[APP25-002: Appeal of Zoning Violation]
[00:00:08]
THERE WE GO. OKAY, LOOK AT THIS APPEAL UNDERWAY. IT'S APPEAL 20 5-002. THE APPLICANT IS ALEXANDER KINGSBURY. KINGS BERRY ALLOCATION IS 1796 CHARLOTTE STREET. WE START WITH WE START WITH THE APPLICANT OR THE APPELLANT. OKAY. THE FEELING I'D LIKE TO TAKE A STAND AND GIVE A NAME AND ADDRESS. MY NAME IS ALEXANDER SCOTT KINGSBURY. I RESIDE AT 1796 CHARLOTTE STREET IN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. THANKS, ALEXANDER. CAN YOU HEAR THE APPEAL OF YOUR ZONING VIOLATION? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. LET ME GIVE YOUR STATEMENT. WELL, I'M TOLD THAT THIS IS A QUASI LEGAL PROCEEDING, NOT A COURT OF LAW, WHICH WORKS OUT NICELY BECAUSE I'M NOT A LAWYER. THE CITY HAS A LAWYER THAT THEY CAN USE AGAINST ME. BUT I AM NOT A LAWYER. I DON'T GET TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT NOT GETTING TO FACE MY ACCUSER. I DON'T GET TO RAISE THE QUESTION OF WHY I HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO DEFEND MYSELF. THE ONLY THING THAT I HAVE ARE THE RECORD THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME, AND TWO POINTS OF DISCUSSION AS AS TO THE RECORD THAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME AS OF MY LAST APPEAL. I HAVE TO CORRECT IT IN MY LAST APPEAL. IT WAS STATED IN THE RECORD THAT I PRESENTED MYSELF AS EXTREMELY UPSET, AND WAS AGITATED WHEN I CAME TO CITY HALL, AND NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. I PRESENT MYSELF CALMLY AND RESPECTFULLY IN ALL SUCH PROCEEDINGS. NOW, I AM TOLD, RECORD NOW REFLECTS THAT. WHEN I PRESENTED THIS APPEAL, I WAS ASKED IF I HAD ANY QUESTIONS AND STATED THAT I DID NOT FEEL THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE COULD ASK ANY QUESTIONS. THAT IS NOT THE CASE. I WAS ASKED IF I WANTED ANY HELP, AND I STATED THAT I DID NOT BELIEVE THAT THE CITY'S REPRESENTATIVE WAS GOING TO HELP ME BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT HELPED ME. THEY HAVE ONLY ATTACKED ME. THE RECORD SAYS THAT MY FRONT LAWN IS NOT MANAGED. THAT IS NOT TRUE. MY FRONT LAWN MAY LOOK DIFFERENT FROM OTHER LAWNS. I DO NOT CONTEST THAT FOR A MOMENT. IT IS ABNORMAL. THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT ILLEGAL. AT THE LAST HEARING, WHEN IT WAS DECIDED THAT I WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCE, IT WAS MADE CLEAR TO ME THAT THE CITY STILL HAD THE ABILITY TO COME AFTER ME AGAIN. NOW THEY COME AFTER ME FOR A ZONING VIOLATION, TO WHICH I HAVE TWO POINTS. AGAINST IT. ONE IS THE IDAHO RIGHT TO FARM LAW, STATE LAW, WHICH SUPERSEDES CITY LAW, WHICH STATES THAT IN THE STATE OF IDAHO, THE RIGHT TO FARM IS A NATURAL RIGHT. AND I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT OF QUOTING THE LAW FOR YOU. IN MY STATEMENT, I PROVIDED THE PORTION OF THE LAW THAT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT NO CITY SHALL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT DECLARES AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS A NUISANCE OR ANYTHING OF THE SORT. BUT THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO ME SAYING THAT THIS SHOULDN'T APPLY TO ME. MAYBE NOT THAT IT DOESN'T, BUT IT SHOULDN'T. MAKING ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHETHER THERE WAS FARMING ON MY LAND BEFORE OR NOT. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR, STATING THAT THE CITY SHALL NOT ADOPT ANY ORDINANCE THAT IS DECLARING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS A NUISANCE. I'M NOT RUNNING A HOG FARM. I'M NOT GROWING ANYTHING ILLEGAL. AM I GROWING MARIJUANA OR POPPIES? I'M NOT GROWING DANGEROUS PLANTS OR OBNOXIOUS PLANTS, GROWING SOMETHING THAT'S GROWN BY DOZENS OF PEOPLE INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. THE OTHER POINT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT THE CITY PROVIDES IN ITS DOCUMENTS A VERY BROAD DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE VITICULTURE AND KEEPING ANIMALS. OKAY. DOES THAT MEAN THAT NOW THE CITY IS GOING TO ATTACK EVERYONE WHO IS ZONED R1, WHO HAS A GARDEN, WHO KEEPS CHICKENS, WHO GROWS FLOWERS, WHO HAS A FRUIT TREE IN THEIR YARD? I'VE JUST DESCRIBED SCORES, IF NOT HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE CITY. WHY ATTACK ME? IS IT BECAUSE I STOOD UP FOR MYSELF WHEN I WAS FALSELY ACCUSED OF
[00:05:03]
VIOLATING THE ORDINANCE? I DON'T KNOW. BUT I DO KNOW THAT I BELIEVE THAT THE LAW IS ON MY SIDE AND THAT I AM NOT HURTING ANYBODY, AND THAT IF I'M SINGLED OUT FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT. IT STARTS BECOMING A SERIOUS QUESTION OF WHY AND WHY THE CITY DOESN'T ATTACK ANYONE ELSE. IS THERE A STAFF REPORT? YES. I KNOW YOU GUYS RECEIVED THIS IN YOUR PACKET, BUT I'M GOING TO READ IT JUST WORD FOR WORD. SO WE HAVE A NICE CLEAR RECORD IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS AFTER, AFTER OR EVEN DURING THIS LET ME KNOW. SO THERE ARE THE REQUESTED ACTION TODAY IS TO APPROVE AN APPEAL OF INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND WHEN I SAY THAT THAT'S THE REQUESTED ACTION PROVIDED BY THAT PAPER, NOT THE CITY. OF COURSE, THE HISTORY A LOT LOCATED AT 1796 CHARLEEN STREET WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS AND PLATTED AS PART OF THE WESTLAND HEIGHTS ADDITION DIVISION TWO, WITH AN INITIAL ZONING OF R1, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DESIGNATION.AND THAT WAS BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 58. THE ZONING WAS CHANGED TO R1, OR FROM R1 TO R2, WHICH IS ALSO A RESIDENTIAL ZONE AS REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AT THAT TIME. AGAIN IN 1958. IN 1964, THE PROPERTY WAS CHANGED BACK TO R1 BECAUSE THE CITY DID. A CITY INITIATED CITYWIDE ZONE CHANGE, AND IT'S REMAINED R1 SINCE, INCLUDING THE LAST CITYWIDE INITIATED ZONE CHANGE, WHICH WAS BACK IN APRIL OF 2018. THERE'S NO RECORD OF ANY VARIANCES. THERE'S NO RECORD OF ANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS THAT I COULD FIND FOR THIS PROPERTY. AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, ON MAY 6TH, 2025, CODE ENFORCEMENT SENT A VIOLATION LETTER TO PROPERTY OWNER REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF WEEDS OR GRASS OVER TEN INCHES IN HEIGHT. THIS WAS BASED UPON AN ANONYMOUS SEVERAL ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS CODE ENFORCEMENT RECEIVED REGARDING THE PROPERTY AND A SUBSEQUENT VISIT TO THE PROPERTY, WHEREIN CODE ENFORCEMENT VIEWED THE VEGETATION HAS HAD EXCEEDED THE TEN INCHES IN HEIGHT. ON MAY 16TH, 2025, ALEXANDER KINGSBURY FILED A WRITTEN APPEAL WITH THE CITY. ON MAY 29TH, 2025, THE BOARD OF APPEAL MET AND HEARD THE APPEAL AND DETERMINED THAT THE OWNER WAS GROWING ALFALFA FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, WHICH WAS ALLOWED PER THE ORDINANCE.
ON JUNE 24TH, 2025, A ZONING VIOLATION LETTER WAS SENT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER STATING AGRICULTURAL USES WERE NOT PERMITTED IN THE R1 ZONE. AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON JUNE 27TH, 2025. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING REGARDING THE VIOLATION, MR. KINGSBURY PROVIDED TESTIMONY THAT ALFALFA WAS BEING GROWN AS AN ORNAMENTAL PLANT AND ADDITIONALLY FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, WHICH ARE TWO DEFENSES PROVIDED WITHIN THE WHEAT ORDINANCE. HE CLAIMS THAT HE LIKED THE LOOK OF THE ALFALFA MORE THAN A TURFGRASS THAT IS UTILIZED BY MOST CITY RESIDENTS.
ADDITIONALLY, HE WAS GROWING IT IN ORDER TO FEED A HORSE THAT HE HAD THAT HE OWNED, AND WAS KEEPING THAT A RANCH OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. THE BOARD DETERMINED THE ALFALFA DID NOT SERVE AS AN ORNAMENTAL PLANT. AND THAT'S YOUR JOB TO INTERPRET THE CODE. BUT THE BOARD DID FIND THAT MR. KINGSBURY WAS GROWING ALFALFA FOR AN AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. BASED ON HIS TESTIMONY.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R1 AND R1 ZONED DOES NOT ALLOW AGRICULTURE. PER SECTION 11 TWO THREE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY WAS DONE TO SEE IF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE AFTER THAT HEARING. AND MR. KINGSBURY WAS WARNED DURING THE MEETING OR DURING THE APPEAL THAT R1 DIDN'T ALLOW FOR AGRICULTURE. THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME, WHEN I DID THE INSPECTION WAS NOT IN COMPLIANCE. THE ALFALFA AND OTHER VEGETATION HAD GROWN OVER THE TEN INCHES AND WAS NOT BEING MAINTAINED. THE REASON THAT I BRING THIS UP, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE VIDEO, AND I GREW UP FARMING, THIS IS NOT JUST ALFALFA. THERE'S OTHER VEGETATION THAT'S MIXED IN WITH THAT. WHERE DID I LEAVE OFF HERE? A ZONING VIOLATION LETTER WAS SENT. MR. KINGSBURY REQUESTED AN APPEAL. MR.
[00:10:08]
KINGSBURY'S APPEAL LETTER REFERS TO VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS FOUND IN TABLE OR EXCUSE ME, TITLE 11 OF THE CITY CODE, SECTION 11 DASH ONE FIVE, A SUBSECTION FOR A PROVIDES THAT. PROVIDES THE TERMS DEFINED IN THE OR IN THE APPENDIX OF THE ZONING CODE SHALL HAVE THEIR DEFINED MEANING WHEN USED ELSEWHERE IN THE ZONING CODE, THE APPENDIX OF THE ZONING CODE IS FOUND IN TABLE OR TITLE 11, CHAPTER SEVEN OF THE ZONING CODE. THE APPENDIX DEFINES AGRICULTURE. AND THAT DEFINITION SHOULD BE USED THROUGHOUT THE CODE. THAT DEFINITION IS AS FOLLOWS. THE USE OF LAND FOR FARMING. PASTURAGE. PASTURAGE, AQUATIC CULTURE, HORTICULTURE, FLORICULTURE, VITICULTURE AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, INCLUDING RIDING STABLES AND EQUESTRIAN SCHOOLS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED AS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES FOR PACKING, TREATING OR SORTING PRODUCE TO STAND TO STAND. STANDARD INDUSTRIAL PRACTICES.AGRICULTURAL DOES NOT INCLUDE COMMERCIAL STOCKYARDS OR FEED YARDS, WHERE A CONCENTRATION OF LIVESTOCK IS FED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FATTENING FOR MARKET, WHILE SECTION 11 DASH TWO SIX PROVIDES STANDARDS FOR THE ALLOWED LAND USES, THE PORTION OF THE SECTION ADDRESSING THE STANDARD FOR AGRICULTURAL USES THAT SECTION IN AND OF ITS OF ITSELF IS NOT THE DEFINITION FOR AGRICULTURE.
THE STANDARD FOR ALL ALLOWED LAND USES AS PERTAINED TO AGRICULTURAL USES IS AS FOLLOWS.
AGRICULTURAL USES, WHICH INCLUDE ANIMAL HUSBANDRY, SHALL BE LIMITED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FAMILY FOOD, AND FOR THE USE OF THOSE RESIDING ON THE PREMISES, BUT NOT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. NO MORE THAN ONE LLAMA OR HORSE, AND THEIR DEPENDENT YOUNG SHALL BE CAPPED FOR EACH 20,000FT■!S OF FLOOR AREA. FOR POULTRY REFERRED TO THE ANIMAL CONTROL. CITY CODE 11 DASH 26D.
IT IS WORTH NOTHING. THAT, OR IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT EXCUSE ME FOR THE USE OF THOSE RESIDING ON THE PREMISES, IS NOT LIMITED TO A USE UPON THE PREMISES. SUCH USE CAN VERY WELL BE WELL. MY GOSH, I'M SORRY I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WRITING TONIGHT. SUCH USE CAN VARY. CAN VERY WELL BE THE PURPOSE OF GROWING FEED ON THE PREMISE WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THAT PREMISES, THEN UTILIZING THE FEED OFF THE PREMISES. MR. KINGSBURY INDICATED SUCH WERE HIS INTENTIONS ON AT THE MAY 9TH, 29TH, 2025 APPEAL HEARING FOR THE BOARD. MR. KINGSBURY LETTER ALSO REFERS TO THE RIGHT TO FARM ACT TITLE 22, CHAPTER 45 CODE NO. CODE. THE IDAHO LEGISLATURE, IN LEGISLATURE'S INTENT FOR THE ACT IS PROVIDED WITHIN THIS FIRST SECTION OF THE ACT, THE LEGISLATORS FIND THAT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CONDUCTED ON FARM LAND IN URBANIZING AREAS ARE OFTEN SUBJECT TO NUISANCE LAWSUITS, AND THAT SUCH SUITS IN SUCH SUITS ENCOURAGE AND EVEN FORCE THE PREMATURE REMOVAL OF LAND FROM AGRICULTURAL USES AND IN SOME CASES PROHIBIT INVESTMENTS IN AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS. IT'S THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO REDUCE THE LOSS TO THE STATE OF ITS AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES BY LIMITING THE CIRCUMSTANCES, CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE A NUISANCE. THE LEGISLATURE ALSO FINDS THAT THE RIGHT TO FARM ACT IS A, OR THE RIGHT TO FARM, IS A NATURAL RIGHT, AND IS RECOGNIZED AS A PERMITTED USE THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF IDAHO. AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS, THE ITALICIZED PORTION OF THE PACKET OR THAT PORTION OF THE RIGHT TO FARM ACT. THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT MR. KINGSBURY USED TO SUPPORT HIS STATEMENT, BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE SECTION OF THAT PART OF THE CODE OF IDAHO CODE. WE DON'T GET TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT AREAS ARE SUPPORTED AND WHAT AREAS AREN'T. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU READ THAT IN ITS ENTIRETY. IDAHO CODE SECTION 22 DASH 4501. ADDITIONALLY, THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT HAS EXPLAINED THE ACT IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER. THE RIGHT TO FARM ACT, CODIFIED IN IDAHO CODE TITLE 2245, SEEKS TO REDUCE
[00:15:02]
THE LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BY LIMITING THE CIRCUMSTANCES BY WHERE THE OPERATIONS MAY BE DEEMED A NUISANCE. THE ACT PROTECTS EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS FROM BEING DECLARED A NUISANCE, SO LONG AS THE OPERATION IS NOT IMPROPER OR NEGLIGENT. THE ACT PREVENTS THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS DECLARING A NUISANCE ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. OPERATIONS OPERATE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL, GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES. I'M GOING TO SAY THAT AGAIN, GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ACT DOES NOT CREATE AN DISPUTABLE RIGHT FOR ANYONE TO BE ABLE TO FARM, SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY OWN LAND AND INTEND TO FARM ON IT.OTHERWISE, THE ACT WOULD OUTRIGHT STATE FARMING OPERATIONS CANNOT BE A NUISANCE.
RATHER THAN LIMIT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT MAY BE DEEMED SUCH, THE ACT FOCUSES SPECIFICALLY ON EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND SEEKS TO PROTECT FARMLANDS THAT ARE ENCROACHED BY GROWTH FROM URBAN AREAS. THIS CONCEPT IS PROVIDED IN IDAHO CODE SECTION 2240 503, NO. AGRICULTURAL OPERATION, AGRICULTURAL FACILITY OR EXPANSION THEREOF SHALL BE OR BECOME A NUISANCE, PRIVATE OR PUBLIC, BY ANY CHANGE CONDITIONS IN OR ABOUT THE SURROUNDING NONAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AFTER IT HAS BEEN IN OPERATION FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR WHEN THE OPERATION, FACILITY OR EXPANSION WAS NOT A NUISANCE AT THE TIME IT BEGAN OR WAS CONSTRUCTED, THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY WHEN A NUISANCE RESULTS FROM THE IMPROPER OR NEGLIGENT OPERATION OF AN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION, AGRICULTURAL FACILITY OR EXPANSION THEREOF. SO I DO HAVE SOME IMAGES HERE THAT I STOLE FROM GOOGLE. THE STREET VIEWS, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, ARE FROM 2015. NO ALFALFA AERIAL FROM 2016. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE TREES ON THE PROPERTY AND GRASS 2020 AGAIN, TREES AND GRASS 202. TREES AND GRASS 2025. NOT EVEN SURE THERE'S GRASS THERE, BUT THE TREES ARE GONE. BUT THE POINT OF ME SHOWING YOU THESE IMAGES IS TO PROVE THAT MR. KINGSBURY'S PROPERTY WAS NOT. WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED. OR IT HASN'T BEEN ADDED OVER IN A YEAR AS THE CODE STATE IDAHO SUPREME COURT FURTHER. THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT FURTHER COMMENTED ON THAT PRINCIPLE IN PAYING VERSUS SCAR, WHEREIN THE COURT HELD THAT THAT THE ACT IS MORE SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO ENCROACHMENT OF URBANIZING AREAS AND SITUATIONS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN SURROUNDING NONAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE IN THIS MATTER. IN THIS CURRENT MATTER AT HAND, THE ACT SHOULD NOT ONLY SHOULD NOT APPLY GIVEN THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FROM ITS INITIAL ANNEXATION, AND HAD BEEN PARTICULARLY OR HAD NOT BEEN PARTICIPATING IN NONAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES UNTIL MR. KINGSBURY AND MISS. I'M SORRY. I'M GOING TO CALL YOU SARAH KAREN HARRIS. THANK YOU. RECENT CHANGES HAVE WHEN THEY MADE THE RECENT CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT A SITUATION WHERE THE CITY'S GROWTH WAS ENCROACHING UPON THE RURAL FARMLAND, OR WHERE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES FACE A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE IN NONAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES TO RENDER THE PROPERTY AT HAND IN NUISANCE. RATHER, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE A CITIZEN IS ATTEMPTING TO BRING FARMLAND INTO A PORTION OF THE CITY THAT HAS BEEN ZONED R-1 OR LIKE A LIKE ZONE. IT'S NOT AGRICULTURAL, AND SINCE IT'S BEEN ANNEXED, MR. KINGSBURY CITED THE IDAHO CODE, SECTION 22, 4502, SUBSECTION TWO AND 2240 502, SUBSECTION TWO D, TO PROVIDE THE ACT'S DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AND PROVIDE ONE OF THE LISTS LAWFUL USES. ADDITIONALLY, DEFINITIONS WITHIN THE ACT AND PERMITTED OR PERMANENT TO THIS SITUATION. PERTINENT TO THIS SITUATION ARE NONAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND IMPROPER OR NEGLIGENT OPERATION, WHICH ARE FOUND IN IDAHO CODE
[00:20:02]
SECTION 22, 4502, SUBSECTION THREE AND FOUR. THEY PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING. NONAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER MEANS RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND YOUTH AND YOUTHS NOT ASSOCIATED TO PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS, IMPROPER OR NEGLIGENT OPERATION MEANS THAT THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATION IS NOT UNDERTAKEN IN CONFORMITY WITH FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS OR PERMITS, AND ADVERSELY AFFECTS PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. MR. KINGSBURY'S PROPERTY WAS ESTABLISHED AS A RESIDENTIAL AS RESIDENTIAL UPON ITS ORIGINAL ANNEXATION TO THE CITY, AND ALL CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED WITH THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY'S GENERAL AREA HAVE FLUCTUATED BETWEEN VARIOUS RESIDENTIAL ZONES. IT HAS NEVER REFLECTED A ZONE THAT PERMITS AGRICULTURAL USE SINCE ITS ANNEXATION TO THE CITY. THIS ZONE, AND BY THE EXTENSION AND PROPERTY WITHIN, HAS ALWAYS CONSISTED OF NONAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, THE ALFALFA BEING GROWN AS A MEANS TO PROVIDE FEED FOR A HORSE STORED ON A RANCH OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS, DOES NOT CONFORM TO LOCAL LAWS OR REGULATIONS. MR. KINGSBURY'S LETTER ALSO REFERS TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 20 TWO, DASH 0404504 IN ITS ENTIRETY.THAT SECTION PROVIDES THE FOLLOWING AGAIN IN ITS ENTIRETY. NO CITY, COUNTY, TAXING DISTRICT, OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE SHALL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION THAT DECLARES ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATION, AGRICULTURAL FACILITY, OR EXPANSION THEREOF THAT IS OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES TO BE A NUISANCE. NOR SHALL ANY ZONING ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES ABATEMENT AS A NUISANCE OR FORCE THE CLOSURE OF ANY SUCH AGRICULTURAL OPERATION OR AGRICULTURAL FACILITY BE ADOPTED. ANY SUCH ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION SHALL BE VOID AND SHALL NOT AND SHALL HAVE NO FORCE OR EFFECT. HERE'S THE AREA OF CODE THAT MR. KINGSBURY DID NOT INCLUDE IN HIS LETTER.
ZONING AND NUISANCE ORDINANCE SHALL NOT APPLY TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS OR AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF A MUNICIPALITY, AND THEN WERE INCORPORATED INTO A MUNICIPALITY BY ANNEXATION. THE COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING AUTHORITY MAY ADOPT A NUISANCE WAIVER PROCEDURE TO BE RECORDED WITH THE COUNTY RECORDER OR APPROPRIATE COUNTY RECORDING AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO RESIDENTIAL DIVISIONS OF PROPERTY. AGAIN, MR. KINGSBURY'S PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY AS A RESIDENTIAL USE. IT DOES NOT PERMIT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. IT'S BEEN A RESIDENTIAL NONAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ZONE FOR OVER 67 YEARS. AS SUCH, ITS ZONING AND NUISANCE ORDINANCES APPLY WITHOUT FURTHER REPERCUSSION OF THE ACT. I THINK AT THIS POINT, I DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO GO OVER THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE. I'M NOT SURE THAT IT TECHNICALLY APPLIES TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF GONE OVER TODAY, OTHER THAN IT IS THE TRANSECT FOR THIS, ASIDE FROM THE ZONING, IS GENERAL URBAN. SO IF THE ZONING WERE TO CHANGE AGAIN, IT WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN SOME TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL USE BASED ON THE GENERAL URBAN TRANSIT DEFINITION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? NO. I'VE GOTTEN SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THIS. LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN A LOT OF TRENDS OF PEOPLE NOT NECESSARILY WANTING TO HAVE LIKE GRASS IN THEIR FRONT LAWN AND THEY'LL DO FLOWERS OR I'VE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY MIGHT DO OTHER VEGETATION AND THINGS. LET'S SAY THAT INDIVIDUAL WAS TAKING THAT AND NOT USING IT TO FEED THE FAMILY IN THE HOME, WHICH IT SAYS HERE, BUT LET'S SAY THEY BRING IT TO THE FARMER'S MARKET OR SOME SIMILAR VENUE AND SELLING IT OR GIVING IT AWAY. WOULD THAT QUALIFY UNDER THIS WHERE THAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED AS WELL? OR HOW WOULD THEY HANDLE SOMETHING LIKE THAT? YOU'VE ALREADY DEEMED IT AGRICULTURE AND NON ORNAMENTAL. OKAY. IN THE LAST HEARING. THEREFORE IT'S NOT AN ALLOWED USE IN OUR OWN ZONE. YOU GUYS INTERPRET THE CODE WHEN THESE APPEALS COME TO YOU. YOU'VE ALREADY INTERPRETED HOW THIS SHOULD BE TREATED AS NON ORNAMENTAL. AND AG AND AG IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE NORMAL. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. NO QUESTIONS FOR ME YOUR HONOR. I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY RIGHT NOW. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. MR. GOOD EVENING. JACOB BECK WITH
[00:25:13]
THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS LEGAL DEPARTMENT. I'M GOING TO BE VERY BRIEF. A LOT OF A LOT OF INFORMATION WAS ALREADY RELAYED THROUGH THAT STAFF REPORT. I DO WANT TO JUST TOUCH ON SOME THINGS WITH THAT RIGHT TO FARM ACT. IT WAS ALREADY EXPLAINED, BUT JUST I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE MORE THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED, THAT THE ACT NEEDS TO BE READ TOGETHER AS A WHOLE.IT'S NOT A SITUATION WHERE YOU JUST CHERRY PICK WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF IT, JUST TO BEST SUIT YOUR POSITION. WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE. THE LEGISLATURE HAD AN INTENT. WHEN THEY PUT THAT ACT TOGETHER. IT ALL INCORPORATES FOR THE PROTECTION, BASICALLY, OF PROTECTING FARMLANDS THAT ARE BEING ENCROACHED BY URBANIZING AREAS, AS INDICATED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN WOODED, WOODED VERSUS CANYON. COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS. I'LL JUST REREAD THAT AGAIN. THE RIGHT TO FARM ACT, CODIFIED IN TITLE 23, CHAPTER 45, SEEKS TO REDUCE THE LOSS OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS BY LIMITING THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEREBY THE OPERATIONS MAY BE DEEMED A NUISANCE. THE ACT PROTECTS THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS FROM BEING DECLARED A NUISANCE, SO LONG AS THE OPERATION IS NOT IMPROPERLY ENDED. THE ACT PREVENTS THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS DECLARING AS A NUISANCE ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATION.
OPERATIONS OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES. AGAIN, THAT'S WEIGHTED VERSUS CANYON COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, A DECISION BY THE IDAHO SUPREME COURT AND LOOKING OVER THIS ACT AND LOOKING AT OTHER DECISIONS, IT'S IT BECOMES QUITE CLEAR THAT THAT IS, IN FACT, THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. THIS IS PROTECTING FARMLAND FROM URBANIZING AREAS AND FROM AREAS THAT ARE CHANGING THEIR SORT OF TRYING TO CHANGE THEIR CIRCUMSTANCES. OTHER OTHER CASES COME INTO PLAY HERE. PINK VERSUS SCAR WAS ALREADY ALSO INCLUDED IN THAT REPORT. IT INDICATES THAT THE ACT IS MORE SPECIFICALLY TAILORED TO ENCROACHMENT OF URBANIZING AREAS AND SITUATIONS WHERE THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN SURROUNDING NONAGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, AND ANOTHER CASE, MC, MICK, MICK, MICK, MICK VICARS, MCVICKER'S VERSUS CHRISTIANSEN. AGAIN, THE IDAHO CASE IS A 2013 CASE. THE CHANGES HERE COME FROM THE OFFENDING NUISANCE, NOT FROM THE CHANGES IN THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDINGS. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE RIGHT TO FARM ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS NUISANCE ACTION. I THINK THIS BOARD SHOULD REALLY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION HERE. WHAT WAS THE SURROUNDING AREA IN THIS? IN THIS SITUATION? IT WAS R-1, IT WAS RESIDENTIAL. DID IT CHANGE TO RESIDENTIAL? RESIDENTIAL JUST RECENTLY? IT'S BEEN RESIDENTIAL FOR OVER 67 YEARS. IT'S NOT A CHANGE WHERE IT'S BECOMING MORE URBAN. THE CHANGE IS HAPPENING ON THAT PROPERTY. I DO WANT YOU TO TAKE NOTE OF THAT. AND RIGHT NOW I STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. YOU. THINK I'M GOOD? THANKS, JACOB. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE. DOES YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW? I DO NOT CONTEST AND I NEVER HAVE THAT. THE PROPERTY THAT I NOW OCCUPY HAS BEEN RESIDENTIAL FOR QUITE SOME TIME, BUT THAT IS AN IRRELEVANCE. IT SAYS IN THE LAW ZONING AND NUISANCE ORDINANCE. THEY SAID THAT I DID NOT QUOTE ZONING AND NUISANCE ORDINANCES SHALL NOT APPLY TO AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS AND AGRICULTURAL FACILITIES THAT WERE ESTABLISHED OUTSIDE THE CORPORATE LIMITS AND THEN INCORPORATED. I DIDN'T QUOTE THAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPLY.
THIS ISN'T A PIECE OF AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY THAT WAS THEN INCORPORATED. I SAW NO NEED TO QUOTE SOMETHING THAT IS IRRELEVANT, SAYS THAT IT IS TO PROTECT EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION AS ESTABLISHED BY THIS BOARD. IT EXISTS. IT IS AN EXISTING AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. I QUOTED THE PART THAT I THOUGHT WAS RELEVANT, THAT NO CITY OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION SHALL ADOPT ANY ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION THAT DECLARES ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATION, NOT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS THAT HAVE EXISTED ON ENDING SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME, NOT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS THAT SATISFY THIS OR THAT. ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATION OR EXPANSION THEREOF THAT IS
[00:30:05]
OPERATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES TO BE A NUISANCE. NOR SHALL ANY ZONING ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES ABATEMENT FORCE THE CLOSURE OF ANY SUCH AGRICULTURAL OPERATION BE ADOPTED. YOU AND THE DEFINITION OF BEING OPERATED IMPROPERLY SAID AND IS A THREAT TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY. THIS IS A THREAT TO NO ONE UNLESS POSSIBLY THEY'RE ALLERGIC TO ALFALFA. OKAY, IT'S TRUE, I DON'T CONTEST IT THE PLANTS IN MY FRONT YARD, BUT I INVITE ANYBODY TO GO LOOK AT ANY AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS GROWING ALFALFA AND TELL ME WITH A STRAIGHT FACE THAT THERE ARE NO OTHER PLANTS GROWING IN THAT FIELD. I AGREE, DON'T PICK AND CHOOSE. PLEASE READ THE LAW IN ITS ENTIRETY. IT'S THE CITY THAT GETS TO PICK AND CHOOSE. IT'S THE CITY GETS TO GETS TO HAVE WEEDS THAT ARE TALLER THAN TEN INCHES GROWING ON ITS PROPERTY. IT'S THE CITY THAT GETS TO DRIVE PAST OTHER PROPERTIES IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE FAR, FAR MORE OVERGROWN, LESS TIME THAN I DO, AND LEAVE THEM IN PEACE.IT'S THE CITY THAT GETS TO COME AFTER ME FOR AN AGRICULTURAL OPERATION. NONE OF THE OTHER ONES, PLENTY OF PEOPLE WHO ARE PEACEFULLY MINDING THEIR OWN BUSINESS, GROWING APPLES AND PEACHES AND APRICOTS AND CHERRIES AND VEGETABLE GARDENS AND FLOWERS. THE CITY THAT'S PICKING AND CHOOSING, NOT ME. READY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE? ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH, I HAVE ONE. THE VIOLATION OF THE TEN INCH GROWTH ON YOUR YARD WHEN THE WHEN THE CITY CHECKED IT WAS DID IT COMPLY WITH THE TEN INCHES. SO I, I WAS NEVER INFORMED WHEN THE CITY DECIDED TO COME BY AND CHECK MY PROPERTY. I DO NOT KNOW AT WHAT POINT THEY MEASURED IT.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY MEASURED IT. FOR ALL I KNOW, THEY LOOKED AT IT FROM ACROSS THE STREET AND DROVE AWAY. I DO NOT KNOW. I AND I DO NOT MEASURED ON A REGULAR BASIS. I HAVE MOWED IT ONCE SINCE THE LAST TIME I APPEARED BEFORE THIS BOARD, AND IT WAS WELL UNDER TEN INCHES AFTER I MOWED IT. IT. WHEN IT WAS THE LAST TIME YOU ACTUALLY CHECKED IT. I HAVE NEVER TAKEN A TAPE MEASURE OUT INTO MY FRONT YARD TO MEASURE IT, BECAUSE THE TEN INCHES APPLIES TO THE WEED ORDINANCE, AND THIS BOARD FOUND THAT I WAS NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE WEED ORDINANCE. SO I, I MOW IT WHEN IT IS READY TO BE HARVESTED. AND THAT IS A JUDGMENT CALL THAT I LEAVE TO THE PERSON WHO KNOWS A LOT MORE ABOUT HORSE FEET THAN I DO. OKAY, THEY BROUGHT UP. OH, SORRY. THEY BROUGHT UP LOUD VOICE. I MAY NOT EVEN NEED THIS, BUT THEY BROUGHT UP SEVERAL PICTURES FROM 2015 AND ONWARD SHOWING THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY HAVING A YARD, TREES AND OTHER VEGETATION LIKE THAT BEING REMOVED, ALFALFA EVENTUALLY BEING PUT IN ITS PLACE. WERE YOU IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY DURING THE ERA WHERE IT HAD GRASS IN IT INITIALLY, OR YOU ACQUIRED IT IN 2024? I, I DID NOT ACQUIRE IT 2024. THERE WERE TREES ON THE FRONT YARD OF THE PROPERTY WHEN I ORIGINALLY PURCHASED IT. OKAY. BUT I IN THE PAST HAD A GREAT DEAL OF PROBLEMS WITH SEWER LINES AND SO FORTH WITH THE SEWER LINE FROM MY HOUSE RUNS TO THE STREET IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE. SO WE DECIDED TO REMOVE THE TREES AS A PREVENTATIVE MEASURE.
OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M HAPPY TO OFFER YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. HOOVER, I APPRECIATE IT.
ANYTHING ELSE OR JUST DELIBERATE OR DELIBERATE? UNLESS YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. REPORTED. ANYBODY? OKAY. JUST KEEP OUR MICS ON WHILE WE. YES, WE NEED TO DELIBERATE. OKAY. IT'S CONCERNING TO ME THAT YOU HAVE ALL THOSE PROPERTIES SURROUNDING IT THAT ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES, WITH ONE EXCEPTION.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. SO IT IS AN UNUSUAL OCCURRENCE. IT'S GOING ON IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I SENSE SOME UNWILLINGNESS TO COMPLY TO THE CITY'S CODES IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION. AND I HEARD A COMPLAINT IN THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO PAY FOR THAT IS FINES AND THINGS THAT THEY THAT COME WITH CONSEQUENCES. I GO 40 MILES AN
[00:35:05]
HOUR AND 25 MILE AN HOUR ZONE. I GET PICKED UP, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO FINE WITH THAT. THAT'S NO MATTER HOW I FEEL ABOUT IT. SO I THINK THE CITY IS GOING TO TRY TO DO. I WOULD AGREE, I THINK THAT. JUST THE AGRICULTURAL, THE HEARING IS CLOSED. OKAY. JUST THE FACT THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ONE, IN OUR ONE, YOU CAN'T HAVE AGRICULTURE. AND THIS IS CLEARLY A ZONE LIKE THIS FOR MANY YEARS, AND IT'S NOT ENCROACHING ON ANY FARMLAND OR FARMING OPERATION. IT'S BEEN CHANGED TO A RESIDENTIAL. NEIGHBORHOOD FOR SOME TIME. AND I DO THINK IT'S UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE IS A LOT OF VALUE IN PEOPLE BEING ABLE TO GROW THEIR OWN STUFF AND, AND HAVE THEIR GARDENS AND WHAT THAT DOES FOR THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE COMMUNITY AND THEIR OWN HEALTH AND STUFF.BUT I THINK THAT WHEN SOMETHING IS DONE OUTSIDE OF THE PURVIEW OF REGULATION, IT DOES MAKE IT A LITTLE DIFFICULT. I WOULD HAVE TO SIDE WITH THE CITY ON THIS ONE, ALBEIT I COULD UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION OF THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY. DECISION NECESSARILY TAKING AWAY AS A GARDENER, GOING TO GROW FOOD FOR THEIR HOMES. WHICH RIGHT DO I AGREE? SO THANK YOU FOR FARMER'S MARKETS. SOUNDS LIKE YOU CAN STILL DO THAT. I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE. YEAH I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. AND THAT'S KIND OF I DIDN'T WORD IT VERY WELL, BUT I WAS AGREEING WITH YOU RIGHT NOW WASN'T THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED AGRICULTURAL IN THIS SENSE. THIS IS WE'VE STATED THIS AS AGRICULTURE BECAUSE HE STATED IT AS AGRICULTURE LAST TIME. RIGHT.
AND YOUR CULTURE IS NOT ALLOWED IN R-1. RIGHT? I AGREE THIS HAS BEEN TESTED IN THE STATE AND LAW ESTABLISHED FROM IT. WE REALLY DO HAVE A CLEAR VIOLATION OF 5-8 11 REMOVAL OF THAT STUFF. OKAY.
ARE WE READY TO VOTE? YEAH, WE'RE VOTING ON THE REQUESTED ACTION. SO YOU'LL WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO EITHER APPROVE, APPROVE OR DENY THE APPEAL. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY THE APPEAL. I'LL SECOND IT. THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION, PLEASE SAY AYE.
AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? PLEASE SAY NAY. MOTION PASSES. WHAT ELSE DO YOU NEED FROM US? WE WILL PREPARE A WRITTEN STATEMENT. STANDARDS AND CRITERIA FOR YOU TO APPROVE. SO, LIKE IN A COURT OF LAW, A JUDGE MIGHT MAKE HIS DECISION ON THE BENCH AND THEN PRODUCE A DECISION. YOU'LL DO THE SAME THING, BUT WE'LL HELP DRAFT THAT AND BRING IT TO YOU FOR YOUR APPROVAL AND REVIEW. IF THERE'S SOMETHING, IT WILL BE YOUR DECISION. SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING IN IT THAT DOESN'T CAPTURE WHAT YOU'VE DECIDED AND REASON TODAY, YOU'LL TELL STAFF, WE'LL GET IT EXACTLY THE WAY YOU WANT. OKAY? WE'LL TAKE THE FIRST RUN OF THE FIRST DRAFT BASED OFF OF WHAT YOU ARTICULATED TODAY, AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU. AND PROBABLY ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED MEETING. OKAY. AND JUST AS AN ANNOUNCEMENT, YOU DID GET AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. SO WE WILL HAVE A MEETING OF AUGUST TO 26. THAT WOULD BE THE FOURTH TUESDAY. OKAY. KEEP THAT IN MIND
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.