Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Animal Feeding Operations

Court Grants County's Motion for Summary Judgment in Citizen's
Challenge of Issuance of Livestock Permit

Eric H. Foy
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In Chisholm v. Twin Falls County, 75 P.3d 185 (Idaho 2003), the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment dismissing the petition of a landowner that alleged that the county was required to give notice and hold a public hearing prior to issuing a permit to a livestock confinement operation (LCO).

Background

A neighboring landowner (neighbor) argued that the LCO permit issued to the livestock operation should be cancelled because the county issued it without notice, public hearing, or other opportunity for the neighbors to comment, and sought judicial review. Id. at 187. The District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Twin Falls County, granted summary judgment in favor of the county and livestock operation. Id. The neighbor appealed. Id.

Arguments

The neighbor argued that the Twin Falls County Zoning Ordinance required that a 3,000 animal unit LCO application be submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission for review and recommendation, as well that a public hearing and notice to potentially affected neighbors be provided, along with other procedural protections. Id. at 188.

The county argued that the neighbor lacked standing to bring the suit and that the county was not obligated to hold a public hearing as a condition precedent to approving the livestock operation's application, because the livestock operation was smaller than 3,000 animal units. Id.

Analysis and Holdings

A strong presumption favors the validity of the actions of zoning boards, which include the application and interpretation of their own zoning ordinances. Id. at 190. Under this presumption, the board's interpretation and application of its zoning ordinance should trump alternatives unless the board's interpretation or application was capricious, arbitrary, or discriminatory. Id. Because there was a strong presumption favoring the validity of the actions of zoning boards, which included the application and interpretation of their own zoning ordinances, the court deferred to the county's interpretation, finding that the interpretation of the ordinance by the Twin Falls County Commissioners was not capricious, arbitrary, or discriminatory. Id. The court concluded that the permit at issue was properly issued by the zoning administrator without notice or a hearing before the commission. Id. Based upon this conclusion, the court held that the district court did not have jurisdiction to review the neighbor's case. Because no notice before the issuance of a permit was required, the neighbor had no basis to petition the court for judicial review to address the question of lack of notice. Id.

The case was decided on July 16, 2003.