Opinion ID: 874387
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board had the sole authority to make final decisions on subdivision applications.

Text: The Board was empowered to enact ordinances regulating the procedure and standards for subdivision applications. I.C. § 67-6513. Under Idaho law, county boards are vested with the exclusive, non-delegable, authority to finally approve subdivision applications. I.C. § 67-6504; Cowan v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Fremont County, 143 Idaho 501, 511-12, 148 P.3d 1247, 1257-58 (2006). Under I.C. § 67-6511, the Board had the power to establish zoning ordinances providing standards to regulate the construction and location of buildings and the preservation of open space. This Court has recognized that aesthetic concerns, including the preservation of open space and the maintenance of the rural character of Blaine County, are valid rationales for the County to enact zoning restrictions under its police power. Dawson Enter., Inc., v. Blaine County, 98 Idaho 506, 518, 567 P.2d 1257, 1269 (1977). The purpose of the MOD, as set forth in B.C.C. § 9-21-1(B), falls squarely within the recognized powers of the County: 1. To preserve the natural character and aesthetic value of hillsides and mountains in the County by regulating development thereon; 2. To maintain slope and soil stability; 3. To prevent scarring of hillsides and mountains made by cuts and fills and/or by access roads to hillside and mountainous areas; 4. To ensure accessibility by emergency vehicles on hillside roads; 5. To prevent unsafe conditions for access, circulation, and road maintenance and unwarranted problems associated therewith in hillside and mountainous areas; 6. To help ensure water quality and prevent deterioration due to sedimentation or inadequately performing septic systems; 7. To regulate site alteration and structural development in the Mountain Overlay District to assure that site alteration and development occurs in the Mountain Overlay District only when no sufficient development exists outside of the District and all other criteria under this Chapter have been met, and to assure that any site alteration and structural development within the District occurs in a manner that minimizes hillside visibility; 8. To carry out the provisions contained in the County Comprehensive Plan; and 9. To protect agricultural lands for productive agriculture while providing for necessary residential and other structural use within the context of productive agriculture. Applicants contend that Haavik was vested with final authority to determine whether the proposed building sites fell within the boundaries of the MOD. In support of this contention, Applicants rely on B.C.C. § 9-4-4, which provides: INTERPRETATION OF BOUNDARIES: The Administrator, in consultation with the County Engineer or his/her designated representative, shall have the authority to interpret zoning and overly district boundaries in accordance with this Title. Interpretation by the Administrator may be appealed to the Board according to the procedures and time requirements of Section 9-32-3 of this Title. We initially observe that the right to appeal the Administrator's interpretation indicates that the Board has reserved the final decision-making authority in this area. More importantly, although Applicants are correct that Title 9 of the Blaine County Code vests the administrator with authority to make a final decision on MOD compliance, subject to review on appeal by the Board, this authority extends only to single-lot applications. Approval of Applicants' subdivision application is not controlled by Title 9; rather, their application is governed by Title 10 of the B.C.C., which regulates subdivision applications. The B.C.C. provides that [n]o preliminary plat application shall be considered by the Board or Commission until the Administrator makes a recommendation with regard to whether the subdivision proposal complies with [a]ny chapter of Title 9. B.C.C. §§ 10-5-1; 10-5-1(A)(e) (emphasis added). The non-binding nature of the Administrator's recommendation is reflected in B.C.C. § 10-5-2: THRESHOLD STANDARDS: No preliminary plat application shall be approved unless the Board determines that the application complies with each of the following standards: A. Administrative Standards: The Administrator's recommendations on the standards set out in Section 10-5-1 of this Chapter are acceptable or need modification. (emphasis added). Further, B.C.C. § 10-5-3 provides that [n]o preliminary plat application shall be approved unless the board determines that the application complies with each of the following standards. (emphasis added). The listed standards include hillside standards and specifically provide that no structure or building envelope shall be located within the Mountain Overlay District except as permitted by Title 9, Chapter 21 of this Code. B.C.C. § 10-5-3(L)(4). The Board expressly considered and rejected Applicants' claim that Haavik possessed the final decision-making authority, stating: The authority delegated to the Administrator is clearly not exclusive. Furthermore, Idaho Code § 67-6504 provides only the Board the authority to approve land subdivisions. For that reason, § 10-5-2(A) was added into the county's code to ensure that the Board retained the final authority to accept or modify any administrator's decision on any Administrative Standard including § 10-5-1(E)1 [1] relating to the location of uses in any zoning regulations. We agree with the Board. The structure of the B.C.C. is such that the Board clearly retained the final decision-making authority to determine whether the proposed areas of disturbance fell within the MOD in cases of subdivision applications. Title 10 of the B.C.C. is consistent with the requirement of I.C. § 67-6504 that the Board shall have final authority to approve or deny subdivision applications.