COEUR d'ALENE - The Idaho Supreme Court issued a ruling this week upholding a Kootenai County commissioners' decision concerning the much opposed asphalt batch plant in Rathdrum.

The five justices ruled that the commissioners had not violated any laws in 2008 when they approved rezoning 20 acres off Highway 53 for Coeur d'Alene Paving to use for its operations.

The court ruling went against the legal challenge from 17 neighbors of the plant, who contended that the commissioners didn't have authority to make the decision, and that it violated their due process.

"They're very disappointed," said the neighbors' attorney, Dana Wetzel. "I think it was a very poor ruling."

The group of neighbors is considering filing for a reconsideration, Wetzel added.

"That's about all we can do. It's the Supreme Court," she said. "I would just like to ask the Supreme Court to look at the law more closely, and the precedence they're setting."

Commissioner Todd Tondee was pleased with the decision.

"When we did the zone change originally, our opinion was that it was within our powers to do that," Tondee said. "I'm glad to see that they concur."

The ruling is a welcome victory, said Coeur d'Alene Paving co-owner Todd Kaufman.

But it doesn't solve a lot of the small business' problems, he added.

Major operating decisions are still on hold, he said, until the First District Court rules on another suit filed against the company by the Rathdrum residents, this one challenging the validity of the special notice permit for the asphalt batch plant.

"We are limited," Kaufman said. "You don't know whether you're coming or going."

Thursday's ruling marked the end of a three-year legal battle.

The county commissioners in 2008 approved the paving company's request to rezone two 10-acre parcels, which neighbored the 30 acres off Highway 53 that Coeur d'Alene Paving leased from Beacon West, LLC.

Rezoning the parcels from agriculture to mining would provide contiguous land for Coeur d'Alene Paving to extend its operations, the company had said.

The commissioners' decision also included rezoning two non-adjacent 10-acre lots from mining to agriculture.

Having the mining acreage contiguous to current operations would generate less traffic and disturbance to neighbors, the company had argued, than if operations had occurred on the other, non-adjacent lots.

Neighbors filed a legal challenge dubbing the rezone invalid.

The First District Court upheld the commissioners' decision, with the finding that the commissioners had authority to amend the zoning map, and that the decision would indeed reduce the impact to surrounding landowners.

The neighbors appealed, arguing that the commissioners didn't have authority to approve swapping property zones in a single application.

They also contended that combining the two zoning decisions was an illegal contract to zone.

The decision denied them their due process rights, the group challenged.

The Supreme Court's decision document recognized that the neighbors did have standing to bring the legal action forward, particularly in Linda Ciszek's allegations that the rezone would impact her quality of life and property values.

"... A finding that the rezone is invalid would relieve her of these new harms," the document reads.

But the court found that it is within the commissioners' authority to approve two rezones in a single application, as the Legislature has provided mechanisms for governing boards to grant multiple approvals for land use activities in a single proceeding.

The court also ruled that the appellants' due process rights were not violated in the rezone approval.

"Appellants concede that they had ample opportunity to submit evidence of their injuries at the public hearings and have provided no basis for finding a denial of due process," the decision document states.

The zoning decision was not an illegal contract to zone, the court determined, as evidence indicates the decision was the result of extensive testimony presented at hearings.

No parties are entitled to attorney fees on appeal, the decision states.

Kaufman said he is prepared for whatever comes of the other lawsuit.

"We're taking our victories one at a time," he said.