Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2004

Home

September 10,2004 - Page 7 Z.B. First, it was facially invalid because it was dated Jan. 22, 2002, despite the fact the board did not vote on the application until Feb. 26, 2002. Second, the factual findings set forth in a resolution had to be more than a mere recital of testimony or conclusory statemehts. Rather, the resolution had to contain sufficient findings, based on the proofs submitted, to satisfy a re- Iflewing coun the board had analyzed the variance request in accordance with the law and in light of the master plan and zoning ordinances. The board's resolution set forth no factual findings. It merely identified the ~lpplic:lnt: described the proposed site; summarized, in a very cursory fashion, the testimony presented by New York SMSA's witnesses; and reiterated se- lected board member and public comments. Its sole conclusory statement was coucbed in statutory language and lacked any reference to specific facts and circumstances surrounding the application. While individual board member remarks made during the course of hearings could be useful in interpreting ambiguous language in a resolution, they were not a substimte for tbe formality mandated by state law. Such remarks mainly reflected the beliefs of the speaker and could not be assumed to represent the findings of an entire board. Because such remarks represented infOlmal verbalizations of the speaker's transitory thoughts, they could not be equated to deliberative findings of LlCt. Ultimately, it was the resolution, and not the board members' delibera- tions, tbat had to provide the legally required findings of facts and conclusions. see also: ,Hedical Cemer at Princeton v. Princeton Zoning Board ofAdjustn.1ent, 778 A.2d 482 (2001). see also: Smith v. Fair Haven Zoning Board ofAdjusmzem, 761 A.2d 111 (2000). Appeal- Landowner sues over plam:llng diredor's code interpretation F ails to utilize administrative appeals process Citm/on: Regan v. Kootenai Coumy, Supreme Court of Idaho, No. 29737 (2004) IDAHO (07/01/04) - Regan received a site disturbance permit from Kootenai Cuunty allowing for the grading of an existing road. Regan resurfaced the road and converted portions of it for use as a private airstrip for himself and his in 'fitees on <1 noncommercial basis. In a July 20. 1999 letter, a planning director with the Kootenai County Plan- l1in~ Depanment informed Regan his airstrip was 3. prohibited use because it W:l:) not speClfic;l11y iisT.ed JS a permitted or conditional use in the district. R;:;~an :luee!. lrguing his airLeld was legal because the ordinance did Dot ::ddres:; noncomrne::cial Jirstrips at all. The coun ruled in favor of the county. !ij)dtn~ the zODlilg.::oc:e in fJC banned <111 airstrips in [he district built after 1973. 2c:;~H1 JppeJieG. ~lrgt,ing the ;:;ourt' smterpretarion was flawed. DECISION: Reversi::d. ~~.~.~~ln ,~,)ulJ ;:U[ ~Jr:n.5 ~Jl~ ;2[)rnpLll111 [c court. ~ . 1.__OQSc:JuenCl-':';. [nc COUII '.2; ~;-':C,J. :ulol;:.n ::'.;oll~\Hnq ~~;"(:uo. .--'.,il'.' '2GrGcuc~iGn So -;)i'GOICilG.J. ::sr,:iGre :nformatlon :JieaS6 ::2.1\ 6-; -, :J.'Z.,)OdC. 111