Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

In October 2008, the Idaho Power Company filed an application with the Idaho Public Utilities Commission (IPUC) to modify its tariff. Some of the proposed amendments applied to the relocation of utilities facilities within public rights-of-way. The City of Nampa and the Association of Canyon County Highway Districts intervened in the proceedings, and each objected to the Companyâs proposed amendments to the tariff. The IPUC approved the amendments, and Ada County Highway District (ACHD) filed a petition or reconsideration and clarification. Specifically, ACHD argued that the IPUC exceeded its authority in approving the amendments and that portions of the amended tariff were âan unlawful attempt to amend or abrogate the common law rule requiring a utility to relocate its facilities placed in a public right-of-way at its expense.â Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the IPUC exceeded its authority in determining utilities relocation within public rights-of-way. The Court set aside the amended tariff.

Petitioners-Appellants Douglas and Michelle Stafford obtained a building permit to construct an addition to their residence on Lake Coeur d'Alene in Kootenai County. A framing inspector advised the Appellants' contractor that they would not receive a certificate of occupancy because the landscaping violated the County site disturbance ordinance. The ordinance provided that lots with frontage on the Lake maintain a 25-foot natural vegetation buffer from the water line. Appellants were served a notice of violation of the ordinance, and were directed to prepare a remediation plan to return a portion of the property back to its natural state. Because Appellants were in violation of the site disturbance violation, the zoning board withheld an occupancy permit for Appellants' entire residence. They appealed to the district court which upheld the zoning board. On review, the Supreme Court found problems with the overlapping zoning ordinances in place at the time Appellants sought to develop their property. Appellants argued that the board cited them under the wrong ordinance. But the Court found no statute granting judicial review of administrative proceedings enforcing a zoning ordinance. The Court vacated the district court decision and remanded this case to dismiss Appellants' petition for judicial review.