Opinion ID: 2569671
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Dismissing the Petition for Judicial Review?

Text: In its brief, Highlands contended that it had the right to seek judicial review pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-5273. [2] The City did not raise the issue of whether Highlands had a right to judicial review in this case. Where an appeal is taken from a non-appealable order, the appeal should be dismissed, even by the court sua sponte, for lack of jurisdiction over the particular appeal. State, Dept. of Law Enforcement v. One 1955 Willys Jeep, V.I.N. XXXXXXXXX, 100 Idaho 150, 152, 595 P.2d 299, 301 n. 1 (1979); accord, South Fork Coalition v. Board of Comm'rs of Bonneville County, 112 Idaho 89, 90, 730 P.2d 1009, 1010 (1986). Idaho Code § 67-5273 is part of the Idaho Administrative Procedures Act (IAPA). That Act does not grant the right to review decisions made by counties or cities. As we explained recently in Giltner Dairy, LLC v. Jerome County, 145 Idaho 630, 632, 181 P.3d 1238, 1240 (2008): The IAPA and its judicial review standards apply to agency actions. Gibson v. Ada County Sheriff's Dept., 139 Idaho 5, 7, 72 P.3d 845, 847 (2003). Counties and city governments are considered local governing bodies rather than agencies for purposes of the IAPA. Id. The language of the IAPA indicates that it is intended to govern the judicial review of decisions made by state administrative agencies, and not local governing bodies. Idaho Historic Preservation Council, Inc. v. City Council of City of Boise, 134 Idaho 651, 653, 8 P.3d 646, 648 (2000). In order to obtain judicial review of the City's annexation and initial zoning [3] of property, there must be a statute granting the right of judicial review. Gibson, 139 Idaho at 8, 72 P.3d at 848. At the time the petition for judicial review was filed on April 26, 2001, there was no statute granting the right to obtain judicial review of the City's decisions at issue in this case. The legislature later enacted Idaho Code § 50-222 which permits judicial review of the decision of a city council to annex and zone lands under certain circumstances. Ch. 333, § 2, 2002 Idaho Sess. Laws 939, 944. However, that statute did not take effect until July 1, 2002, over a year after the petition for judicial review was filed in this case. The Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) permits judicial review of some land use decisions made by a governing board. However, there is no provision granting judicial review of the initial zoning classification applied to annexed property. LLUPA grants the right of judicial review to persons who have applied for a permit required or authorized under LLUPA and were denied the permit or aggrieved by the decision on the application for the permit. I.C. § 67-6519. LLUPA mentions special use permits, I.C. § 67-6512; subdivision permits, I.C. § 67-6513; planned unit development permits, I.C. § 67-6515; variance permits, I.C. § 67-6516; and building permits, I.C. § 67-6517. It does not mention any permit that would relate to the initial zoning of land annexed by a city. LLUPA also grants the right of judicial review to persons having an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of a permit authorizing development. I.C. § 67-65121. This case does not involve the granting or denial of a permit authorizing development. The dissent argues that Idaho Code § 67-6519 grants Highlands the right to file a petition for judicial review because it was aggrieved by a decision. As we said in Giltner, Idaho Code § 67-6519 applies to applications for a permit required or authorized under Chapter 65 of Title 67, Idaho Code. 145 Idaho at 633, 181 P.3d at 1241. There was no application for a permit in this case. The application filed by Highlands with the City was entitled, annexation/rezone application. The dissent argues that in prior cases we have granted judicial review of zoning permits and have characterized action establishing a zoning classification as a zoning permit. The cases cited do not support that assertion. The permit at issue in Ralph Naylor Farms, LLC v. Latah County, 144 Idaho 806, 808, 172 P.3d 1081, 1083 (2007), was a conditional use permit, it was not a zoning classification. As we stated: In January of 2005, POW presented the County with a petition requesting that the County impose a moratorium prohibiting the acceptance, review or approval of all conditional use permits or zoning permits related to mineral resource extraction within Latah County..... On June 27, 2005, Naylor Farms attempted to file an application with the Latah County Planning and Building Department for a conditional use permit in order to conduct mineral extraction on its property. Likewise, In re the Approval of the Zoning of Idaho Frozen Foods, 109 Idaho 1072, 712 P.2d 1180 (1986), did not involve the zoning of property. It involved the issuance of a construction permit. Compare, No appeal was, nor has been, filed to the district court from the decision of the county commissioners to issue the zoning permit, 109 Idaho at 1073, 712 P.2d at 1181, with, As indicated herein, no appeal was taken from the actual granting of the construction permit, 109 Idaho at 1076, 712 P.2d at 1184. In fact, this Court noted, Idaho Frozen Foods might have been well advised to return to the county zoning commission and the board of county commissioners to obtain a conditional use permit or a rezone. The dissent has not pointed to any case in which a zoning application is called an application for a permit. The dissent's argument that we should stretch the meaning of the word permit in Idaho Code § 67-6519 to include zoning applications would effectively amend Idaho Code § 50-222. In specified circumstances, Section 50-222 permits judicial review of [t]he decision of a city council to annex and zone lands. (Emphasis added.) Had that statute been in effect, it would not have granted Highlands the right to file a petition for judicial review of the zoning because Highlands did not object to the annexation. Under the dissent's expansive interpretation of a permit, a landowner who could not challenge the zoning under Section 50-222 could do so. The dissent also argues that this opinion will prevent property owners from obtaining judicial review of decisions downzoning their property. It will not. As we recognized in McCuskey v. Canyon County Commissioners, 128 Idaho 213, 912 P.2d 100 (1996), such landowners can seek relief in an independent action. The only statute in LLUPA mentioning annexation is Idaho Code § 67-6525. It provides, Concurrently or immediately following the adoption of an ordinance of annexation, the city council shall amend the plan and zoning ordinance. However, this statute does not grant any right of judicial review regarding either the annexation decision or the zoning decision. Absent any statute granting Highlands the right to seek judicial review of the City's decision to annex and zone Highlands' properties, this appeal must be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction to decide the issues raised.