## Facts

- John Bone applied to the City of Lewiston Planning and Zoning Commission to rezone his parcel from low-density residential to limited commercial.
- The city’s comprehensive plan land-use map indicated the area containing Bone’s property for commercial use.
- The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial, citing (1) incompatibility with surrounding low-density residential uses and (2) an over-supply of unused commercial property.
- The City Council denied the rezoning request without adopting formal findings of fact or conclusions of law.
- Bone sued seeking declaratory relief and a writ of mandamus compelling rezoning to conform zoning to the comprehensive plan under Idaho Code § 67-6511.
- The district court declined to confine review to the statutory judicial review standards of Idaho Code § 67-5215(b)–(g), proceeded without the local record, granted summary judgment for Bone, and issued mandamus ordering the City to rezone the parcel.
- The City appealed.

## Issues

1. What is the proper procedure and scope for judicial review of a city’s rezoning denial: record-based review under Idaho Code § 67-5215(b)–(g), or de novo declaratory and mandamus relief?
2. Does Idaho Code § 67-6511 (“zoning districts shall be in accordance with the adopted plan”) require the City to grant rezoning that matches the comprehensive plan land-use map for a particular parcel?
3. May mandamus compel a city to enact a specific rezoning classification in these circumstances?

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court reversed the district court’s summary judgment and writ of mandamus.
- The district court used an improper mode of review by not applying the statutory, record-based standards governing review of local land-use decisions.
- Idaho Code § 67-6511 does not make the comprehensive plan map self-executing or confer a parcel-specific right to rezoning on demand.
- Mandamus was improper because rezoning involves discretionary legislative judgment, not a clear ministerial duty.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of local rezoning decisions should proceed under the applicable statutory review framework and ordinarily is confined to the record, applying standards such as whether the action was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or contrary to law.
- A comprehensive plan functions as a policy guide; “in accordance with the adopted plan” requires general consistency between zoning and the plan, not exact, parcel-by-parcel conformity compelled by the plan map.
- Mandamus is available only to compel performance of a clear ministerial duty and cannot be used to direct discretionary legislative choices such as adopting a particular zoning classification.

## Conclusion

The court held that a comprehensive plan does not automatically control parcel-specific zoning outcomes and that courts may not use mandamus to order a city to rezone property; review must follow the statutory, record-based standards governing challenges to local land-use decisions.


Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 693 P.2d 1046 (Idaho 1984)