News Editor | March 22, 2020 1:00 AM
SANDPOINT — Determined opponents of proposed asphalt batch plant relocation in Sagle are taking their fight to the Idaho Supreme Court.
Counsel for Citizens Against Linscott/Interstate Asphalt filed a notice of appeal on Wednesday, 1st District Court records show.
The group is appealing Judge Jeff Brudie’s Feb. 5 ruling which affirmed Bonner County’s approval of a conditional use permit for the project to relocate Interstate Concrete & Asphalt plan to move its asphalt plant from Sandpoint to Frank Linscott’s gravel pit on the west side of U.S. Highway 95 north of Gun Club Road.
Linscott and Interstate were granted a conditional land use permit for permanent operations from the Bonner County Planning & Zoning Commission in 2018, despite vociferous objections from neighbors. Landowners appealed to Bonner County commissioners, but the board upheld the issuance of the conditional use permit in 2019, prompting Citizens Against Linscott/Interstate Asphalt to seek judicial review of the county’s actions.
Plant opponents argued that a local land use code amendment in 2018, which allows asphalt plants in agricultural and residential zones if they are paired with an active gravel pit, was unlawfully adopted. The group also argued that the county commission’s decision did not comply with the ordinance and the gravel pit’s noncompliance with other local codes prevented the permit’s issuance.
Citizens further alleged the gravel pit had operated in violation of county ordinances, although Brudie held that such determinations have never been made, nor has the pit been the subject of an enforcement action.
Brudie further ruled that the court was not empowered to render a legal conclusion on a property’s compliance with land use ordinances and deferred to the county’s interpretation and application of its own zoning ordinances.
On appeal, Gary Allen, a Boise attorney representing Citizens, questions whether Brudie erred in affirming the county’s approval and by failing to consider the issues and arguments raised by the group, according to court documents. Allen also questions whether the district court erred in concluding it was constrained from considering the validity of the land use code amendment and whether the board’s interpretation of its land use codes was capricious, arbitrary or unreasonable.
Keith Kinnaird can be reached by email at [email protected] and follow him on Twitter @KeithDailyBee.