Judge affirms Camp Bay Road vacation

SANDPOINT — A First District Court judge has affirmed Bonner County commissioners' vacation of Camp Bay Road.

The ruling could potentially put an end to a several-year debate over public access to Lake Pend Oreille via Camp Bay Road.

In the 18-page ruling, District Judge Cynthia Meyer found the BOCC's vacation of the road met Idaho Code, that due process was not violated, and there was insufficient evidence to show bias on the board's part. Meyer also found the board's decision was in the public's interest because it guarantees public access to the lake on a pathway being created by M3 ID Camp Bay LLC. 

"We are disappointed and saddened for the citizens of Bonner County; they are the real losers," said Fred and Jennifer Arn, who had challenged the road's vacation. "The development of the property was never our issue, only the vacation of the public road."

The decision to challenge the vacation was not a personal one, and the Arns said they do not object to the Arizona company's development. "We simply asked that everyone follow the law, including its intent."

Now, they said, they hope that M3 and others involved will follow through on their promises.

"We now hope those involved do what was agreed upon in the resolution issued by the county last December," the couple said in their statement.

The ruling follows a 2022 legal challenge by the Arns after Bonner County Commissioners approved the road vacation during a December 2022 hearing. At the hearing, the BOCC found that the road vacation in exchange for a proposed walking path was in the public's interest.

The Arns, who live near the proposed development, filed for a judicial review, saying the county's decision failed to meet Idaho Code.

The Dec. 22 ruling is the latest in a series of hearings, meetings, and court rulings over the last 2,550 feet of Camp Bay Road. Supporters of the road vacation said it is a matter of private property rights and that the proposed footpath is a generous offer by the developer.

However, critics contend the proposed path — located a half-mile away, west of the bay — covers steep terrain and would hamper public access to the lake. Access, they contend, that has been historically granted to the public.

In her ruling, Meyer noted the long legal history that has been spread across three cases, spanning almost three years.

In its first proposal, M3 said that in exchange for the vacation, it would build a privately owned, paved road to serve the gated development as well as a turnaround area for school buses and snowplows. The BOCC unanimously approved the motion in April 2021, saying the public would benefit by not having to maintain the roadway.

The board's decision prompted the Arns to file for a judicial review, saying the BOCC did not have the right to vacate the road. The court agreed and remanded the matter back to the county. After the commissioners reversed their previous decision, canceling the road vacation, the county asked for a legal review to determine where the public road ends and if it indeed reaches Lake Pend Oreille’s high-water mark.

At various hearings, M3 contended the road ended before the ordinary high water mark. However, critics of the vacation contended it ended at the mark. Due to competing interpretations, the BOCC said it was unable to determine the point of legal access or whether vacating the road was in the public's interest.

"At this point, I don't know that we have any other move than to deny, and then hopefully M3 can — we can — get something adjudicated in the courts that tells us yes or no," then-Commissioner Dan McDonald said at the time in recommending the board deny the road vacation.

In denying the application, the county ruled it was unknown where the road legally ended, where the high-water mark was at the time the road was built, and if the road provided legal access to Lake Pend Oreille.

In early March 2022, M3 sought judicial review of its application. However, five months later, it asked to present additional information, saying it would dedicate a public pathway to provide access to the lake in exchange for the application's approval.

A third hearing was held in mid-December 2022, with comments limited to the proposed pathway. Following the hearing, the board again approved the road vacation with the condition that the pathway be created and an easement given to the county, granting public access to the lake.

However, the Arns contended that the vacation was based on faulty information and procedural flaws and was not supported by the facts.

While the Arns contended the county's written decision was inadequate, Meyer affirmed the decision, ruling it satisfied Idaho statute. While a road vacation "requires more than a blanket statement" in support of or denying a petition to vacate, Meyer ruled it does not rise to the level of detail that the Arns argued was necessary.

In vacating 2,550 feet of Camp Bay Road, the BOCC found doing so would not block access to nearby parcels. The board also found that vacating the roadway would allow for continued access to properties, remove the section of road from the county maintenance system, and create a 10-foot-wide trail on a dedicated easement to the lake. Per the vacation, the trail would be open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m.

While Idaho Code 67-6535, cited by the Arns, requires an explanation of what led to a decision, Meyer ruled that section of Idaho Code did not apply. Instead, IC 40-203 does not require that explanation.

"The requirement of Section 40-203 is public interest, which is a discretionary decision by the Board of Commissioners," Meyer wrote in her ruling. "The requirement is not unanimous public agreement, but simply whether the board’s decision is in the public interest. There are sufficient detailed findings in this written decision to support the Board’s decision to vacate Camp Bay Road with the condition of dedication of a public walking path."

Ex-parte communications claimed by the Arns have no relevance to the proposed walking path. Since the BOCC made clear that the third hearing's focus was whether the vacation in exchange for the path was in the public interest, those communications were either untimely or not relevant due to the nature of the third hearing, Meyer wrote.

Meyer found there was insufficient evidence to show bias on the part of county commissioners, saying a "decision maker is not disqualified simply because he has taken a position."

For statements to be fatal, it must be proven the individual will not listen with an open mind, apply existing law, or have already made up their mind.

Meyer ruled that the Arns failed to link BOCC statements to a bias on the board and found that any claims of bias should have been brought up before the first hearing when they were pertinent.

"None of the alleged bias advanced by the Arns amounts to the level of bias needed to be shown to overcome the Board’s decision," Meyer ruled. "There was not a sufficient showing by the Arns that the Commissioners were so biased that they previously made up their minds about the outcome, could not consider evidence or arguments made by parties at the hearing, and would not follow the existing law."

Meyer also found the board did not violate due process in conducting the hearing, finding that commissioners have discretion to determine whether the vacation and its exchange for the pathway are in the public interest.

"An argument that the proposed walking path guarantees public access without further litigation does not raise the issue of the uncertainty of the terminus of Camp Bay Road," Meyer wrote in the ruling. "The purpose of the proposed walking path was to potentially avoid further litigation, satisfy various interests, and provide guaranteed public access to the lake through a walking path."

Meyer ruled the board's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious; instead, she found it was supported by substantial evidence of public interest. The board, she wrote, properly perceived the issue as one of discretion.

"On the face of the Board’s written decision, there is substantial evidence that the Camp Bay Road vacation is in the public interest."

Country to the Arns' argument, Meyer said the BOCC is not required to definitively decide where the road ends. Comments made by commissioners about private property rights and public access are "largely irrelevant," she wrote. The BOCC and its counsel made clear the only thing under discussion was whether the walking path was in the public interest.

"The proposed walking path eliminated the need to decide the location of the terminus point because it gave certainty of a public access point," Meyer wrote.