Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/2004

Home

Page 8 - September 10, 2004 Z.B. could not rule on whether his interpretacion of the zoning code was correct. Regan had an adequate adrrinistrative remedy. The Kootenai County Hear- ing Examiner was designated as the decision maker for appeals concerning issues of interpretation. Regan attempeed to bypass the administrative process for reviewing the planning director's imerprerarion of the county zoning ordinance. Regan's com- plaint was filed in response to the planning director's July 20, 1999 letter inter- preting the zoning ordinance as prohibiting Regan's use of a private noncom- mercial airfield on his property. Tne complaint Slated. absent a favorable interpre- tacion of the ordinance from a court, there was no adequate remedy available. However. no showing of the above conclusion was ever made. Essentially, Regan sought declaratory relief from the planning director's incerpretation of the zoning ordinance. This issue should have been pursued before the Kootenai county zoning authorities under the procedures of the county's administrative appeal ordinance and not through the coures. Appeal - Remaining two commissioners split on zoning request Requesi denied because of no majoriiy vote to approve or deny Ciwrion: Brower v. Bingham Coumy Commissioners, Supreme Court of Idaho, No. 29739 (2004) IDAHO (06130/04) - Brower petitioned to have his land rezoned so he could subdivide it. The planning and zoning commission recommended the change, and the Board of County Commissioners for Bingham COllnty then considered the request. At the hearing, one of the three conunissioners recused himself because he was Brower's cousin. Because the remaining tWO comrnissioners disagreed, the comrnission denied the requested zoning change. Brower sued. arguing local law required the commiSSlOn to accept the rec- ommendation of the planning and zoning board unless rejected by a majority vote. The cbun ruled in favor of the commission, finding stare law did not allow the commission to delegate lts authoriey to adopt ordinances or [0 approve Land subdivisions. Brower appealed. DEC15ION: Affirmed. The ffiaiorHV vote law should not be ClDDlied to this simaeion. J ~ L 1.. Brow'er"s requested zoning:ban~e cuuld only happen if the county com- rnlssLoners JL1cpu:d an \)rdil1au(c ~tmeoding [he (:urTenc zoojng ordinance. ,-\lchcug.b chc ?tJ.nning jnd Zt)Olng '-:crnnllSSlon h~ld (he aUThorIty [0 recom- rncod ~hc =~':,nln; ,~h~lns'::' [he ~':c'-milHSsi()[}ef) ('i)tdd Jut deleg1[~ fO [he planning :J.~1:,-: z~.)nlr.:.~ ;_":~rC_Dl1:);)i(in '1[; :-:iirr:lrice InaluDg z () om g ,-=n.~ln2~. 112 2'-:(:.1 :'U!n:3n::'j['!:S;i:j;l~ _~(I)UC. ':'1::/ :"';S-{':'(lLiC::C;: :-=rc....:iO[i.0.::~. :,> ,;iCj,:; nlCfrT,2UCn :)1&232 .:2.H C; -, :.l~2,')O~:3.