Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2015 !Volume 9 1 Issue 21 The Background/Facts: Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. ("AEHI") sought to locate a nuclear power plant on a 5,000 -acre parcel of property in Payette County (the "County"). The property was zoned Agricultural. Because the prop- erty needed to be rezoned to Industrial for the proposed nuclear power plant, AEHI: (1) submitted an application to amend the County's comprehensive plan to change the designation of the property "from Agriculture 1, 2, and Mixed to Industrial"; and (2) submitted a Rezone and Development Agreement Applica- tion to the County's Planning and Zoning Commission (the "PZC") proposing the rezone "of approximately 500 acres from A (agricultural) to 1-2 (heavy industrial) zoning." The County amended the comprehensive plan, designating the subject prop- erty as Industrial and adding general language that energy producers wishing to locate in the County would have their applications considered on an individual basis. The PZC recommended approval of AEHI's rezone application. Opponents of the project, including a neighboring landowner—H-Hook, LLC ("H -Hook") appealed the PZC's decision to the County Commissioners. The County Com- missioners approved AEHI's application. They found that the proposed zoning was compatible with surrounding land uses and that the 500 -acre parcel that would be rezoned would be contained within a larger 5,000 -acre parcel, result- ing in a buffer zone from neighboring properties. A number of parties, including H -Hook, sought judicial review of the County Commissioners' decision. They argued that the rezone of the property consti- tuted illegal spot zoning. Among other things, the district court determined that the County Commis- sioners' approval of the rezone did not constitute spot zoning because the rezone was in accordance with the County's amended comprehensive plan. H -Hook appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Idaho also held that the rezone did not constitute ille- gal spot zoning. In so holding, the court explained that "[a] claim of 'spot zoning' is essentially an argument the change in zoning is not in accord with the comprehensive plan." The court further explained that there are two types of "spot zoning": "Type one spot zoning may simply refer to a rezoning of property for a use prohibited by the original zoning classification. The test for whether such a zone reclassification is valid is whether the zone change is in accord with the comprehensive plan. Type two spot zoning refers to a zone change that singles out a parcel of land for use in- consistent with the permitted use in the rest of the zoning district for the benefit of an individual property owner. This latter type of spot zoning is invalid." H -Hook had contended that the rezone was impermissible type one spot zoning. H -Hoole argued that "under the amended comprehensive plan, power plant siting does not have to follow any sort of comprehensive planning analysis." "Instead," maintained H -Hook, "the Commissioners are permitted to use an ad hoc approach." The court concluded that the rezone was not invalid type one spot zoning. The court found that the rezone was in compliance with the comprehensive plan's designation of the land due to the amendment of the comprehensive plan to des- © 2015 Thomson Reuters 3