This put up was written by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
The Jefferson County Board of Commissioners granted Petitioner Tina Gilgen a conditional use allow permitting her to position the cell residence on actual property she owns together with her husband, Kelly Gilgen, in Jefferson County. As a result of Gilgen’s property falls throughout the Metropolis of Ririe’s space of affect (“AOI”), the Metropolis of Ririe filed a petition for judicial assessment, alleging that the County wrongfully accredited Gilgen’s utility by making use of the Jefferson County zoning ordinances throughout the AOI as an alternative of Metropolis ordinances, which might lead to a refusal. Gilgen’s proposal. The district court docket entered an order that granted the Metropolis’s petition, reversed the County’s unique resolution, and referred the matter to the County. Whereas in custody, the County issued an amended resolution denying Gilgen’s utility for a conditional use allow. Gilgen later filed three motions for assessment of the district court docket order that returned the case, alleging the district court docket didn’t have jurisdiction to think about Metropolis’s petition. This movement was dismissed, and Gilgen appealed.
On enchantment, Gilgen argued that the district court docket was legally unsuitable in figuring out that he had topic jurisdiction over the Metropolis’s petition for reconsideration. As a substitute, the Metropolis argued that the district court docket had jurisdiction to grant the declarative reduction requested underneath the Native Land Use Planning Act (“LLUPA”). Right here, the file displays that the Metropolis failed to incorporate LLUPA as a authorized foundation for interesting the District’s resolution in a petition filed with the district court docket. The court docket discovered that though the Metropolis’s petition had invoked LLUPA, the regulation didn’t present the Metropolis with any assist. The court docket famous that LLUPA limits judicial assessment to “affected individuals”, outlined as “individuals who’ve a bona fide curiosity in actual property” who could possibly be adversely affected by land use choices. However, the district court docket agreed with the Metropolis, holding that as a result of the Gilgen property lies inside an “space of affect” managed by the AOI Settlement between the Metropolis and the County, and since the Gilgen property is topic to Metropolis rules, the Metropolis is an affected particular person with an curiosity within the property. which can be negatively impacted.
The court docket famous within the enchantment that the AOI Settlement between Jefferson County and the Metropolis of Ririe required the County to use Metropolis ordinances outdoors of its metropolis limits, however throughout the AOI. Right here, Jefferson County admits it didn’t implement Metropolis ordinances when it initially granted Gilgen a conditional use allow. Thus, the County erred in its utility of the AOI Settlement. The suitable route for reduction is for the Metropolis to file a preliminary motion in search of declarative reduction underneath sections 10-1201 of the Idaho Code, or pursuing acceptable damages or different reduction underneath the APA as supplied for in sections 67-6527. Due to this fact, the court docket vacated the district court docket’s resolution, discovering the Metropolis had no proper to file a assessment petition.
Metropolis of Ririe v Gilgen, 515 P.3d 25 (ID 9/8/2022)
