Opinion ID: 2595544
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Board's decision conformed to the applicable standards of judicial review.

Text: The Gooding County Zoning Ordinance in Article I, Section D lists a number of purposes Gooding County intended to further in adopting the Ordinance. Section D states that the Ordinance is designed to promote and protect the health, safety and the general welfare of the public. Another purpose of the Ordinance is to provide for and protect agricultural lands and sensitive natural resource areas. Further, the Ordinance is designed to protect and improve the County's quality of life so that the County will be increasingly valued by residents and non-residents as a desirable place for living, working, and recreation. Article X, Section A of the Gooding County Zoning Ordinance states that the allowance of a special use permit is discretionary with the Commission and may be granted only in the best interest of the general public. Article X, Section C of the Gooding County Zoning Ordinance is entitled General Standards Applicable to All Special Uses. Nine criteria are listed in Section C, and the Commission is directed to review the particular facts and circumstances of each proposed special use in terms of the criteria and shall find adequate evidence showing that such use at the proposed location qualifies under the criteria. These nine criteria help define what is meant by the best interest of the general public in Section A. The first standard in Section C requires an analysis of whether the use would be better suited in an urban area. The second requires a proposed use to be harmonious with general and/or specific objectives of the Gooding County Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. The third states that a proposed use cannot be hazardous or disturbing to existing uses. The sixth cautions against proposed uses that potentially create odors or problems with the water supply, damaging persons, property or the general welfare. The P & Z approved Jerome Cheese's application for a special use permit after imposing 59 conditions on the issuance of the permit. Upon appeal the Board had the authority to uphold, uphold with conditions, or overrule the P & Z's decision. The Board evaluated Jerome Cheese's special use permit application in light of the nine criteria listed in Article X, Section C of the Ordinance and determined that: Ordinance 60 and the Comprehensive Plan require that special uses that would be best located in an urban area to remain in an urban area. It would not be in the best interest of the neighbors or other citizens of Gooding County to allow industrial waste that is generated in another county to be brought into Gooding County for treatment. It would best serve the citizens of Gooding County by requiring that the industrial wastewater continue to be treated at the Jerome City municipal treatment plant. The industrial wastewater has a potential to cause harm to the quality of water located in Gooding County and (sic) ... allowing [Jerome Cheese] to bring industrial waste into Gooding County would not be harmonious with either the Comprehensive Plan or Ordinance No. 60. The locating of the industrial treatment system may have an adverse effect on the surrounding property owners if the treatment system ever malfunctioned or did not operate properly. Any such malfunction would be detrimental to the neighbors themselves or to their property. Additional odors and the possibility of contamination of water within Gooding County are serious risks to both the neighbors and to the citizens of Gooding County. The bringing into Gooding County of industrial waste and the locating of a treatment system in an agriculturally zoned area is not in the best interest of the citizens of Gooding County and the Planning and Zoning decision is, therefore, reversed and the application is denied. It is not the role of the reviewing court to weigh the evidence. This Court must defer to the agency's decisions that are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Id. at 75, 73 P.3d at 88. Jerome Cheese's argument focuses on the evidence it presented as to the potential benefits of the Reclaimed Water Project. Even with these benefits, the P & Z issued Jerome Cheese a special use permit only after attaching 59 conditions to it. It appears that the Board focused more on the potential harm that could result to Gooding County if there were problems with the Project, rather than the benefits that may flow to the community because of the Project. There is substantial evidence in the record supporting the Board's concerns about the Project's potential odor. In the hearing before the P & Z on April 30, 2002, counsel for Jerome Cheese, discussed the penalties that may be assessed against Jerome Cheese in the event the Project produced odors, suggesting the establishment of a county level odor penalty policy which would provide for penalties of up to $2,500 a day for the most extreme violations, and that would be on top of violations that might be imposed by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality or the EPA. A maintenance manager for Jerome Cheese testified at the P & Z Hearing about Gooding County's concerns about odors from the Project: Odor will be minimized through the treatment and proper operation. Minor odors may be detectable at the physical site, and I want to be very clear about this. They may be detectable at the site; however, because of the topographical area and the distance from public access, there should be no odors or objectionable odors off site. Now, that is the best we can do there, and with the odor management or the odor enforcement plan that we've asked for in the special use conditions we should be pretty well covered and so should the general public here. Don Davis, a participant in the mediation proceedings with Jerome Cheese, submitted comments to the P & Z that were read into the record during the April 2003 hearing. The comments stated that, Jerome Cheese says that they will manage the odor, if any. We know from past experience that self control is only served in the best interest of the controllers. The question still arises on effective controls of odors and who with authority can and will enforce these controls. Davis also articulated his concern that allowing an industrial use in an agricultural zone in this instance would set a precedent for businesses that industrial uses can be in agricultural zones in Gooding County in the future. The Board reviewed the record established before the P & Z. In addition the Board presented questions to Jerome Cheese's engineering expert regarding odors from the Project. The engineer responded to a question from Commissioner Elexpuru about odors stating that: [Y]ou could go out [to the proposed Project site] right now and do something that made a tremendous odor occur, and our study indicates that if you made a big enough odor, yes, you could smell it at the Archibalds' house. It would have to be a very big odor inconsistent with the design of the wastewater treatment plant. But, yes, that's possible. The Board is entrusted with the authority to act in the best interests of the citizens of Gooding County. The Board's decision evaluated the Project in terms of the criteria listed in Article X, Section C of the Ordinance. The Board's action reflects its concern about the harm that could potentially be caused by the Project, especially with respect to the Project's odors. There is substantial evidence in the record indicating that odor problems were a major concern for the mediation panel, the P & Z and the Board. Therefore, though conflicting evidence was before the Board about the likelihood and severity of odors, substantial evidence in the record supports the Board's decision to avoid the risk of odors and other problems that could be caused by the Project. The Board did not abuse its discretion by overruling the P & Z's decision.