Kirk-Hughes Development (Kirk) appealed an amended memorandum opinion and order of the District Court of the First Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Kootenai County regarding the denial of the application for approval of a proposed planned unit development (PUD) by the Kootenai County Board of Commissioners (the Board). Kirk submitted its first application to the board to develop a community of no more than 500 residential units, retail space, athletic center, golf course, etc. on 578 acres of land in Kootenai County. After the Board denied the application, Kirk filed notice of appeal in the district court, and both parties entered into a post-mediation agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the appeal was stayed, the Board agreed to consider a new application, and actions were set forth in which Kirk could take in order to obtain approval.
Kirk filed a second application with a modified PUD and request to obtain subdivision approval, which the Board again denied. Kirk filed notice of appeal in the district court and the parties consolidated both appeals. The district court ruled in favor of the Board on all counts, and didn’t address the issues raised in the first appeal because it found that even if the decision of the Board was in error, Kirk’s substantial rights hadn’t been prejudiced.
Pursuant to I.C. § 67-5279 (3), the Court will affirm an agency’s action unless the court finds that the agency’s decision are “(a)in violation of constitutional statutory provisions; (b)in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure, not supported by substantial evidence on the record or as a whole; or (e) arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” In addition, the party challenging the decision must also show that its substantial rights have been prejudiced. I.C. §67-5279(4).
The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed the ruling of the district court because Kirk didn’t appeal the decision that its substantial rights had been prejudiced. The district court found the denial of application by the Board didn’t prejudice Kirk’s substantial rights, and Kirk failed to challenge this finding on appeal. The Supreme Court found that Kirk’s claim that substantial rights as a landowner have been prejudiced and their due process rights were violated was conclusory and insufficient.
Kirk Hughes Development v. Kootenai County Board of County Commissioners, 2010 WL 2179703 (Idaho Supreme Ct. 6/2/2010)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Kirk-HughesCORR.pdf
