Opinion ID: 2633782
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Actions in Excess of Statutory Authority

Text: Neighbors argues that I.C. § 67-6519(2) and LUDO § 3.04.07 require the Commission to make a recommendation on a CUP/PUD application before the Board considers the application. According to Neighbors, the Commission did not recommend the Modified Plan, and the Board acted without its recommendation because it approved a plat that was materially different from the plat presented to the Commission. Thus, the Board acted in excess of its statutory authority. Wildwood counters that the Modified Plan is not a new preliminary plat, but rather an illustrative exhibit prepared for and displayed to the Board for the purpose of illustrating how Wildwood proposed to handle certain issues raised during the administrative process. Although the exhibit contained new information, the overall design and layout of the PUD remained unchanged. Such modifications, according to Wildwood, are routine in the development review process. I.C. § 67-6519(2) provides that each application for a permit shall first be submitted to the planning and zoning commission for its recommendation or decision. According to LUDO, the Commission may approve the application as propose [sic] or with conditions stipulated by the Administrator or staff and-or the Commission. LUDO § 3.04.07(d). The Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit or Planned Unit Development shall be a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners who will consider the item at a public hearing. Id. Looking to the plain language of the ordinance in the entire context of LLUPA and LUDO, this is a procedural requirement, directing applications to the Commission for the first review. There is nothing requiring the Board to consider and approve precisely the same plat as the Commission, subject to the same conditions. Wildwood's argument that this requirement would be impractical is well-taken. It would be impractical to require the initial proposal to be detailed, final and complete and not subject to changes, given the nature of the development review process and the constant negotiation the public hearing process demands. To the contrary, Wildwood argues it is routine in the development process to make these types of changes. Neighbors does not demonstrate the Board acted in excess of its statutory authority in approving a preliminary plat which differed from that initially presented to the Commission.