CC - Narrative
Joshua J. Leonard
JLeonard@ClarkWardle.com
May 19, 2021
Meridian City Planning Division
Attn: Caleb Hood, Planning Division Manager
Meridian City Hall
33 E. Broadway Ave., Suite 102
Meridian, Idaho 83642
Re: Appeal of Director’s Determination.
Dear Mr. Hood,
This firm represents Blood, LLC (“Applicant”). We are in receipt of your letter, dated May 5, 2021,
which was in response to our request for a Director’s Determination, dated April 12, 2021, of
Planning staff’s interpretation and implementation of the required Interior Side Setback prescribed
by Table 11-2B-3, Note 2, contained in Meridian’s Uniform Development Code (“UDC”).
We now write to request City Council review of that Director’s Determination, pursuant to UDC §
11-5A-7. This letter includes the information required to be included in a request for City Council
review of a decision of the Director:
The decision being requested for review (UDC § 11-5A-7.A.1.) - see Section A, below;
The name and address of the person requesting the review and their interest in the matter
(UDC § 11-5A-7.A.2.) - see Section B, below; and
The specific grounds upon which the request is made (UDC § 11-5A-7.A.3.) - see Section
C, below.
This letter also includes argument in support of Applicant’s appeal - see Section D, below.
A. The Decision being Requested for Review.
We request review of the Director’s Determination contained in your May 5, 2021, letter, a copy
of which is attached to this letter as its EXHIBIT A.
Appeal of Director’s Determination
May 19, 2021
page 2
B. Name and Address of Person Requesting the
Review, and Its Interest in the Matter.
The Applicant, Blood, LLC, is the person requesting City Council’s review.
The Applicant’s address is:
Blood, LLC With a copy to:
Attn: David Blood Joshua J. Leonard
629 E. Lake Creek Street Clark Wardle LLP
Meridian, Idaho 83642 P.O. Box 639
Boise, Idaho 83701
The Applicant’s interest in the matter is that the Applicant owns the real property that is the subject
of the May 5, 2021, Director’s Determination and this request for City Council review of that
Director’s Determination (“Property”), which is:
Addressed as 2560 S. Meridian Road;
Identified by the Ada County Assessor as tax parcel no. R9071450022;
Legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Volkman Subdivision, at Book 53, Page 4652, of the
Book of Plats of Ada County, Idaho, recorded on March 26, 1983, as Instrument No.
8515934, excepting therefrom the westernmost 35’ of such Lot 1;
1.06 acres; and
Zoned L-O by the City of Meridian.
The Property is depicted in yellow in the following aerial image:
Appeal of Director’s Determination
May 19, 2021
page 3
C. Specific Grounds upon which the Request is
Made.
The primary specific grounds for our request for City Council review of the May 5, 2021, Director’s
Determination is that the Property is entitled to reduced interior side setbacks, pursuant to the
plain and unambiguous language of UDC § 11-2B-3.A., Table 11-2B-3, Note 2, because the plan
for the Property includes reuse of an existing residential structure.
The UDC’s Table 11-2B-3 prescribes dimensional standards for Meridian’s commercial zoning
district, including the L-O zoning district in which the Property is locating. The interior side setback
standard is highlighted in the following image of Table 11-2B-3:
Pursuant to Table 11-2B-3, the interior side setback (measured in feet) applicable to the Property
is “10/5.” The red arrow in the above image of Table 11-2B-3 identify Note 2, which reads:
Minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure.
As mentioned above and depicted below, the plan for the Property includes the reuse of the
existing residential structure:
Appeal of Director’s Determination
May 19, 2021
page 4
Based on reuse of the existing residential structure on the Property, the Applicant is entitled to a
reduction of the interior side set back from 10’ to 5’, pursuant to UDC Table 11-2B-3.
Be declining to apply the reduced 5’ interior side setback authorized in UDC Table 11-2B-3, the
Director’s Determination was in error.
D. Arguments in Favor of Overturning
Determination of Director.
The Director’s Determination, which was contained in the letter dated May 5, 2021, was based on
staff’s interpretation of the UDC. The Director’s Determination relied upon the intent underlying
adoption of the subject ordinance. The Director’s Determination provided, in pertinent part:
…the 5’ setback allowance in UDC 11-2B-3 is to address the existing homes along
arterials that may convert to office uses. As an example, to explain the intent, staff
noted most of the residential structures in this area were constructed with a 5-foot
setback, and if rezoned from residential to office, requiring a 10’ setback would
create a non-conforming structure if this exception in the UDC did not exist.
May 5, 2021 letter from Meridian Planning Division Manager Caleb Hood.
Appeal of Director’s Determination
May 19, 2021
page 5
The intent underlying adoption of the ordinance that included UDC Table 11-2B-3 provided the
only basis for the Director’s Determination, which denied the Applicant’s request to apply the
shorter 5’ internal side setback.
The Director’s Determination erred by looking outside of the UDC for justification to uphold
Planning staff’s interpretation and application of UDC Table 11-2B-3 to require a 10’ internal side
setback for the Property.
The Idaho Supreme Court has a long line of decisions establishing principles and standards to be
used in interpreting statutes, which also apply when interpreting municipal ordinances. Kootenai
County v. Harriman-Sayler, 154 Idaho 13, 16-17, 293 P.3d 637, 640-41 (2013), quoting Friends
of Farm to Mkt. v. Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 197, 46 P.3d 9, 14, in turn quoting Cunningham
v. City of Twin Falls, 125 Idaho 776, 779, 874 P.2d 587, 590 (Ct.App. 1994); see also Albee v.
Judy, 136 Idaho 226, 230, 31 P.3d 248, 252 (2001). The first principle of statutory interpretation
is that the objective is to ascertain the intent of the legislative body that adopted the act. Id.; citing
Payette River Property Owners Ass’n v. Board of County Com’rs of Valley County, 132 Idaho 551,
557, 976 P.2d 477, 483 (1999), in turn citing Ada County Assessor v. Taylor, 124 Idaho 550, at
428 [sic], 861 P.2d 1215, at 101 [sic]. Quoting the Idaho Supreme Court’s decision in the Albee
case:
However, analysis of the legislative intent begins with the literal language of
the enactment. Id. (citing Matter of Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho 819, 823, 828
P.2d 848, 852 (1992)). If the language is clear and unambiguous, the Court
need merely apply the statute without engaging in any statutory
construction. Thomas v. Worthington, 132 Idaho 825, 829, 979 P.2d 1183, 1187
(1999) (citing State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 727, 732,
947 P.2d 400, 405 (1997). This language should be given its plain, usual and
ordinary meaning. Matter of Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho at 823, 828 P.2d at
852.
Albee, 136 Idaho at 231, 31 P.3d 248 at 253, citations in original, emphasis added; see also
Friends to Farm to Mkt., 154 Idaho at 197, 46 P.3d at 14 (“[a]nalysis of a statute or ordinance
begins with the literal language of the enactment”), citing Lawless v. Davis, 98 Idaho 175, 560
P.2d 497 (1997). It is only necessary to resort to extrinsic sources to determine legislative intent
if the language of UDC Table 11-2B-3 is ambiguous. As the Idaho Court of Appeals held in the
case of Boswell v. Steele:
It is well established that where statutory language is unambiguous, legislative
history and other extrinsic evidence should not be consulted for the purpose of
altering the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.
Boswell v. Steele, 158 Idaho 554, 563, 348 P.3d 497, 506 (2015), citing Verska v. Saint Alphonsus
Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151 Idaho 889, 893, 265 P.3d 502, 506 (2011).
Appeal of Director’s Determination
May 19, 2021
page 6
UDC Table 11-2B-3 is unambiguous. The decision conveyed in the Director’s Determination was
only possible because the required first step (analyzing the “literal language of the enactment”)
was skipped. Instead, the Director’s Determination performed step two, which was only to be
performed if the language of UDC Table 11-2B-3 was ambiguous. UDC Table 11-2B-3 is not
ambiguous.
UDC Table 11-2B-3 includes 2 distances for internal side setbacks:
10’, which is the typical internal side setback distance, and
5’, which “is only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure” (UDC Table 11-2B-
3, Note 2).
The Property includes an “existing residential structure” that is being reused; accordingly, the
Property is entitled to application of the smaller 5’ interior side setback distance.
If the City Council, in adopting UDC Table 11-2B-3, had intended application of the smaller interior
side setback to be limited only to certain buildings, it could have adopted different language for
UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2:
2 Minimum setback is applicable only to an existing residential structure and is not
applicable to any new structures that are proposed for construction on the same
property.
The City Council that adopted UDC Table 11-2B-3 did not adopt that language, however; as it
currently reads the smaller 5’ interior side setback applies broadly to parcels on which an existing
residential structure is being reused:
2 Minimum setback only allowed with reuse of existing residential structure.
UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2. This provision of the UDC is not ambiguous. City Planning staff
went beyond the literal language of the ordinance, and the Director’s Determination affirmed
Planning staff’s incorrect interpretation and application of the ordinance’s literal language, stating:
The setback reduction has been interpreted correctly and does not extend to all
new structures that are proposed for construction on the same property.
May 5, 2021, letter from Planning Director Caleb Hood, emphasis in original. Again, though, that
is not what UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2 says. The Director’s Determination’s interpretation adds
an exception to the plain language of UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2 for “new structures that are
proposed for construction on the same property.”
Appeal of Director’s Determination
May 19, 2021
page 7
Again quoting the Idaho Supreme Court’s Boswell case:
It is well established that where statutory language is unambiguous, legislative
history and other extrinsic evidence should not be consulted for the purpose of
altering the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.
Boswell, 158 Idaho at 563, 348 P.3d at 506, citing Verska v. Saint Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 151
Idaho 889, 893, 265 P.3d 502, 506 (2011).
We respectfully request that the City Council reject the incorrect decision reached by Meridian
Planning staff, which was upheld by the Director’s Determination. The plain, unambiguous
language of UDC Table 11-2B-3, Note 2 entitles the Applicant to apply the smaller 5’ interior side
setback to the Property.
We reserve all other arguments, and we request a de novo hearing before the City Council,
pursuant to UDC §§ 11-5A-7 and 11-5A-6.
Sincerely,
Joshua J. Leonard
Attorney for Applicant, Blood, LLC
Enclosure(s).