Opinion ID: 874391
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Board's decision was based on substantial evidence and was within its authority.

Text: In reviewing the district court, this Court examines the county board of commissioners' record independently of the district court's decision. Marcia T. Turner, L.L.C. v. City of Twin Falls, 144 Idaho 203, 207, 159 P.3d 840, 844 (2007). A reviewing court must affirm the county board of commissioners' action unless the board's decision (a) violates statutory or constitutional provisions; (b) exceeds the statutory authority of the board; (c) is made upon unlawful procedure; (d) is not supported by substantial evidence in the record; or (e) is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. Id. at 208, 159 P.3d at 845; I.C. § 67-5279(3). The approval or denial of a variance request is within the discretion of the county board of commissioners, subject to the requirements of I.C. § 67-5279. See I.C. §§ 67-6516, 6519. The applicant must prove to the board that he will suffer undue hardship because of characteristics of the site and that the variance is not in conflict with the public interest. I.C. § 67-6516. There is a strong presumption in favor of the validity of the actions of county boards of commissioners in interpreting and applying their own ordinances. Sanders Orchard v. Gem County, 137 Idaho 695, 698, 52 P.3d 840, 843 (2002). Furthermore, when analyzing a county board of commissioners' decision to determine if it was supported by substantial evidence pursuant to I.C. § 67-5279(3)(d), this Court will not substitute its judgment for that of the board regarding the weight of the evidence on questions of fact. Id. The county board of commissioners' factual determinations are binding on the reviewing court, even where there is conflicting evidence, so long as the determinations are supported by substantial and competent evidence. Lane Ranch P'ship v. City of Sun Valley, 144 Idaho 584, 590, 166 P.3d 374, 380 (2007). Substantial and competent evidence is relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept to support a conclusion. Id. (citing Lamar Corp. v. City of Twin Falls, 133 Idaho 36, 43, 981 P.2d 1146, 1153 (1999)). In Lane Ranch, this Court found that the evidence did not support the city's finding that chang[ing] the Zoning District designation for the Subject Property from OR-1 to RA would require amending the Annexation Agreement, because the Agreement did not require amendment. 144 Idaho at 590-91, 166 P.3d at 380-81. The Court found that it was impossible to tell how much the city had relied on that mistaken interpretation in its denial of the zoning applications. Id. Similarly, in Sanders Orchard v. Gem County, 137 Idaho 695, 52 P.3d 840 (2002), this Court found that a county board of commissioners' finding that sewer and water lines would likely be extended to the area of a proposed subdivision in the foreseeable future was unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. In Sanders, there was no oral testimony or evidence submitted indicating that the sewer and water lines would be extended to that area. Id. at 702-03, 52 P.3d at 846-47. The Board's findings here were as follows: 5.01 The granting of the variance requested in this application would not be in conformance with Kootenai County Zoning Ordinance No. 348, Section 30.03, Section 30.02 and Idaho Code § 67-6516. The evidence presented regarding the Applicants' inability to construct structures on the steep topography of the subject parcel does show that an undue hardship exists. However, this request fails to meet the requirement of public interest and the intent of the zoning ordinance, specifically Section 30.03(d). The issuance of variances that not only encroach into the required setback but also the lakebed is not in the public interest and would allow a benefit that is not afforded to other property owners fronting Coeur d'Alene Lake. 5.02 The granting of the variance requested in this application does not meet the requirements of Idaho Code § 67-6516 because it would serve to legitimize the Applicants' construction of decks without required building permits, which would be considered a special privilege. 5.03 The requested variance does not conform to Kootenai County Zoning Ordinance No. 348 and Idaho Code § 67-6516 because the requested variance is not necessary to accommodate the recreational use of the property and would be detrimental to surrounding properties and the public welfare if zero setbacks and lake encroachments were to be allowed, even by special permit. Unlike in Sanders and Lane Ranch, the Board here was faced with granting variances to individuals who had already violated the county ordinances by building without first getting approval. In addition, Sanders and Lane Ranch dealt with factual findings by the agencies on which no oral testimony or evidence was submitted. The Board's findings here were based upon substantial evidence in the record, and therefore must be upheld on review under I.C. § 67-5279(3)(d). Pursuant to I.C. § 67-6516, the burden is on Respondents to show that the variance would not be in conflict with the public interest. The Board focused its questioning of Respondents on why Respondents had believed they could build the decks in violation of the existing county ordinances requiring setbacks and building permits. In issuing its decision, the Board emphasized the fact that Respondents had not first gotten permission for the decks: Commissioner Brodie: It's ugly. I mean, the bottom line is, I, I feel very, very sorry for each and every one of you for being allowed to believe, number one, it was a buildable lot, that you could do something other than enjoy a dock lot, which is, I think exactly what you have. Regardless of that, the requirement is, you build within setbacks and you get a permit first. Commissioner Currie then reiterated that Respondents should have done your ... due diligence and your homework and your process. This was the Board's focus throughout the proceedings: I guess the concern, of course, is no permit. Here they are, I mean, it set a precedent, more or less, and, um, it's easier to beg forgiveness than to get permission, so it puts us in a pretty tough spot. The Board was clearly concerned with legitimizing the construction of structures that are in clear violation of county ordinances, and Respondents offered little to alleviate this concern. Respondents did submit comment sheets from the public that were either in support of the variances, or neutral. In addition, Respondents testified that the concerns that the Department of Lands and the Army Corps of Engineers had expressed with the structures had been complied with; therefore, there was no longer any other agency interests in the matter. However, the November 22, 2005 letter from the Army Corps of Engineers indicated that, while the concrete footings were not causing any discernable adverse effects on the aquatic environment, the rock fill and concrete footings were not authorized and may not be maintained. The Board heard this evidence and determined that granting the variances on these pre-existing structures would not be in the public interest. The Board acted well within its authority and discretion in refusing to grant variance requests after Respondents had violated Zoning Ordinances §§ 8.09 and 28.02 by building within the required setback areas without building permits. Kootenai County Zoning Ordinance No. 348, Section 30.03 requires the Board to find that the granting of the variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or otherwise detrimental to the public welfare. This ordinance is focused on ensuring that variances do not conflict with the public welfare, while making reasonable use of the land, and it gives the Board the discretion to determine what is in the public interest. It is well within the Board's discretion to determine that allowing individuals to violate county ordinances by constructing structures that encroach not only into the required setback but also the lakebed would be detrimental to the public welfare. In addition, the Board was clearly concerned that Respondents were not making reasonable use of their land. Commissioner Johnson stated that allowing individuals to construct decks that protrude over the water on properties that were purchased as dock lots was problematic: When you purchased the property, so you purchased a piece of property that was at a value that would be much less, knowing that it was a dock lot.... History provides us with the properties on that lake, on that side of the lake, they are non-accessible. Everybody knew it for years and years and years. When folks were buying them for a dock lot. They knew they could put a dock in, tie their boat up, and still have, be on the water. That is why the values are a lot less. In addition, Commissioner Brodie commented on the fact that Respondents focused a great deal in their testimony on the topography of the properties and how steep the land was, but all of this was known to Respondents when they originally purchased the properties. Finally, the Board's decision was made upon lawful procedure. When the Board had questions concerning whether the properties were classified as buildable or non-buildable, it reopened the proceedings to allow Respondents to view the exhibits regarding the tax assessments and then offer rebuttal. There is no indication that the Board based its decision on this additional information. Instead, it focused on its concern that granting variances for structures built in violation of existing zoning ordinances was not in the public interest. Therefore, we find that the Board's decision was valid pursuant to I.C. § 67-5279(3), and thus the district court's remand was in error.