2020-05-15 Jim Jones for Elisabeth Songe
To: Meridian City Council
From: Jim Jones, attorney for Elisabeth Songe
Re: Frazier Council Review (H-2020-0011), City of Meridian
I am the attorney for Elisabeth Songe in this matter. Although I intend to participate in
the hearing on May 19, this serves as a written comment on behalf of my client. There
are two independent grounds for denying Mr. Frazier’s appeal and reinstating Ms.
Songe’s permit.
First, Mr. Frazier’s appeal was untimely. The Notice of Approval of Ms. Songe’s permit,
issued on January 2, 2020, stated that “a party of record may appeal” the decision
granting the permit, but that the appeal “must be filed with the Planning Division no later
than January 17, 2020.” The appeal period of 15 days is established under UDC section
11-5A-7.B. Mr. Frazier’s property abuts the Songe property and he is therefore a “party
of record” within the meaning of UDC section 11-5A-4.A. His appeal was filed on
January 22, 2020, five days after the mandated deadline and, therefore, the appeal
must be denied and Ms. Songe’s permit should be reinstated..
Second, Mr. Frazier contends that Ms. Songe did not hold the neighborhood meeting
required under UDC section 11-4-3--9.6. Ms. Songe submitted a declaration in this
matter, stating under penalty of perjury that she and her husband provided notice of a
neighborhood meeting on November 7, 2019, and that they were present at their home
at 6:30 pm on November 21, 2019, the time and place set for the meeting, but that
nobody showed up for the meeting. If Mr. Frazier was not at the meeting it is unclear
how he could claim it did not occur.
Applicants for a daycare accessory permit have no means of forcing neighbors to attend
a neighborhood meeting. They fulfill the meeting requirement by providing notice of the
meeting to property owners of record within 100 feet of their property and being
available at the time and place set for the meeting. The notice may be either hand
delivered or mailed and must be provided at least five days prior to the meeting date.
UDC sections 11-4-3-9.A.6, 11-5A-4.B.1, and 11-4-3-9.A.6.
The notice in this case was sent by mail. Jenny Hay, an employee of Jannus, Inc., who
assists refugees in establishing and operating in-home family child care businesses,
has submitted a declaration in this matter. She states under penalty of perjury that she
assisted Ms. Songe in preparing the neighborhood meeting notice. She requested that
the City provide a list of property owners located within 100 feet of the Songe property
and received that list on November 7, 2019. She assisted Ms. Songe in preparing the
notice for the November 21 neighborhood meeting. Then, she placed a copy of the
notice in an envelope addressed to each property owner on the City list, including Mr.
Frazier, and deposited the envelopes “postage prepaid, in the U.S. mail on November 7,
2019.”
Idaho law recognizes and applies what is called the “Mailbox Rule,” which has long
roots in the law. The Idaho Supreme Court recently stated the rule as follows: “Proof
that a letter has been properly addressed, stamped, and mailed raises a presumption
that it has been received by the addressee.” Therefore, we must presume that Mr.
Frazier received the notice. Ms. Hay states that another addressee, Roger Howell,
advised her that he received the notice but decided not to attend the meeting because
he had no objection to Ms. Songe’s permit application.
Ms. Songe complied with the requirements of the City Code by scheduling a
neighborhood meeting, providing proper notice of the meeting to Mr. Frazier and other
property owners, and being available at the time and place set for the meeting.
Therefore, Mr. Frazier’s appeal should be denied and Ms. Songe’s permit should be
reinstated.