A Harrison couple won a case against Kootenai County in Idaho Supreme Court this week, settling a development quandary of several years.

The court on Wednesday vacated a First District Court decision that had upheld the county commissioners' findings that Douglas and Michelle Stafford had violated the county site disturbance ordinance.

According to the court decision, the court found that the district court did not have jurisdiction to conduct judicial review on the case.

The decision also states that the county had misinterpreted the site disturbance ordinance, and didn't have the right to withhold a certificate of occupancy from the couple.

"The county's interpretation was not a reasonable construction of the wording of the site disturbance ordinance," the decision reads.

John Magnuson, the couple's attorney, said this is a sign that the county is taking the right steps in its current efforts to streamline and clarify the site disturbance ordinance.

"You've got issues with the Planning Department where interpretations are given to the ordinance that don't square with how it used to be interpreted, or don't square with the plain language," Magnuson said. "This is confirmation of that."

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court without prejudice, with instructions to dismiss the petition for judicial review.

Because neither party raised the issue of jurisdiction, the court did not award costs on appeal.

The Staffords, who built a home by Lake Coeur d'Alene in 2000, obtained a permit for an addition to their residence in 2005, according to the decision document.

During an inspection in 2007, a county inspector said their landscaping violated the site disturbance ordinance.

The inspector advised a subcontractor that the Staffords would not receive a certificate of occupancy for the addition because of the violation.

The couple had contested the notice of violation.

When the commissioners found they were in violation, the couple filed for petition of judicial review with the District Court, which affirmed the commissioners' decision.

They then appealed to the Supreme Court.

According to the court document, the couple said that the property had been damaged by previous logging activities before they purchased it, so their landscaping hadn't disturbed any natural vegetation.

The court found that the county site disturbance ordinance does not appear to include activities in a buffer zone where disturbances like logging had already occurred, the decision states.

"The board (of commissioners) was obviously misinterpreting the site disturbance ordinance as prohibiting any disturbance of the soil with 25 feet of the ordinary water mark, even if the area was not undisturbed natural vegetation," the decision reads.

The court also disagreed with the county withholding the couple's certification of occupancy over the matter.

"Although it has been imaginative in seeking to justify its conduct, the county had no authority to withhold the certificate of occupancy for the Staffords' addition," the court decision reads.

The decision does not legally require the county to give the Staffords a certification of occupancy for the addition, Magnuson said, but he hopes staff will cooperate.

"I'm confident if somebody reads that decision and understands it, that will happen," he said.

Bret Bowers, executive director of the Lakeshore Property Owners Association, said many waterfront residences have encountered issues with the site disturbance ordinance.

Although the law is intended to protect shoreline from improper development, he said, different interpretations of it have led to confusion.

"To me, this ruling confirms the very real concerns that private property owners are having," he said.

Commissioner Todd Tondee, just returned from vacation on Friday, had not acquainted himself with the decision yet, but pointed out that the county is working hard to improve the site disturbance ordinance.

Commission Dan Green said he didn't have an opinion about the decision, but felt it adds a sense of urgency to amending the law.

The commissioners have scheduled deliberations on a proposed ordinance amendment for 10 a.m. next Thursday.

"We're making progress, that's for sure," Green said.

The Staffords did not wish to comment at this time.

Scott Clark, director of the county Community Development Department - previously the Building and Planning Department - could not be reached on Friday.

The Supreme Court ruled that the District Court didn't have jurisdiction for judicial review because the Legislature has not granted the right of judicial review of administrative enforcement proceedings under local planning and zoning ordinances.

Chief Justice Daniel Eismann and justices Roger Burdick, Warren Jones, Jim Jones and Joel Horton were all behind Wednesday's decision.