In a case that was really about whether an adjacent property owner had recourse for judicial review to challenge the decision of a local government to amend its comprehensive plan map, this opinion is of national interest because the Supreme Court of Idaho took the opportunity to describe the differences between planning and zoning.

 

After the owners of land located in an A-1 Agricultural district, in which urbanization is declared to be neither appropriate nor compatible with the possible agricultural activities in the area, were successful in getting the county board of commissioner to amend the comprehensive plan map to indicate that the suitable projected uses for their land would be consistent with those permitted in an A-2 Agricultural zone (where continuing urbanization is not discouraged but still must be approved after weighing its benefits against any harm that might result to the quality and character of the neighborhood), an adjacent owner of an 843 acre tract of land used as a dairy farm petitioned for judicial review of the change in the comprehensive plan map. The dairy farm owner argued that it was harmed because this change would later allow its neighbor to request a zoning change from A-1 Agricultural to A-2 Agricultural. The district court held that the dairy farm owner was not aggrieved by a change in the comprehensive plan map because it does not operate as a legally controlling zoning law and did not require the county to change the zoning. 

 

In affirming the district court decision, the Idaho Supreme Court offered a good textbook description of the differences between planning and zoning.  The Court said:

 

“Planning is long range; zoning is immediate.  Planning is general; zoning is specific. Planning involves political processes; zoning is a legislative function and an exercise of the police power.  Planning is generally dynamic while zoning is more or less static.  Planning often involves frequent changes; zoning designations should not.  Planning has a speculative impact upon property values, while zoning may actually constitute a valuable property right.”

 

The Court continued, “…while zoning designations should generally follow and be consistent with the long-range designations established in the Comprehensive Plan there is no requirement that zoning immediately conform to the Plan.  The Plan is a statement of long-range public intent; zoning is an exercise of police power which, in the long run, should be consistent with that intent.  Planning is a determination of public policy, and zoning, to be a legitimate exercise of the police power should be in furtherance of that policy.”

 

Therefore, since the comprehensive plan map amendment does not itself authorize development, the Supreme Court agreed that the adjacent dairy farm owner was not an affected person under the statute for purposes of standing to challenge the action. Further, examining the statutory requirements for challenging certain land use actions, the Court notes that a request to change a comprehensive plan is not an application for a permit, and therefore that statutory provision was inapplicable.  In the end, the dairy farm owner was unable to point to any state statute in Idaho that authorizes a petition for judicial review of a decision to amend a comprehensive plan map.

 

 

Giltner Dairy, LLC v. Jerome County, 2008 WL 803001 (Idaho, 3/27/2008).

 

The opinion can also be accessed at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/giltner34020.pdf