Evans v. Teton County
139 Idaho 71, 73 P.3d 84, 2003 Ida. LEXIS 88 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A local government's zoning decision will be upheld if it is made "in accordance with" the guiding principles of its comprehensive plan and is supported by substantial evidence in the record. A comprehensive plan serves as a guide for zoning decisions and does not require strict conformity.
Facts:
- Teton Springs, L.L.C. proposed to convert 780 acres of mostly undeveloped farmland and wetland in Teton County into a large-scale Planned Unit Development (PUD) consisting of a golf course, hotel, equestrian facility, and hundreds of residential units.
- The land was originally zoned A-2.5 (agricultural), and Teton Springs requested a zone change to R-1 (residential) to accommodate the development.
- The proposed PUD was adjacent to the Targhee National Forest and near a mix of existing agricultural, residential, and commercial properties.
- Richard Evans and Matthew Finnegan (appellants) owned and lived on two-and-one-half acre residential lots located near the proposed PUD.
- As part of the planning process, Teton Springs provided reports from its engineers and planners, and several local, state, and federal agencies provided input regarding the PUD's potential impact on water, wildlife, traffic, and public services.
Procedural Posture:
- Teton Springs, L.L.C. submitted an application to the Teton County Planning and Zoning Commission for approval of a PUD and a zone change from A-2.5 to R-1.
- After public hearings, the Zoning Commission recommended approval of the application and zone change.
- The Teton County Board of County Commissioners held a joint public hearing and subsequently approved the PUD and granted the zone change, adopting the Zoning Commission's findings of fact.
- Richard Evans and Matthew Finnegan (appellants) filed a Petition for Judicial Review in the district court, challenging the Board's decision.
- The district court (trial court) issued a decision affirming the Board of Commissioners’ approval.
- Evans and Finnegan appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county board of commissioners' approval of a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and an accompanying zone change violate local ordinances and the comprehensive plan when the decision is supported by substantial evidence and is made in accordance with the plan's guiding principles, even if it departs from certain base zoning restrictions?
Opinions:
Majority - Kidwell, Justice
No. The Board of Commissioners’ decision to approve the PUD and grant the zone change did not violate the Teton County ordinances or Comprehensive Plan. A comprehensive plan is a guide, not a legally controlling zoning law, and zoning decisions need only be 'in accordance with' its policies, not in strict conformity. Here, the Board conducted a factual inquiry, considered extensive input from various agencies, and based its decision on substantial, competent evidence in the record, which showed that the development aligned with the plan's goals regarding public services, natural resources, and county revenues. The court also held that the appellants, as adjacent landowners who may be adversely affected, had standing to challenge the decision. Finally, the court deferred to the Board's interpretation of its own ordinances, finding that specific density and incidental-use limitations did not apply to this type of PUD and that the Board had the authority to approve departures from lot size restrictions as long as they were justified.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the significant deference courts grant to local land use authorities in interpreting and applying their own zoning ordinances. It clarifies that a comprehensive plan is a flexible policy guide rather than a rigid legal mandate, meaning challenges to zoning decisions based on a lack of strict conformity with the plan are less likely to succeed. The ruling empowers local governments to approve complex developments like PUDs by allowing flexibility, provided their decisions are rational and supported by a substantial body of evidence in the administrative record. This precedent makes it more difficult for opponents to block developments by pointing to general inconsistencies with a comprehensive plan.
