A Blaine County, Idaho, court decision may affect future development in this rural county and may impact county and city ordinances statewide.
A Blaine County court decision may affect future development in this rural county and may impact county and city ordinances statewide.
In a decision handed down June 3, District 5 Judge Robert Elgee told county officials the county’s ordinances governing the fees developers pay to mitigate impacts on public services are unlawful and must be revised. In addition, he said cities and counties may not turn down development applications on the sole basis of being inconsistent with the comprehensive plan.
Blaine County’s chief deputy prosecuting attorney Tim Graves declined to comment because part of the lawsuit is still pending, adding, “I also am prohibited by my ethical rules from being outwardly critical of a judge.”
County administrator Mike McNees said the county commissioners have had at least one executive session discussing the decision, but no action has been taken yet.
In January 2008 Cove Springs filed suit against Blaine County, seeking a review of the county’s “improper procedure and its arbitrary and capricious application of the relevant law,” according to a Cove Springs press release from the time. The lawsuit also seeks damages that could add up to “many millions of dollars,” according to the release.
The development was originally proposed in December 2004, consisting of 340 homes on 600 acres of the 4,600-acre Cove Springs Ranch, located in Blaine County about four miles south of Bellevue and one mile east of Gannett Road. The remaining 4,000 acres would be left as productive agriculture land and open space.
Public hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission began in October 2006, with a dozen occurring before the commission recommended the county commissioners deny the application in April 2007. The public spoke up about the development throughout the hearing process, with those opposed to the development outweighing supporters by a roughly 2-1 margin in at least one meeting, according to news reports from the time.
That August, developers responded to the county’s concerns and submitted revised plans, eliminating 52 lots and preserving more land for wildlife habitat protection. The county commissioners nevertheless unanimously rejected the subdivision in October 2007.
The court’s June 3 ruling does not yet address the Cove Springs denial specifically, but rather some of the ordinances the county used as reasons for denial.
A court document filed by the county lists five main reasons for the commission’s denial. With this decision, Cove Springs attorneys say at least two of those reasons have been struck down.
The decision declared county ordinances stating developments must conform to the county’s comprehensive plan were invalid.
Cove Springs attorney Chris Meyer said such broad requirements leave developers to wrestle with “vague and conflicting aspirational goals” that should be sorted out by the county and spelled out specifically in zoning ordinances.
commercial appraiser, commercial appraisal