## Facts

- Ed Terrazas and Jackie Weseloh owned approximately 115 acres on East Fork Road in Blaine County, Idaho.
- They applied to create the “NoKaOi” subdivision and sought approval through the county’s short plat procedure (four or fewer lots).
- The property was subject to Blaine County’s Mountain Overlay District (MOD) regulations, intended to direct development away from hillsides and mountains.
- County planning staff initially advised that proposed building areas were on a “bench slope” and therefore outside the MOD, while noting the assessment was subject to the Board’s later review.
- The Board referred the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission for additional review, including proceedings and site visits.
- The Commission concluded that portions of the proposal fell within the MOD and were visible from Scenic Corridor 1, and it recommended denial.
- The Board adopted the Commission’s findings and denied the subdivision application.
- The applicants sought judicial review; the district court affirmed, and the applicants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board properly interpreted and applied the MOD ordinance when it concluded the proposed building areas were within the MOD and denied the subdivision.
2. Whether the County was equitably estopped from denying the application based on applicants’ reliance on earlier staff statements and expenditures.
3. Whether referring a short plat application to the Commission and conducting expanded proceedings violated procedural due process.
4. Whether the denial was arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial, competent evidence.
5. Whether the County applied the MOD ordinance inconsistently in violation of equal protection principles.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment upholding the Board’s denial.
- The Court held the Board had final authority to interpret and apply the MOD ordinance for subdivision approval decisions.
- The Court rejected equitable estoppel because staff opinions were not binding official determinations and were expressly subject to Board review.
- The Court held the process provided adequate notice and opportunity to be heard and was fundamentally fair.
- The Court concluded the denial was supported by substantial, competent evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious.
- The Court rejected the equal protection claim for lack of a showing of similarly situated comparators receiving favorable treatment or other unlawful disparity.

## Legal Principles

- In Idaho local land-use matters, the county board of commissioners is the final decisionmaker on subdivision approvals and may interpret and apply county land-use ordinances.
- Informal or preliminary statements by county staff do not bind the board and generally cannot support equitable estoppel against the county absent an official, authorized, and definitive governmental commitment.
- Procedural due process in land-use proceedings requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard; referral for additional review does not violate due process if the overall process remains fair.
- A land-use denial will be upheld on judicial review when supported by substantial, competent evidence and not shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
- Equal protection challenges to land-use decisions require proof of differential treatment of similarly situated parties without a lawful basis.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court upheld Blaine County’s denial of the proposed short-plat subdivision, ruling that the Board’s interpretation of the MOD ordinance controlled, staff assurances did not estop the County, the applicants received fair process, and the denial was supported by substantial evidence without an equal protection violation.


Terrazas v. Blaine County, 207 P.3d 169 (Idaho 2009)