Case Title: Lane Ranch Partnership v. City of Sun Valley Application for a private road on property zoned OR-1

Citation: 

Docket Number: 33423

State: idaho

Court: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Date: 2007-12-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
 
Docket No. 33423 
 
LANE RANCH PARTNERSHIP, an Idaho 
general partnership,  
                                                      
          Plaintiff-Respondent,                       
                                                      
v.                                                    
                                                      
CITY OF SUN VALLEY, a political 
subdivision of the   State of Idaho,                       
                                                      
          Defendant-Appellant.                        
                                                      
                                                      
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
Boise, November 2007 Term 
 
Opinion No.  138 
 
Filed:  December 27, 2007 
 
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk 
 
 
 
 
Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Blaine 
County.  Honorable Robert J. Elgee, District Judge. 
 
The decision of the district court is affirmed, attorney’s fees and costs are awarded to 
respondent and the case is remanded for evaluation under the standards articulated in Title 7 
of the Code. 
 
Robertson & Slette, Twin Falls, for respondent. Gary Slette argued. 
 
Hawley, Troxell, Ennis & Hawley, LLP, Ketchum, for appellant. Rand Peebles argued. 
_____________________________ 
 
W. JONES, Justice                                                                                                                                                      
 
This is an appeal arising from an application for a private road by Lane Ranch Partnership in 
the City of Sun Valley.  Sun Valley’s Community Development Director, the City Counsel and the 
Sun Valley Planning and Zoning Commission all found the application to be incomplete under the 
Sun Valley Municipal Code (the Code).  Lane Ranch appealed to the district court.  The district court 
reversed the Zoning Commission.  The City appeals to this Court. 
 
Lane Ranch owns property north of Elkhorn Road (the Property).  The Property is zoned OR-
1, which is defined as “open recreation.”  In January 2002, Lane Ranch submitted an application 
requesting permits to construct a private road on the Property.  The Community Development 
Director responded to the application as incomplete and requested that Lane Ranch supplement the 
 
1
application with an application for design review (Title 9 of the Code) or an application for 
subdivision approval (Title 10 of the Code). 
 
Lane Ranch filed an appeal to the Zoning Commission, contending that design review and 
subdivision approval are unnecessary under Title 7 of the Code.  The Zoning Commission denied the 
appeal and Lane Ranch appealed to the City Council.  The City Council affirmed the Zoning 
Commission.  Lane Ranch filed an appeal in district court.  The district court reversed the prior 
decisions finding that Title 7 governs the application for a private road, and Title 7 does not reference 
Title 9 or Title 10 of the Code.  The action was remanded for the application to be reviewed under 
Title 7 of the Code.  The City appeals that decision to this Court. 
 
The following issues are presented on appeal: 
1. Whether Sun Valley reasonably interpreted its ordinances in determining that Lane Ranch had 
failed to submit the necessary application for consideration of its request to construct a private 
road. 
2. Whether the district court correctly determined that Sun Valley’s action was without a 
reasonable basis in fact or law entitling Lane Ranch to an award of attorneys’ fees under 
Idaho Code § 12-117. 
3. Whether Lane Ranch is entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-117 on the 
basis that the City acted without a reasonable basis in either fact or law in reaching its 
decision. 
 
The Idaho Administrative Procedures Act governs judicial review of local zoning decisions.  
Price v. Payette, 131 Idaho 426, 429, 958 P.2d 583, 586 (1998) (citing Comer v. County of Twin 
Falls, 130 Idaho 433, 437, 942 P.2d 557, 561 (1997)).  This Court reviews the zoning decision 
independent of the decision of the district court.   Payette, 131 Idaho at 429, 958 P.2d at 586 (citing 
Comer, 130 Idaho at 437, 942 P.2d at 561).  This Court will not substitute its judgment as to the 
weight of the evidence on questions of fact.  I.C. § 67-5279(1).  Interpretation of an ordinance or 
statute is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review.  Friends of Farm to Market v. 
Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 196, 46 P.3d 9, 13 (2002) citing State v. Nelson, 119 Idaho 444, 446, 
807 P.2d 1282, 1284 (Ct. App. 1991).  Analysis of a statute or ordinance begins with the literal 
language of the enactment.  Friends of Farm to Market, 137 Idaho at 197, 46 P.3d at 14 (citations 
omitted).  “Where the language is unambiguous, the clearly expressed intent of the legislative body 
must be given effect, and there is no occasion for a court to construe the language.” Friends of Farm 
 
2
to Market, 137 Idaho at 197, 46 P.3d at 14 (citing Lawless v. Davis, 98 Idaho 175, 560 P.2d 497 
(1977)).  When zoning boards interpret their own zoning ordinances there is a strong presumption 
that the interpretation is valid.  Id. at 197, 46 P.3d at 14 (citing South Fork Coalition v. Bd. Of 
Comm’rs, 117 Idaho 857, 860, 792, P.2d 882, 885(1990)). 
The party challenging the zoning board’s decision must first show the zoning board’s error 
under I.C. § 67-5279(3), and secondly, that such error has prejudiced a substantial right of the party.  
Payette, 131 Idaho at 429, 958 P.2d at 586 (citations omitted). 
[T]he court shall affirm the agency action unless the court finds that the agency’s 
findings, inferences, conclusions, or decisions are: (a) in violation of constitutional or 
statutory provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) made 
upon unlawful procedure; (d) not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a 
whole; or (e) arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.  If the agency action is 
not affirmed, it shall be set aside, in whole or in part, and remanded for further 
proceedings as necessary. 
 
I.C. § 67-5279(3).  Regardless, if an error occurred, the decision will be upheld unless the party can 
show that the action affects a substantial right.  Lamar Corp. v. City of Twin Falls, 133 Idaho 36, 39, 
981 P.2d 1146, 1149 (1999) (citing I.C. § 67-5279(4)). 
1.  Sun Valley unreasonably interpreted its ordinances when it determined that Lane Ranch 
failed to submit the necessary application for consideration of its request to construct a private road. 
Title 7 of the Code governs public ways, public property and private streets.  Title 9 of the 
Code governs planning and zoning.  Title 10 governs subdivisions.  Title 7 of the Code was adopted 
five years before Title 9 or Title 10 of the code. 
Title 7 of the Sun Valley Municipal Code is a comprehensive ordinance that expressly 
governs private streets.  Under Title 7, in order to build or modify a street, a party must “apply for 
and obtain either plat approval, construction plan approval and/or a construction permit.”  S.V.M.C. § 
7-1-4.  Title 7 also gives a detailed list of standards that the City will evaluate when reviewing an 
application for road construction.  S.V.M.C. § 7-1-2.  Additionally, the standards specifically apply to 
all new construction of public or private roads.  S.V.M.C. § 7-1-3.  There are no references to any 
other Code sections under which an application will be evaluated.  It was unreasonable for the City to 
impose additional requirements on Lane Ranch prior to reviewing the private road application.  Sun 
Valley also argues that Title 7 gives the Commission and Director broad authority to grant or deny 
private road approval.  “Private streets shall be permitted within the City subject to review and 
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Counsel.”  S.V.M.C. § 7-4-2.  
 
3
However, such review and approval does not grant the ability to arbitrarily apply irrelevant ordinance 
sections.  Had the City intended to require Title 9 (design review) or Title 10 (subdivision approval) 
to apply to the construction of private streets, Title 7 could have incorporated those provisions, but it 
does not. 
The City argues that an application for design review or subdivision approval is required 
under § 7-5-6(A).  “Consistent with the applicable sections of the development regulations, street 
and road alignment shall follow natural terrain contours so as to result in safe streets, usable lots and 
minimum cuts and fills.”  S.V.M.C. § 7-5-6(A) (emphasis added). 
This Court applies the same principles in construing municipal ordinances as it would in 
construing statutes.  Friends of Farm to Market, 137 Idaho at 197, 46 P.3d at 14 (citing Cunningham 
v. City of Twin Falls, 125 Idaho 776, 779, 874 P.2d 587, 590 (Ct. App. 1994)).  “Any such analysis 
begins with the literal language of the enactment.”  Ada County v. Gibson, 126 Idaho 854, 856, 893 
P.2d 801, 803 (Ct. App. 1995) (citations omitted).  If the language is unambiguous, then the clear and 
express intent of the legislative body governs.  Specific language is not viewed in isolation, the entire 
statute and applicable sections must be construed together to determine the overall legislative intent.  
Friends of Farm to Market, 137 Idaho at 197, 46 P.3d at 14 (citing Lockhart v. Dept. of Fish and 
Game, 121 Idaho 894, 897, 828 P.2d 1299, 1302 (1992)). 
Here, § 7-5-6(A) falls under the chapter entitled “Design Criteria,” and the section entitled 
“Street Alignment.”  This section of the Code does not impose any additional requirements on a party 
in order to gain a construction permit for a private road.  Section 7-1-6 does impose requirements for 
construction plan approval. It simply references that it is “consistent with the applicable section of the 
development regulations . . “  That section does not impose those regulations on applications for 
private roads.  It goes on to state that “[b]efore commencing any excavation or construction on public 
or private streets, roads or walkways the contractor, developer or owner shall submit plans to the City 
for approval.  The plans shall have been prepared by a professional engineer registered in the State 
and shall include the following information . . . .”  S.V.M.C. § 7-1-6.  The ordinance then continues 
by listing the requirements for approval.  None of the requirements for approval reference Title 9 or 
Title 10 or any additional applications which would need to be made under the Code.  If the City had 
intended to include any additional requirements to gaining City approval, it could have referenced or 
listed them in the ordinance. 
 
4
 
A city’s actions are considered arbitrary and capricious if made without a rational basis, or in 
disregard of the facts and circumstances, or without adequate determining principles.  Enterprise, Inc. 
v. Nampa City, 96 Idaho 734, 739, 536 P.2d 729, 734 (1975).  This Court will not substitute its 
judgment for that of a city when it acts within the bounds of its discretion.  Id.  A city’s actions are 
considered an abuse of discretion when the actions are arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.  
Enterprise, at 739, 536 P.2d at 734.  Here, the City viewed Lane Ranch’s application as incomplete 
based on previous attempts by Lane Ranch to subdivide the property.  The City automatically 
assumed that the private road application was another attempt to build a subdivision, rather than a 
legitimate attempt to gain access to the property under the current applicable zoning standards.  The 
City’s interpretation of their code is unreasonable and therefore an abuse of discretion under I.C. § 
67-5279(3)(e). 
 
2.  The City’s interpretation of its ordinances violates a substantial right of Lane Ranch.   
Lane Ranch has a substantial right to have its application evaluated properly under Title 7 of 
the Code.  Their ability to access their property has been impeded and they are unable to develop 
their property for admittedly permissible uses under the applicable OR-1 zoning.  The Property 
consists of 166-acres which presently is only accessible by foot. 
 
3.  Whether the district court correctly determined that Sun Valley’s action was without a 
reasonable basis in fact or law entitling Lane Ranch to an award of attorney’s fees under I.C. § 12-
117. 
[I]n any administrative or civil judicial proceeding involving as adverse parties a state 
agency, a city . . . and a person, the court shall award the prevailing party reasonable 
attorney’s fees . . . if the court finds that the party against whom the judgment is 
rendered acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law. 
 
I.C. § 12-117(1).  The district court found an award of attorney’s fees proper.  This Court finds that 
the City abused its discretion in its interpretation of its ordinances, and acted without a reasonable 
basis in fact or law. We hold that the award of attorney’s fees by the district court was not in error.  
 
4.  Whether Lane Ranch is entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal pursuant to I.C. § 12-117 on 
the basis that the City acted without a reasonable basis in either fact or law. 
 
A party is not entitled to attorney’s fees if the issue is one of first impression in Idaho.  SE/Z 
Const., L.L.C. v. Idaho State University, 140 Idaho 8, 14, 89 P.3d 848, 854 (2004).  Attorney’s fees 
are also inappropriate if the City presented a legitimate question for this Court to address.  IHC 
Hospitals, Inc. v. Teton County, 139 Idaho 188, 191-92, 75 P.3d 1198, 1201-02 (2003).  This Court 
 
5
finds that the City acted on appeal without a reasonable basis in fact or law.  Lane Ranch is entitled to 
costs and attorney’s fees on appeal. 
 
For the foregoing reasons the decision of the district court is affirmed and the case is 
remanded for evaluation under the standards articulated in Title 7 of the Code. 
 
 
Chief Justice EISMANN, Justices BURDICK, J. JONES and HORTON CONCUR. 
 
6