Opinion ID: 2542695
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Wetlands ordinance

Text: Cowan argues that the FCDC's wetlands protection requirement is void for vagueness because the current language is so vague that effectively no notice is given regarding the wetlands requirements. Statutes that are found to be vague, indefinite or uncertain are in violation of the constitutional provisions found in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution or Article I, section 13 of the Idaho Constitution. Olsen v. J.A. Freeman Co., 117 Idaho 706, 715, 791 P.2d 1285, 1294 (1990). It is a general principle of statutory law that a statute must be definite to be valid. It has been recognized that a statute is so vague as to violate the due process clause of the United States Constitution . . . where its language is such that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning. Id. (quoting 16A Am.Jur.2d, Constitutional Law § 818, p. 988). Although most decisions invoking the void for vagueness doctrine deal with criminal statutes and ordinances, the doctrine applies equally well to civil ordinances. Id. at 716, 791 P.2d at 1295. However, greater tolerance is permitted when addressing a civil or non-criminal statute as opposed to a criminal statute under the void for vagueness doctrine. Id. (citing Chalmers v. City of Los Angeles, 762 F.2d 753 (9th Cir. 1985)). The wetlands protection requirement of the FCDC is not unconstitutionally vague. The FCDC provides: All developments shall demonstrate compliance with state and federal wetlands protection requirements. FCDC Ch. VIII(D)(1). A person of ordinary intelligence would not have to guess at its meaning. This section of the FCDC clearly delineates the subject of its protectionwetlandsand identifies that a developer must comply with all state and federal protection requirements. The fact that a developer would then need to determine which of these numerous protections might be applicable does not make the ordinance constitutionally infirm. Since many of the federal wetlands protection requirements depend upon what type of development or construction is taking place near a wetland, the county could not anticipate specifically which requirements apply until a development application is submitted. Additionally, the core meaning of the ordinance is clear on its face. See Olsen, 117 Idaho at 715, 791 P.2d at 1294 (citing Cotton States Mut. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 749 F.2d 663 (11th Cir. 1984)). [8] Therefore, the FCDC's wetlands protection requirement is not void for vagueness and does not violate the United States or Idaho constitutions.