S Bar Ranch v. Elmore County

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court’s amended per curiam opinion reviews Elmore County’s approval and amendment of conditional use permits for Cat Creek Energy’s proposed alternative energy project. The court affirmed the district court’s decision upholding the county’s actions, concluding that S Bar Ranch’s challenge to the original 2017 permit order was untimely and that the later proceedings did not violate applicable administrative, notice, due process, or conflict-of-interest requirements.

Holdings

1. The 2017 CUP Order was a final agency action. Because the applicable ordinance allowed Cat Creek to take immediate steps to permanently alter the land, S Bar was required to seek reconsideration and file for judicial review within the statutory time limits; its challenge filed more than a year later was untimely and jurisdictionally barred.
2. S Bar could not challenge the findings or alleged defects in the 2017 CUP Order because its petition for judicial review of that order was untimely. The 2018 CUP Amendment did not need to repeat the 2017 order's Comprehensive Plan findings because it did not purport to alter them.
3. The Board and its commissioners did not have disqualifying conflicts of interest based merely on their general interest in improving Elmore County's water supply. The disclosed ex parte contacts did not require reversal, and any participation by Commissioner Hofer was not outcome-determinative because the other two commissioners voted in favor of the development agreement.
4. The Court declined to consider S Bar's Open Meetings Law claim because S Bar had not brought the statutory civil action required to challenge an allegedly invalid decision and a petition for judicial review could not be combined with such a civil action.
5. The Board did not violate Idaho Code section 67-6536 or procedural due process merely because some speakers were identified in transcripts as a male or female voice. The record adequately showed the basis for the Board's decision, S Bar's notice, and S Bar's opportunity to participate, and S Bar failed to show prejudice from the transcription deficiencies.
6. The hearing notices for the 2018 CUP Amendment did not violate procedural due process even though they did not fully satisfy the statutory notice requirements concerning the wind turbines. S Bar had actual notice of the wind development area's location and maximum turbine height, reviewed draft materials, and had multiple opportunities to comment and be heard.
7. The development agreement was not governed by Idaho Code section 67-6511A or Elmore County Zoning Ordinance title 6, chapter 29 because it was imposed as a condition of the conditional use permits rather than as a condition of rezoning.
8. The filing of S Bar's petition for judicial review did not automatically stay the Board's proceedings or deprive the Board of jurisdiction to consider and decide subsequent requests for reconsideration.
9. The district court properly denied attorney fees to Cat Creek. No party was entitled to attorney fees on appeal, but Elmore County and Cat Creek were entitled to costs as prevailing parties.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court properly concluded that the 2017 CUP Order was a final agency action that S Bar failed to timely challenge.
2. Whether the district court properly concluded that S Bar failed to establish grounds for relief under Idaho Code section 67-5279(3) concerning the 2018 CUP Amendment and development agreement.
3. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying Cat Creek Energy attorney fees.
4. Whether any party was entitled to attorney fees or costs on appeal.
5. Whether the Board's proceedings violated procedural due process through inadequate notice, conflicts of interest, ex parte communications, inadequate transcripts, or failure to make materials available.
6. Whether the Board retained jurisdiction to act on the project after S Bar filed petitions for judicial review.

Disposition

affirmed