Eddins' replacement of recre- ational vehicles constituted a continuation of his nonconforming use and thus was protected by due process. The court explained that, under the due process clause of the United States Constitution and the Idaho State Constitution, individuals have a right to continue a "nonconforming use." In other words, due process re- quires that a nonconforming use be allowed to continue after a new zoning ordinance is enacted. Still, the right to continue a nonconforming use is "not without limitation." Nonconforming uses may not be expanded or enlarged. The court further explained that in determining, on a case -by -case ba- sis, whether a nonconforming use has been enlarged or expanded, the court focuses on: whether there has been some change in the fundamen- tal or primary use of the property. In this case, Eddins' fundamental or primary use of the property— "both before and after the [O]rdinance was passed —was to rent spac- es for both manufactured homes and recreational vehicles." The court determined that replacing existing recreational vehicles with new recre- ational vehicles was "not an expansion or enlargement of Eddins' non- conforming use." This was because that act of replacement did "nothing © 2011 Thomson Reuters 3