Idaho Land Use Handbook - Givens Pursley LLP · Idaho Land Use Handbook The Law of Planning, Zoning, and Property Rights in Idaho By Gary G. Allen, Esq. Christopher H. Meyer, Esq

Idaho Land Use Handbook

The Law of Planning,

Zoning, and Property

Rights in Idaho

By

Gary G. Allen, Esq.

Christopher H. Meyer, Esq.

Deborah E. Nelson, Esq.

Franklin G. Lee, Esq.

GIVENS PURSLEY LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW

601 West Bannock Street

Boise, Idaho 83702

208-388-1200

www.givenspursley.com

February 3, 2020

LAND USE HANDBOOK © 2020 GIVENS PURSLEY LLP Page 1 14531573_48.doc

CHAPTER INDEX

2. INTRODUCTION TO LAND USE LAW ........................................................................... 20 3. THE PLANNING AND ZONING POWER ......................................................................... 23 4. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ............................................................................................ 33 5. ZONING ORDINANCES ................................................................................................ 48 6. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (“TDRS”) ................................................... 68 7. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ...................................................................................... 70 8. MORATORIA ............................................................................................................... 72 9. ANNEXATION AND AREA OF CITY IMPACT ................................................................ 75 10. THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS ...................................................................................... 101 11. THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS ............................................................................... 110 12. MEDIATION ............................................................................................................... 120 13. SMART GROWTH ...................................................................................................... 122 14. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION (OR CAUSE OF ACTION) ................................................ 133 15. STANDING: WHO MAY BRING AN ACTION ............................................................. 137 16. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ............................................................................................. 184 17. IDAHO TORT CLAIM ACT (“ITCA”) ......................................................................... 186 18. MANDATORY CLAIMS STATUTES FOR COUNTIES (IDAHO CODE §§ 31-1501

AND 63-1308(2)) ....................................................................................................... 195 19. STATUTES OF LIMITATION ........................................................................................ 198 20. STATUTES OF REPOSE ............................................................................................... 212 21. JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CIVIL ACTIONS ................................................................... 213 22. COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS ...................................................................... 324 23. DUE PROCESS RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO LAND USE DECISIONS ................................ 353 24. EQUAL PROTECTION ................................................................................................. 368 25. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS .................................................................................. 370 26. TAKINGS ................................................................................................................... 376 27. USER FEES, IMPACT FEES (IDIFA), AND THE “ILLEGAL TAX” ISSUE ....................... 429 28. COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGIES FOR CALCLUATING CAP FEES ......................... 476 29. THE “VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT” ISSUE ................................................................... 485 30. EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE LAW OF CONDEMNATION IN IDAHO ........................... 500 31. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON GOVERNMENTAL DEBT AND THE NON-

APPROPRIATION LEASE ............................................................................................. 519 32. OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ................................................... 534 33. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (LIMITED TO FINANCIAL CONFLICTS) ............................... 537 34. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT.............................................................................................. 539 35. WHEN IS RULEMAKING REQUIRED?1 ....................................................................... 540 36. OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL PLANNING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION LAW ........... 542 37. FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING IDAHO LAND USE........................................................ 546 38. BASICS OF URBAN RENEWAL LAW FOR DEVELOPERS ............................................. 552 39. RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY CREATED BY DEVELOPERS’ REPRESENTATIONS ...... 554 40. ENDOWMENT LANDS ................................................................................................ 559 41. WATER RIGHTS AND LAND USE PLANNING ............................................................. 561 42. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS .................. 562


INDEX TO APPENDICES

Appendix A LIST OF STATUTES, COURT RULES, AND CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS

Appendix B EXAMPLE OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

Appendix C DAVISCO FOODS V. GOODING CTY. – MEDIATION DECISION

Appendix D REPORT TO LEGISLATURE ON TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS

Appendix E PARTIAL LIST OF IDAHO STATUTES ON EMINENT DOMAIN POWERS

Appendix F SCHAEFER V. CITY OF SUN VALLEY – AFFORDABLE HOUSING DECISION

Appendix G MOUNTAIN CENTRAL BOARD OF REALTORS, INC. V. CITY OF MCCALL – AFFORDABLE HOUSING DECISION

Appendix H COVE SPRINGS DEV., INC. AND REDSTONE PARTNERS, L.P. V. BLAINE CTY. – DECISION REGARDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND EXACTION ORDINANCES

Appendix I MEMORANDUM ADDRESSING CONTIGUITY REQUIREMENT

Appendix J IDAHO REGULATORY TAKINGS ACT GUIDELINES

Appendix K ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Appendix L PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FROM GIVENS PURSLEY


DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS

2. INTRODUCTION TO LAND USE LAW ........................................................................... 20 3. THE PLANNING AND ZONING POWER ......................................................................... 23

A. The constitutional source .............................................................................. 23 B. The statutory source (LLUPA) ...................................................................... 24 C. Powers and duties of the P&Z commission................................................... 25

(1) Enumerated powers .......................................................................... 25 (2) Mandatory planning duties ............................................................... 26

D. Preemption .................................................................................................... 26 (1) State preemption of local zoning laws, generally ............................ 26 (2) Preemption of LLUPA by the Idaho Public Utilities

Commission ..................................................................................... 27 (3) Federal preemption ........................................................................... 28

E. Planning and zoning authorities (governing boards and P&Z commissions) ................................................................................................. 30 (1) Creation of P&Z commissions is optional ....................................... 30 (2) Separate or combined “planning” and “zoning” commissions ........ 30 (3) Joint commissions (among neighboring communities) .................... 30 (4) Delegation to the commission and review by the governing

board ................................................................................................. 31 (5) Non-delegation doctrine. .................................................................. 32

4. COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ............................................................................................ 33 A. Introduction ................................................................................................... 33 B. Zoning ordinances must be in “accordance” with the comprehensive

plan ................................................................................................................ 35 C. Conditional use permits must be “not in conflict” with the

comprehensive plan. ...................................................................................... 39 D. The “in accordance with” requirement in the context of other land use

actions. .......................................................................................................... 40 E. Required elements ......................................................................................... 43 F. Land use map ................................................................................................ 44 G. Geographic scope of plan .............................................................................. 44 H. Procedure for adoption of comprehensive plan ............................................. 45 I. Comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances may not be adopted by

initiative......................................................................................................... 45 J. Practical considerations for developers ......................................................... 45 K. Discretionary authority to change comprehensive plan ................................ 47 L. Comprehensive plans and “future needs” water rights ................................. 47

5. ZONING ORDINANCES ................................................................................................ 48 A. Establishing zoning districts and rezoning .................................................... 48

(1) Overview .......................................................................................... 48 (2) Grant of authority ............................................................................. 48 (3) Procedural requirements for validity ................................................ 48 (4) Consideration given to impacts on services ..................................... 49 (5) Uniformity ........................................................................................ 49 (6) Vested rights: four-year entitlement ................................................ 50 (7) Initial zoning upon annexation and rights to develop unzoned

property ............................................................................................ 50 (8) Spot zoning ...................................................................................... 50

B. Conditional use permits (aka special use permits) ........................................ 54


(1) Overview .......................................................................................... 54 (2) Standards for permit approval .......................................................... 55 (3) The conditions may not waive or postpone a prerequisite

under the ordinance. ......................................................................... 56 (4) Conditions attached to a conditional use permit may be

modified. .......................................................................................... 57 C. Planned unit developments............................................................................ 57 D. Overlay districts, historical districts, and design review ............................... 58 E. Ground water and land use planning ............................................................. 60 F. Sexually-oriented businesses ......................................................................... 60 G. Right To Farm Act ........................................................................................ 63 H. CAFOs........................................................................................................... 64 I. Group homes ................................................................................................. 64 J. Nonconforming uses (grandfathering of pre-existing uses) .......................... 64 K. Variances ....................................................................................................... 66

6. TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (“TDRS”) ................................................... 68 7. CONSERVATION EASEMENTS ...................................................................................... 70 8. MORATORIA ............................................................................................................... 72 9. ANNEXATION AND AREA OF CITY IMPACT ................................................................ 75

A. The allocation of governmental authority between cities and counties. ....... 75 B. Area of city impact ........................................................................................ 75 C. Annexation .................................................................................................... 77

(1) The power to annex .......................................................................... 77 (2) Effect of municipal annexation ........................................................ 78 (3) New zoning is required upon annexation ......................................... 79 (4) The annexation statute (Idaho Code § 50-222) ................................ 79

(a) Overview ............................................................................. 79 (b) Summary chart .................................................................... 81 (c) Category A annexations ...................................................... 81 (d) Category B annexations ...................................................... 82 (e) Category C annexations ...................................................... 83 (f) Consent ................................................................................ 83 (g) Subdivision or sale of five-acre lots .................................... 84

(i) The requirement of subdivision or sale .................. 84 (ii) Burdens of proof .................................................... 86 (iii) Statutory exceptions to subdivision or sale ............ 86

(h) The contiguity requirement ................................................. 86 (i) The shoestring issue ............................................... 87 (ii) The touching corners issue ..................................... 88 (iii) The crossing water bodies issue ............................. 88 (iv) The “single geographic unit” issue ........................ 90

(i) Annexed lands must be within the area of city impact, except for voluntary category A annexations. ..................... 90

(j) Special cases ....................................................................... 92 (i) Fairgrounds and recreational lands ........................ 92 (ii) Railroads ................................................................ 92 (iii) Airports .................................................................. 93

(k) Judicial review of annexations ............................................ 93 (l) The test of reasonableness ................................................... 93

D. Annexation of state and federal lands ........................................................... 94 (1) Federal law permits unilateral annexation of federal lands .............. 95


(2) Idaho law permits unilateral annexation of public lands .................. 96 (a) Category A .......................................................................... 96

(i) Section 50-222 does not preclude unilateral annexation of public lands ..................................... 96

(ii) Even if unilateral annexation of public lands is unlawful, express consent should not be

required .................................................................. 98 (b) Category B .......................................................................... 98 (c) Category C .......................................................................... 99

(3) De-annexation .................................................................................. 99 10. THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS ...................................................................................... 101

A. Introduction ................................................................................................. 101 B. Idaho’s Subdivision Statute ......................................................................... 102 C. The “platting” process ................................................................................. 103 D. Vacation of plats, public streets and rights-of-way ..................................... 106 E. Restrictive covenants .................................................................................. 107

(1) Enforceability of restrictive covenants ........................................... 107 (2) Drafting considerations for restrictive covenants ........................... 108

(a) Reasonableness ................................................................. 108 (b) Flexibility .......................................................................... 109 (c) Consistency ....................................................................... 109 (d) Enforcement mechanisms ................................................. 109

11. THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS ............................................................................... 110 A. Sequencing of development application...................................................... 110 B. Typical hearing procedure ........................................................................... 110 C. Building the record ...................................................................................... 111 D. Findings and conclusions: the “reasoned statement” ................................. 112 E. Alternatives: requirement to explain the actions the application could

take to obtain a permit ................................................................................. 116 F. Reconsideration and tolling of the appeal period ........................................ 116

12. MEDIATION ............................................................................................................... 120 13. SMART GROWTH ...................................................................................................... 122

A. Principles of Smart Growth ......................................................................... 122 (1) Mixed land uses.............................................................................. 122 (2) Transportation choices ................................................................... 122 (3) Range of housing opportunities ..................................................... 122 (4) Compact building design ................................................................ 122 (5) Preserve Open spaces and natural resources .................................. 123

B. Model codes ................................................................................................ 123 (1) SmartCode ...................................................................................... 123

C. Infill versus greenfield developments ......................................................... 124 (1) Infill advantages and challenges .................................................... 124 (2) Greenfield advantages and challenges ........................................... 124

D. Idaho developments with Smart Growth components ................................ 124 (1) BoDo-Downtown Boise development ........................................... 124 (2) Bown Crossing ............................................................................... 125 (3) Courthouse Corridor ....................................................................... 125 (4) Crescent Rim .................................................................................. 125 (5) Hidden Springs ............................................................................... 125

E. Planning processes affecting development patterns .................................... 126 (1) Blueprint for good growth .............................................................. 126


(2) Communities in motion .................................................................. 126 (3) Idaho’s Joint Legislative Environmental Common Sense

Committee, Subcommittee on Servicing Communities ................. 126 F. Other resources ............................................................................................ 127

(1) Environmental Protection Agency ................................................. 127 (2) Smart Growth America .................................................................. 127 (3) Idaho Smart Growth ....................................................................... 127

G. Smart Growth Development Scorecards ..................................................... 127 14. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION (OR CAUSE OF ACTION) ................................................ 133

A. A plaintiff or petitioner must identify a cause of action .............................. 133 B. The federal APA and IAPA provide a private right of action. .................... 133 C. Deadline for seeking judicial review under the federal APA. ..................... 135 D. The ITCA does not provide a cause of action. ............................................ 135

15. STANDING: WHO MAY BRING AN ACTION ............................................................. 137 A. The federal constitutional foundation. ........................................................ 137 B. The Idaho Supreme Court has adopted principles of Article III

standing notwithstanding that Idaho has no “case or controversy”

provision. ..................................................................................................... 137 C. The basic constitutional requirements: Injury in fact, causation, and

redressability ............................................................................................... 139 (1) Injury-in-fact .................................................................................. 139

(a) The injury must be particularized ..................................... 140 (i) Proximity .............................................................. 140 (ii) Taxpayers and ratepayers ..................................... 142 (iii) Business competition alone is insufficient to

confer standing ..................................................... 144 (iv) Injury based on environmental harm .................... 145 (v) Injury in endowment land cases ........................... 147 (vi) Injury in political cases ........................................ 148 (vii) Injury based on procedural violations .................. 149 (viii) How much specificity (geographic nexus) is

required in pleading and affidavits ....................... 150 (b) The injury must be actual or imminent, not conjectural

or hypothetical ................................................................... 154 (2) Causation and redressability .......................................................... 156

D. Relaxation or waiver of standing (from Koch to Regan) ............................ 157 E. Legislative control over standing ................................................................ 160 F. Standing under Idaho statutes ..................................................................... 161 G. The Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act does not confer standing ............. 161 H. Standing under LLUPA, the IAPA, and other state statutes ....................... 162 I. Standing in allegedly illegal fee and tax cases falls on those who bear

the “incidence” of the fee or tax. ................................................................. 163 J. Associational standing (aka organizational standing) ................................. 164

(1) Federal law ..................................................................................... 164 (2) Associational standing in Idaho ..................................................... 165

K. Standing may not be based on speculation .................................................. 167 L. Justiciability ................................................................................................ 168 M. Zoning ordinances ....................................................................................... 168 N. Standing of agency employee to bring appeal............................................. 168 O. Standing of the prosecutor or attorney general to bring or defend

actions on behalf of the people .................................................................... 168


P. Standing to attack contract .......................................................................... 169 Q. Prudential standing ...................................................................................... 169

(1) Origins and basis of the zone of interests test ................................ 169 (2) The zone of interests test in NEPA and ESA cases ........................ 171

R. Burden of proof is on plaintiff..................................................................... 177 S. “Foot in the door” standing – the right to litigate and pursue other

issues in the case ......................................................................................... 178 T. “Foot in the door” standing – multiple plaintiffs ........................................ 178 U. Standing on appeal ...................................................................................... 179 V. Federal intervention .................................................................................... 179

(1) The governing rules ........................................................................ 179 (2) Standing requirements for intervenors ........................................... 180 (3) Intervention in NEPA cases – the demise of the “federal

defendant only” rule. ...................................................................... 182 (4) Permissive intervention and the “independent jurisdictional

grounds” rule .................................................................................. 183 W. Article III’s standing requirement does not apply to agencies. ................... 183

16. SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY ............................................................................................. 184 A. Basis of sovereign immunity ....................................................................... 184 B. Idaho’s waiver of sovereign immunity for state law claims alleging

constitutional violations. ............................................................................. 184 C. Section 1983 does not waive sovereign immunity ...................................... 184 D. Local governments do not enjoy sovereign immunity ................................ 185

17. IDAHO TORT CLAIM ACT (“ITCA”) ......................................................................... 186 A. Grant of authority to sue for torts ................................................................ 186 B. The ITCA does not apply to federal claims ................................................ 187 C. Exceptions to waiver of sovereign immunity (Idaho Code §§ 6-940,

6-904A) ....................................................................................................... 188 D. Tort claim notice must be filed within 180 days ......................................... 189 E. ITCA’s notice requirement is made applicable to all damage claims

against cities by section 50-219. ................................................................. 190 F. The ITCA’s two-year statute of limitation .................................................. 192 G. Is failure to file a jurisdictional defect? ....................................................... 192 H. Content of claim .......................................................................................... 193

18. MANDATORY CLAIMS STATUTES FOR COUNTIES (IDAHO CODE §§ 31-1501 AND 63-1308(2)) ....................................................................................................... 195

19. STATUTES OF LIMITATION ........................................................................................ 198 A. Potentially applicable statutes of limitations ............................................... 198 B. The policy underlying the statute of limitations .......................................... 198 C. The statute of limitations may bar constitutional claims. ............................ 198 D. State-law inverse condemnation claims are subject to Idaho’s catch-all

four-year statute of limitations (Idaho Code § 5-224) if no other statute

of limitations is applicable. ......................................................................... 198 E. State-law inverse condemnation cases against cities are subject to the

two-year statute of limitations in the ITCA................................................. 199 F. The clock starts when a substantial interference with the plaintiff’s

property becomes apparent.......................................................................... 201 G. “Project completion rule” for government construction projects ................ 205 H. Nuisance actions are subject to the four-year statute of limitation. ............ 205 I. Two-year statute of limitations in § 1983 actions (including taking

claims) ......................................................................................................... 206


(1) Section 1983 actions are subject to the Idaho’s statute of limitations for personal injury. ....................................................... 206

(2) When the statute begins to run ....................................................... 208 (3) When does the federal cause of action accrue if it is unripe

under Williamson County? ............................................................. 209 (4) Statutes of limitations in Bivens actions ......................................... 210

20. STATUTES OF REPOSE ............................................................................................... 212 21. JUDICIAL REVIEW AND CIVIL ACTIONS ................................................................... 213

A. Judicial review is available only where authorized by statute. ................... 213 B. Judicial Review under the IAPA. ................................................................ 213 C. Overview: Availability of judicial review under LLUPA .......................... 214 D. Interaction between LLUPA and IAPA ...................................................... 220 E. LLUPA’s judicial review provisions today ................................................. 222

(1) As amended in 2010, LLUPA identifies specific actions that are subject to judicial review. ......................................................... 222

(2) Enforcement actions are not reviewable under LLUPA. ............... 223 F. The law prior to the 2010 amendment ........................................................ 224

(1) Prior to Giltner I in 2008, reviewability turned on whether the action was legislative or quasi-judicial. ......................................... 224

(2) The basis for the legislative versus quasi-judicial distinction ........ 225 (3) Until 1980, all zoning actions were viewed as legislative. ............ 226 (4) Idaho Supreme Court classifies actions into quasi-judicial and

legislative categories ...................................................................... 227 (5) In Giltner I and subsequent cases the Court ruled that only

“permits” may be challenged under LLUPA. ................................ 229 G. Burden of proof in challenging an ordinance .............................................. 233 H. Judicial review is limited to the record ....................................................... 233 I. Standard of review under the IAPA ............................................................ 236

(1) “Preponderance of the evidence” standard applies at the administrative stage. ....................................................................... 236

(2) The statutory framework – applicable standards of review ........... 237 (3) Presumption of validity .................................................................. 237 (4) Judicial review of legal determinations .......................................... 238 (5) Judicial review of procedural error ................................................ 239 (6) Judicial review of fact-finding (the substantial evidence /

clearly erroneous test) .................................................................... 239 (7) Judicial review of discretion (the arbitrary and capricious /

abuse of discretion test) .................................................................. 241 (8) Harmless error / substantial rights .................................................. 242

(a) “Substantial rights”: Section 67-5279(4) ......................... 242 (b) “Actual harm or violation of fundamental rights”:

Section 67-6535(3) ............................................................ 245 J. Standard of review applicable to governing board review of a P&Z

decision ....................................................................................................... 246 K. Standard of review on appeal from district court to appellate court ........... 248

(1) No deference to the district court. .................................................. 248 (2) Supreme Court applies the same deferential standard as the

district court. .................................................................................. 248 (3) The denial of a motion for summary judgment is not

appealable. ...................................................................................... 248


L. Timing of judicial review: ripeness, exhaustion, and primary jurisdiction................................................................................................... 249 (1) Generally, timing issues are prudential, not jurisdictional ............. 249 (2) In contrast, the IAPA’s 28-day deadline for judicial review is

jurisdictional. .................................................................................. 250 (3) The federal view of jurisdictional deadlines is somewhat more

liberal than Idaho’s. ........................................................................ 253 (4) Exhaustion of administrative remedies .......................................... 255 (5) Exceptions to the exhaustion requirement ..................................... 256

(a) The interests of justice (irreparable injury, futility, and bias) ................................................................................... 258

(b) Where the agency acts outside of its jurisdiction (including facial constitutional challenges to an

ordinance) .......................................................................... 258 (c) Section 67-6521(2)(b) (exhaustion exception for

“public use” challenges) .................................................... 262 (d) Section 1983 claims .......................................................... 264

(6) Waiver of constitutional rights: When must due process issues be raised below? ............................................................................. 264

(7) Preliminary plat is an appealable “final” decision ......................... 265 (8) Ripeness ......................................................................................... 265 (9) Primary jurisdiction ........................................................................ 268 (10) Mootness ........................................................................................ 268 (11) Motions to dismiss (Rule 12(b)) and motions for summary

judgment (Rule 56) ........................................................................ 268 M. Declaratory actions and the rule of “exclusive” review under LLUPA. ..... 274

(1) The general rule is that collateral attacks are not allowed where judicial review is available under LLUPA. ......................... 274

(2) Exception: Challenges to the validity of the ordinance ................. 279 (3) Challenges involving questions of law applicable to quasi-

judicial decisions ............................................................................ 282 (4) Actions are not subject to judicial review may be challenged

in a declaratory judgment action. ................................................... 282 (5) What standard of review applies to an action challenged by

declaratory action? ......................................................................... 283 N. Stays and the effective date of action .......................................................... 284 O. Other technical issues regarding the 28-day rule ........................................ 285 P. Tolling of the appeal period during reconsideration ................................... 287 Q. Cities and counties except from appeal bonding ......................................... 287 R. Relief from error: vacation or reversal, followed by remand ..................... 287 S. Vesting (aka grandfathering): ordinances and plans in effect at time of

application govern. ...................................................................................... 288 T. Retroactive legislation ................................................................................. 289

(1) Overview ........................................................................................ 289 (2) Procedural or remedial legislation is not deemed retroactive. ....... 290 (3) Retroactive legislation affects vested rights. .................................. 291

U. Summary judgment not available in an IAPA/LLUPA appeal ................... 292 V. Selection and identification of proper parties.............................................. 292 W. Disqualification of the judge ....................................................................... 293 X. Judicial review of municipal annexation ..................................................... 293


Y. The Euclid Avenue case: Supreme Court prohibits the combination of judicial review and civil actions. ................................................................. 294

Z. Injunctive relief ........................................................................................... 295 AA. Writs ............................................................................................................ 295 BB. Damages under state law ............................................................................. 297 CC. Section 1983 actions ................................................................................... 297

(1) Scope of § 1983 actions ................................................................. 297 (2) No exhaustion required under § 1983. ........................................... 299 (3) Ripeness is required for § 1983 claims based on takings ............... 301 (4) Section 1983 is the exclusive means of raising federal takings

claims (exception for Bivens actions not applicable) ..................... 301 DD. Separate judicial review provision for counties: Section 31-1506(1) ........ 304 EE. Estoppel ....................................................................................................... 306 FF. Void for vagueness ...................................................................................... 306 GG. Construction of ordinances.......................................................................... 307 HH. Deference to an agency’s construction of its governing statute .................. 308 II. Canons of statutory construction ................................................................. 310 JJ. Proper use of legislative history and statutory construction ........................ 313 KK. Procedural requirements on appeal ............................................................. 314

(1) Waiver of issues not raised below. ................................................. 314 (2) Waiver of issues not supported by authority. ................................. 315

LL. Other judicial review provisions under LLUPA ......................................... 315 MM. Tort and damage claim procedures ............................................................. 315 NN. Prejudgment interest .................................................................................... 315 OO. Class actions ................................................................................................ 318 PP. Res judicata ................................................................................................. 318

(1) Res judicata attaches to administrative proceedings. ..................... 319 QQ. Federal court – abstention and res judicata ................................................. 319 RR. Federal court – preliminary injunctions ...................................................... 319 SS. Authority of courts to raise issues sua sponte. ............................................ 320 TT. Necessary and indispensible parties ............................................................ 322

22. COSTS AND ATTORNEY FEE AWARDS ...................................................................... 324 A. Costs ............................................................................................................ 324 B. Idaho Code § 12-117: Actions involving a state agency or political

subdivision and a private party. ................................................................... 324 (1) Idaho Code § 12-117(1): General principles ................................. 324 (2) The “without a reasonable basis” requirement. .............................. 327 (3) The “prevailing party” requirement under Idaho Code §§ 12-

117(1) and other statutes. ............................................................... 332 (a) Idaho R. Civ. P. 54(d)(1)(B) guides the court’s inquiry

on the prevailing party question. ....................................... 332 (b) Determination of prevailing party involves an exercise

of discretion. ...................................................................... 332 (c) Determination of prevailing party is based on the

overall result. ..................................................................... 332 (4) Partially prevailing parties: Idaho Code § 12-117(2) .................... 335 (5) Appellate review of attorney fee awards under section 12-

117(1). ............................................................................................ 336 (6) Attorney fees awards on appeal under Idaho Code § 12-117. ........ 337 (7) Prevailing party status in cases involving appeal and cross

appeal. ............................................................................................ 337


(8) Idaho Code § 12-117(1) is not exclusive. ...................................... 339 C. Idaho Code § 12-120(1): Civil cases under $35,000 .................................. 340 D. Idaho Code § 12-120(4): Personal injury claims under $25,000................ 340 E. Idaho Code § 12-120(3): Commercial transactions ................................... 340 F. Section 12-121 (Non-prevailing party was frivolous – civil actions

only) ............................................................................................................ 341 G. Section 12-123 (frivolous conduct in a civil case) ...................................... 345 H. Rule 11 (frivolous litigation) ....................................................................... 346 I. Rule 65(c) – injunctions (attorney fees) ...................................................... 347 J. Discovery (attorney fees) ............................................................................ 347 K. Private attorney general doctrine ................................................................. 347 L. Attorney fees awards following stipulated dismissals ................................ 348 M. Attorney fees need not be plead at the district court stage .......................... 349 N. EAJA ........................................................................................................... 349 O. Attorney fee awards under § 1983. ............................................................. 349 P. Attorney fees under the Idaho Tort Claims Act .......................................... 349 Q. Attorney fees on appeal ............................................................................... 350

(1) Procedural requirements (Idaho App. R. 35 and 41) ...................... 350 (2) Substantive standards for attorney fees on appeal.......................... 351

R. Sua sponte awards of attorney fees. ............................................................ 351 S. Attorney fee awards in federal court diversity actions ................................ 352 T. Attorney fees in administrative proceedings ............................................... 352

23. DUE PROCESS RIGHTS APPLICABLE TO LAND USE DECISIONS ................................ 353 A. Procedural due process rights generally ...................................................... 353 B. Bias .............................................................................................................. 354

(1) Overview ........................................................................................ 354 (2) Injunctive relief available ............................................................... 356 (3) The appearance of fairness is not the legal standard; actual

bias must be shown. ....................................................................... 356 (4) General policy statements do not necessarily reflect bias .............. 357

C. Ex parte contacts ......................................................................................... 358 (1) Summary ........................................................................................ 358 (2) Ex parte communications in quasi-judicial settings ....................... 359

(a) Ex parte contacts are commonplace in land use matters ............................................................................... 359

(b) Distinction drawn between legislative and quasi-judicial actions of commissions ........................................ 359

(c) Ex parte contacts in a quasi-judicial setting are not prohibited, but must be fully disclosed ............................. 360

(d) Documentation of ex parte communications .................... 361 (e) Do ex parte rules apply before the application is filed? .... 362 (f) Procedural inquiries are permissible ................................. 362 (g) Contacts with staff ............................................................ 362 (h) Ex parte contacts in land use mediations, executive

sessions, and negotiation. .................................................. 362 (3) Idaho rules of professional conduct ............................................... 363 (4) Ex parte communications in contested cases ................................. 364

D. Unauthorized “view” of the site .................................................................. 365 E. Combinations of bias, ex parte contacts, and improper views .................... 367 F. When multiple decision makers are involved ............................................. 367 G. Failure to provide mandatory information in the application ...................... 367


H. Transcribable record .................................................................................... 367 24. EQUAL PROTECTION ................................................................................................. 368 25. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS .................................................................................. 370

A. Section 67-6511A (development agreements for rezones). ........................ 370 B. Development agreements may be employed in the context of

annexation and initial zoning, as well as re-zones. ..................................... 371 C. Development agreements are also valid outside the context of section

67-6511A..................................................................................................... 373 D. Other statutory authority for development agreements. .............................. 374 E. Development agreements and IDIFA. ......................................................... 375

26. TAKINGS ................................................................................................................... 376 A. The constitutional basis ............................................................................... 376 B. Direct appropriation of property and other physical takings ....................... 377

(1) Distinguishing physical and regulatory takings ............................. 377 (2) Exactions are regulatory takings .................................................... 380 (3) Federal law: Causby, Kaiser Aetna, Loretto, and Tulare Lake ..... 381 (4) Idaho Law: BHA II (per se takings based on unauthorized

fees) ................................................................................................ 382 C. Regulatory takings ...................................................................................... 383

(1) Harbinger of regulatory takings: Pennsylvania Coal .................... 384 (2) Three-part balancing test: Penn Central ....................................... 385

(a) Economic impact ............................................................... 385 (b) Investment-backed expectations ....................................... 386 (c) Character of government action ........................................ 386

(3) Substantially advance legitimate state interests: Agins overruled by Lingle ........................................................................ 386

(4) Categorical taking based on no economically viable use: Lucas, Palazzolo, and Tahoe-Sierra .............................................. 387 (a) A new type of categorical taking. ..................................... 387 (b) Requires no viable economic use. ..................................... 388 (c) The “background principles of state law” exception......... 389 (d) Moratoriums are not categorical takings ........................... 389 (e) Idaho’s recognition of Lucas. ............................................ 390

(5) The “denominator” or “relevant parcel” problem .......................... 390 (6) Temporary takings ......................................................................... 393

(a) Federal cases ..................................................................... 393 (b) Idaho cases ........................................................................ 395

(7) Post-regulation transfer of the property: Palazzolo ....................... 395 (8) Downzoning and takings ................................................................ 396

D. Exhausting administrative remedies under IDIFA ...................................... 397 E. The exaction cases: Nollan and Dolan ....................................................... 398

(1) Substantial nexus: Nollan .............................................................. 398 (2) Rough proportionality: Dolan ....................................................... 399 (3) Koontz: The Supreme Court responds to attempts to limit

Nollan-Dolan.................................................................................. 400 (a) Grant versus denial of permit ............................................ 400 (b) Dedicatory versus monetary exactions .............................. 400 (c) User fees and taxes ............................................................ 401 (d) Administrative versus legislative exactions ...................... 401 (e) Remedies ........................................................................... 401

F. A regulation may favor one private interest over another ........................... 402


G. Initiating a takings action (inverse condemnation) ..................................... 402 (1) Nature of inverse condemnation .................................................... 402 (2) Standing ......................................................................................... 404 (3) Remedies in takings cases .............................................................. 404 (4) Role of judge and jury .................................................................... 404 (5) Exhaustion ...................................................................................... 405

H. Procedural limitations on federal inverse condemnation actions ................ 405 (1) Williamson County ripeness (“final decision” and “state

remedies”) ...................................................................................... 405 (a) Applicable to all takings.................................................... 406 (b) Prong one: Final decision ................................................. 406 (c) Prong two: Failure to timely pursue state remedies ......... 410

(i) Federal action premature until state remedy pursued and denied ............................................... 410

(ii) Forfeiture of federal claim ................................... 411 (d) Exceptions to prong one (finality requirement). ............... 415

(i) Physical takings .................................................... 415 (ii) Independent legal theories.................................... 416 (iii) Futility .................................................................. 417 (iv) Facial challenges .................................................. 418

(e) Exceptions to prong two (state remedies): None ............. 419 (f) San Remo: The federal taking claim may be brought

simultaneously in state court ............................................. 419 (g) Statute of limitations ......................................................... 422 (h) The ripeness tests are “prudential”; impact on removal .... 422 (i) Is removal appropriate? ..................................................... 423 (j) Supplemental jurisdiction.................................................. 425 (k) Williamson County remains viable despite criticism ........ 425

(2) Substantive due process claims no longer preempted. ................... 426 (3) Claims against the United States – Tucker Act .............................. 426

I. The Idaho Regulatory Takings Act ............................................................. 427 27. USER FEES, IMPACT FEES (IDIFA), AND THE “ILLEGAL TAX” ISSUE ....................... 429

A. Introduction ................................................................................................. 429 B. Terminology: exactions, impact fees, linkage fees, and inclusionary

fees .............................................................................................................. 429 C. Overview of constitutional authority: Dillon’s Rule .................................. 430 D. Does Idaho Code § 50-301 provide home rule to Idaho cities? .................. 434 E. Lawful fees and exactions ........................................................................... 435

(1) Incidental regulatory fees ............................................................... 437 (2) User fees for services ..................................................................... 440

(a) Provision of services by a local government is a proprietary function, not part of the police power. ........... 440

(b) Authorization of user fees in Idaho Code §§ 63-1311(1) and 31-870(1). ........................................... 442

(c) Capitalization fees authorized under 42-3212 ................... 446 (d) User fees authorized by Idaho Revenue Bond Act. .......... 447 (e) Authorization of user fees in Idaho Code § 31-4404. ....... 458 (f) User fees regulated by the Idaho Public Utilities

Commission. ..................................................................... 460 (3) Traditional, on-site entitlement exactions ...................................... 460


(4) Express statutory authority to impose CUP conditions dealing with mitigation and/or public facilities and services (Idaho

Code §§ 67-6512(d)(6) and (8) ...................................................... 462 (5) Outright denial of a rezone or a permit based on inadequate

services or infrastructure ................................................................ 464 (6) District court decisions ................................................................... 465

(a) The Schaefer case .............................................................. 465 (b) The Mountain Central case ............................................... 465 (c) The Cove Springs case ...................................................... 465

F. Franchise fees .............................................................................................. 467 G. The Idaho Development Impact Fee Act (“IDIFA”) ................................... 468

(1) Overview of IDIFA ........................................................................ 468 (2) No double dipping .......................................................................... 469 (3) System improvements .................................................................... 470 (4) Project improvements ..................................................................... 470 (5) Impact fee advisory committee ...................................................... 471 (6) Capital improvements plan ............................................................ 471 (7) Impact fees limited to “new development” .................................... 472 (8) Timing of fee collection. ................................................................ 472 (9) Individual assessments ................................................................... 473 (10) Exemptions from fees .................................................................... 473 (11) Impact fees must be spent within the service area and within a

fixed number of years ..................................................................... 474 (12) Interaction of LLUPA (section 67-6513) and IDIFA (section

67-8215(1)) .................................................................................... 474 H. Implementing ordinances under IDIFA ...................................................... 475

(1) Boise parks ordinance .................................................................... 475 (2) The ACHD impact fee ordinance ................................................... 475

28. COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGIES FOR CALCLUATING CAP FEES ......................... 476 A. Overview ..................................................................................................... 476 B. Supreme Court guidance ............................................................................. 476

(1) The Loomis case ............................................................................. 476 (2) The NIBCA I case ........................................................................... 477

C. Key issues to be addressed in any cap fee methodology ............................. 478 (1) Original cost ................................................................................... 478 (2) Gross replacement value ................................................................ 478

(a) Upward adjustment based on engineering cost index ....... 478 (b) Inclusion of land cost ........................................................ 479 (c) Inclusion of surface replacement cost ............................... 479 (d) Earlier contributed capital and other funding sources ....... 479

(3) Net replacement value .................................................................... 479 (a) Replacement value vs. depreciated value .......................... 479

(i) Straight line depreciation ..................................... 480 (ii) Unfunded depreciation ......................................... 480

(b) Remaining bond principal ................................................. 480 (4) Number of customers ..................................................................... 481 (5) Credit for required on-site contributions vs. off-site impact

fees ................................................................................................. 481 (6) Common benefit projects ............................................................... 481 (7) Planning period and geographic scope ........................................... 482

D. Five examples of cap fee methodologies .................................................... 482


Method 1: Average Existing Cost Approach (aka “Existing System

Buy-In”) ......................................................................................... 483 Method 2: Incremental Future Cost Approach ........................................... 483 Method 3: Allocated Capacity Share Approach ......................................... 484 Method 4: Average Cost – Integrated Approach ........................................ 484 Method 5: Equity Buy-In Approach (mandated by Idaho Supreme

Court) ............................................................................................. 484 29. THE “VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT” ISSUE ................................................................... 485

A. Black v. Young (1992) ................................................................................. 485 B. KMST (2003) ............................................................................................... 486 C. BHA II (2004) .............................................................................................. 489 D. Lochsa Falls (2009) .................................................................................... 489 E. Boise Tower (2009) ..................................................................................... 490 F. Wylie (2011) ................................................................................................ 491 G. Buckskin (2013) ........................................................................................... 492 H. Bremer (2013) ............................................................................................. 493 I. White Cloud (2014) ..................................................................................... 494 J. Old Cutters (2014) ...................................................................................... 495

30. EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE LAW OF CONDEMNATION IN IDAHO ........................... 500 A. Scope of topic and overview ....................................................................... 500 B. Key constitutional provisions ...................................................................... 500 C. A broad range of public agencies may undertake condemnation actions

in Idaho........................................................................................................ 501 D. In some instances, private persons may undertake condemnation

actions ......................................................................................................... 501 E. Cities’ condemnation power is limited to city limits .................................. 502 F. Condemnation must be for public use ......................................................... 503

(1) Idaho’s definition of “public use” .................................................. 503 (2) Public vs. private use nationally ..................................................... 504

G. All types of private property are subject to the just compensation requirement ................................................................................................. 505 (1) Fees and easements ........................................................................ 505 (2) Access rights .................................................................................. 506 (3) Leases, liens, mortgages and other real property interests ............. 507 (4) Franchise rights .............................................................................. 507

H. Condemnation of government property ...................................................... 508 I. Condemnation actions include many special requirements ........................ 508

(1) Plaintiff ........................................................................................... 508 (2) Prerequisites to taking .................................................................... 508 (3) Special pleading requirements ....................................................... 509 (4) Elements of compensation ............................................................. 510

(a) Market value of property ................................................... 510 (b) Time of valuation .............................................................. 510 (c) Severance damages/benefits .............................................. 510 (d) Business damages ............................................................. 511 (e) Attorney’s fees/costs ......................................................... 511 (f) Interest ............................................................................... 512

(5) Allocation of Damages ................................................................... 512 (6) Role of judge and jury .................................................................... 513 (7) Taking possession before trial ........................................................ 513

J. Practical issues in Idaho eminent domain ................................................... 514


(1) Negotiating sale agreements and leases to address condemnation ................................................................................. 514

(2) Considerations in whether to settle an eminent domain case or try it ................................................................................................ 516

(3) Should the condemnee hire an appraiser? ...................................... 517 (a) What can the appraiser do? ............................................... 517 (b) The appraiser should have specific expertise .................... 517 (c) Cost to retain an appraiser ................................................. 517 (d) Protecting discussions with the appraiser.......................... 518

31. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON GOVERNMENTAL DEBT AND THE NON-APPROPRIATION LEASE ............................................................................................. 519

(1) Background .................................................................................... 519 (2) The GBAD Court rejects the “true lease” versus “financing

lease” analysis. ............................................................................... 522 (3) The constitutional prohibition does not extend to speculative

future liability. ................................................................................ 527 (4) The issue of indemnities was not before the Court. ....................... 529 (5) The “economic compulsion” issue. ................................................ 531

(a) The desire to renew does not create an unconstitutional liability.................................................... 531

(b) Does the loss of property constitute economic compulsion? ...................................................................... 532

(6) Judicial confirmation encompasses all related documents. ............ 532 (7) All property owners have standing to challenge violations of

Article VIII, section 3. ................................................................... 533 32. OPEN MEETINGS ACT AND EXECUTIVE SESSIONS ................................................... 534

A. Scope of the Open Meetings Act ................................................................. 534 B. Executive sessions ....................................................................................... 535

33. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (LIMITED TO FINANCIAL CONFLICTS) ............................... 537 34. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT.............................................................................................. 539 35. WHEN IS RULEMAKING REQUIRED?1 ....................................................................... 540 36. OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL PLANNING AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION LAW ........... 542

A. Introduction to regional planning and public transportation ....................... 542 B. Metropolitan planning agencies and COMPASS ........................................ 542 C. Regional transportation agencies and ValleyRide ....................................... 543 D. Funding for public transportation in Idaho ................................................. 543

37. FEDERAL LAWS AFFECTING IDAHO LAND USE........................................................ 546 A. The Fair Housing Act .................................................................................. 546

(1) Design and construction requirements ........................................... 546 (2) Renovations .................................................................................... 546 (3) Reasonable accommodations and reasonable modifications .......... 546 (4) Exceptions ...................................................................................... 547 (5) Enforcement ................................................................................... 547

B. The Americans with Disabilities Act .......................................................... 547 (1) Subchapter II-public services ......................................................... 547

(a) Accessibility ...................................................................... 548 (b) Construction and alteration ............................................... 548

(2) Subchapter III-public accommodations and services operated by private entities ........................................................................... 548 (a) Places of public accommodation ....................................... 548 (b) Commercial facilities ........................................................ 549


(3) New construction ........................................................................... 549 (4) Alterations ...................................................................................... 550 (5) Enforcement ................................................................................... 550

C. The Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act ............................................ 550 (1) Potential liability ............................................................................ 550 (2) Enforcement ................................................................................... 550

38. BASICS OF URBAN RENEWAL LAW FOR DEVELOPERS ............................................. 552 A. Urban renewal agencies .............................................................................. 552 B. Creation and operation of urban renewal agencies in Idaho ....................... 552 C. Capital City Development Corporation ....................................................... 553

39. RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY CREATED BY DEVELOPERS’ REPRESENTATIONS ...... 554 A. Common law dedication.............................................................................. 554

(1) When a landowner offers to dedicate a property to public or private use, and the offer is accepted, a common law

dedication occurs ............................................................................ 554 (2) No express words of dedication are required ................................. 555 (3) A common law dedication does not require a writing, much

less a recorded plat ......................................................................... 555 (4) The offer to dedicate must be clear and unambiguous ................... 556 (5) The description of the dedicated area must be clear and

certain, but no metes and bounds description is required for

existing roads ................................................................................. 556 (6) The offer must be by the true owner, not one merely

authorized to construct a road on federal land ............................... 556 (7) The required “acceptance” is objective, not subjective .................. 556 (8) Common law dedication applies to homesteads ............................ 557 (9) Common law dedications are irrevocable, except by statutory

process ............................................................................................ 557 (10) Common law dedication may also be available to cure defects

in compliance with statutory platting requirements ....................... 557 (11) The doctrine of common law dedication remains vital .................. 558

B. Implied easements ....................................................................................... 558 40. ENDOWMENT LANDS ................................................................................................ 559

A. History and special status ............................................................................ 559 B. Endowment lands are exempt from LLUPA control ................................... 560

41. WATER RIGHTS AND LAND USE PLANNING ............................................................. 561 A. H.B. 281 – mandating non-potable water irrigation systems ...................... 561 B. S.B. 1353 – exclusive authority of IDWR .................................................. 561

42. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS .................. 562 A. Clean Water Act: regulation of property with streams, wetlands,

irrigation ditches, and storm water discharges ............................................ 562 (1) Discharges of dredged or fill material into streams, wetlands,

and irrigation ditches ...................................................................... 562 (a) When is a Section 404 permit required? ........................... 562 (b) How to obtain a Section 404 permit .................................. 565

(i) General permits .................................................... 565 (ii) Individual permits ................................................ 566

(2) Storm water discharges .................................................................. 567 B. Endangered Species Act: regulation of property with endangered and

threatened species ........................................................................................ 568 (1) Overview of the Endangered Species Act ...................................... 568


(2) ESA § 4 – listing decisions and designation of critical habitat ...... 568 (3) ESA § 7 – consultation on federal actions ..................................... 569 (4) ESA § 9 – ban against “taking” any listed species ......................... 570 (5) Citizen suits under the ESA ........................................................... 571

C. Air pollution and land use ........................................................................... 571 D. Landowner liability for hazardous wastes ................................................... 572

(1) Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA): liability for property contaminated

with hazardous waste ..................................................................... 572 (a) Overview of CERCLA ...................................................... 572 (b) Present owners and operators ............................................ 573 (c) Past owners and operators ................................................. 573 (d) Arrangers & transporters – liability for moving

contaminated dirt ............................................................... 574 (2) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA):

landowner liability and corrective action ....................................... 575 (a) Landowner liability ........................................................... 575 (b) Corrective action program ................................................. 575

(3) Idaho laws imposing cleanup and liability for contaminated property .......................................................................................... 576 (a) The Environmental Protection and Health Act

(EPHA): Idaho’s “organic” environmental

enforcement authority ....................................................... 577 (b) Hazardous Waste Management Act (HWMA):

Idaho’s version of RCRA .................................................. 577 (c) IDEQ Uses the hazardous material spills rule to

impose remediation liability on owners ............................ 578 (d) Ground water quality rule imposes broad liability,

allows cleanup to site-specific standards .......................... 579 (e) IDEQ relies on nuisance statute to force remediation ....... 580

(4) Federal versus state enforcement ................................................... 580 E. Petroleum and other contaminants .............................................................. 581

(1) Petroleum underground storage tanks ............................................ 581 (2) Idaho considers asbestos a special waste but does not regulate

its use or removal ........................................................................... 581 (3) Idaho has registration requirements that apply to remediation

professionals ................................................................................... 581 F. Spills of hazardous substances must be reported ........................................ 582

(1) Spills must be reported to the state and federal governments ........ 582 (2) Parties responsible for a spill are liable to the state for

emergency response costs .............................................................. 583 G. Idaho’s pre-transfer disclosure law applies only to residential

properties ..................................................................................................... 583 H. Environmental due diligence for developers ............................................... 583

(1) Developing contaminated properties – Brownfields initiatives ..... 584 (a) Federal Brownfields Program – Federal Small

Business Liability Relief and Brownfields

Revitalization Act ............................................................. 584 (b) State Brownfields programs .............................................. 585

(i) Idaho Brownfields funding program .................... 585 (ii) Idaho Land Remediation Act ............................... 586


(2) Developing contaminated properties – transactional issues ........... 587 I. Irrigation and drainage ditches .................................................................... 588


2. INTRODUCTION TO LAND USE LAW

Land use law encompasses the group of government regulations with which the property owner

must comply to develop real property. The main areas of land use law are planning and zoning,

subdivision regulation, and annexation. These are closely related to other topics of interest to the property

owner and developer, including (1) judicial review of land use decisions, (2) eminent domain and inverse

condemnation, (3) restrictions on property created by the developer’s representations, (4) regional planning

and public transportation, (5) impact fees, and (6) environmental considerations in real estate development.

The purpose of this handbook is to offer a detailed discussion of the important issues in Idaho land use law

in one place. To our knowledge, it is the first such comprehensive effort in Idaho.

Before Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) was decided in 1926, the

proposition that the government had the right to regulate the development of real property through zoning

was debatable. However, the need for zoning was perceived by many. American cities were growing

rapidly, and communities recognized the need for tools to ensure that development on one property did not

harm other properties. There was also a growing sentiment that orderly planning would lead to more

attractive cities and would enhance overall property values.

The precursors to modern, comprehensive zoning were various ordinances that tackled specific

land use problems on a piecemeal basis.

Acting under their police power authority, local governments adopted a

wide range of individual laws regulating a variety of specific land use

problems including the separation of incompatible uses1 and building bulk,

height, and location restrictions.2

Ronald H. Rosenberg, The Changing Culture of American Land Use Regulations: Paying for Growth with

Impact Fees, 59 S.M.U. L. Rev. 177, 193 (2006). With the Supreme Court’s blessing of comprehensive

zoning in Village of Euclid, however, the nation launched into more sweeping zoning and planning efforts.3

The problem was, and is, that planning and land use regulation restricts individual property rights,

one of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution. To this day, the clash of the

police power and individual property rights is at the heart of most land use disputes.

The bottom line is that zoning and planning law lies at the intersection of major, legitimate

governmental powers and significant individual rights. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ quote in this

regard is a classic statement:

1 Pierce Oil Corp. v. Hope, 248 U.S. 498, 499-500 (1919) (upholding ordinance excluding oil storage closer than three

hundred feet from residences); Hadacheck v. Sabastian, 239 U.S. 394, 414 (1915) (upholding Los Angeles ordinance excluding

existing brickyards from a residential area of the city); Reinman v. Little Rock, 237 U.S. 171, 180 (1915) (upholding ordinance

excluding stables from a commercial district); L’Hote v. New Orleans, 177 U.S. 587, 600 (1900) (upholding New Orleans

ordinance establishing areas of the city for prostitution).

2 See Welch v. Swasey, 214 U.S. 91 (1909) (upholding Boston’s building height limitations); see also Eubank v.

Richmond, 226 U.S. 137, 145 (1912) (invalidating neighbor consent provision to establish building setback lines).

3 Interestingly, the Village of Euclid case did not address the question of takings despite the fact that the decision recited

that the value of the property was reduced by 75% by prohibiting industrial use. Village of Euclid, 272 U.S. at 384. Instead, the

issue was whether the local government, acting under its delegated police power, had the power to engage in this sort of regulation

and whether such regulation violated due process and equal protection. Village of Euclid. 272 U.S. at 384. Perhaps this is a

function of the fact that the concept of regulatory takings was still quite new, Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393

(1922) having been decided just four years earlier. Despite the fact that no taking claim had been raised, the Court in Tahoe-Sierra

Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 319 n.15 (2002) mentioned the 75 percent drop in

value in Village of Euclid in string cite of cases that had survived takings challenges.


Government hardly could go on if, to some extent values incident to

property could not be diminished without paying for every such change in

the general law. As long recognized, some values are enjoyed under an

implied limitation, and must yield to the police power. But obviously the

implied limitation must have its limits or the contract and due process

clauses are gone. One fact for consideration in determining such limits is

the extent of the diminution. When it reaches a certain magnitude, in most

if not all cases, there must be an exercise of eminent domain and

compensation to sustain the act. So the question depends upon the

particular facts. The greatest weight is given to the judgment of the

legislature, but it always is open to interested parties to contend that the

legislature has gone beyond its constitutional power.

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413 (1922).

The seminal case Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) recognized for the

first time the authority of municipal governments to constitutionally restrict property use through zoning

regulations.4 Today, the government’s authority to enforce land use regulations is settled. “This Court has

recognized that aesthetic concerns, including the preservation of open space and the maintenance of the

rural character of Blaine County, are valid rationales for the county to enact zoning restrictions under its

police power. The purpose of the MOD [mountain overlay district], as set forth in B.C.C. § 9-21-1(B), falls

squarely within the recognized powers of the County.” Terrazas v. Blaine Cty., 147 Idaho 193, 198, 207

P.3d 169, 174 (2009) (Horton, J.) (citation omitted).5

Yet the details remain controversial6 and questions remain about how the police pow

Documents

Idaho Land Use Handbook - Givens Pursley LLP · Idaho Land Use Handbook The Law of Planning, Zoning, and Property Rights in Idaho By Gary G. Allen, Esq. Christopher H. Meyer, Esq