Court Opinion

ID: 9857102
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 07:15:43.433907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:01.141619
License: Public Domain

SCHILLING, Justice Pro Tern.,
dissenting.
I disagree with the conclusion reached in section IV of the Court’s opinion that “the City’s definitions used to interpret its setback requirements are incorporated into the Restrictive Covenants.”
The Restrictive Covenants provides:

ARTICLE X

PROPERTY USE RESTRICTIONS

D. Setbacks. The setbacks shall be all those approved by the City of Boise and as required by the Architectural Guidelines and as shown in Exhibit “B” hereto.
Respondents’ setback of five feet would have complied with the requirements of the applicable Boise City Ordinance § 11-4, Table 2.
In my opinion, the above reference does not “incorporate by reference” a definition of the term “story” found in Boise City Ordinance § 11-1 — 3.1 (1993), upon which the Court bases its decision. Since the Restrictive Covenants did not contain a definition of the term, the District Court was correct in applying the “plain ordinary meaning of the word story____”
I would affirm the decision of the District Court.