Idaho Falls council upholds board of adjustment ruling that alfalfa field violated R‑1 zoning

The Idaho Falls City Council voted 59 to 0 on Tuesday to uphold a Board of Adjustment ruling that the planting and cultivation of alfalfa at 1796 Charlene Street constituted an agricultural use not permitted in the property’s R‑1 single‑family residential zoning.

The case, filed as appeal 25‑002 by resident Alexander Kingsbury (who said he shares the property with Sarah Parasow), challenged both a weed violation and a subsequent zoning violation. Kingsbury told the council he intentionally planted alfalfa for ornamental and agricultural purposes and invoked the Idaho Right to Farm Act in his defense. “I believe that the Idaho right to farm law protects me,” he said during the hearing.

The council's decision followed presentations from city staff and the city attorney explaining the scope of appellate review and the city’s zoning rules. Wade Center, Director of Community Development Services, reviewed the enforcement and zoning timeline and told the council the property is in an R‑1 zone, where agricultural uses are not permitted under the city's use chart (citing sections referenced to the council packet). Assistant City Attorney Jacob Beck argued the appellant had not provided the written legal bases required for the appeal and read case law and statute language explaining that the Right to Farm Act protects agricultural operations that predate urbanization or annexation, but does not broadly permit new agricultural conversions of residential lots.

Council members who spoke during deliberations said they found the Board of Adjustment's factual findings and legal interpretation supported by the record. Councilor Larson noted the appellant had been given an opportunity to identify specific points of error but had not supplied the written objections required by the city's appellate process. Councilor Freeman described the Right to Farm Act as intended to shield existing farms from becoming nuisances as cities expand and said that the Board of Adjustment did not err in its conclusion. Mayor Burton Shaw cast the deciding procedural guidance but did not vote except in the event of a tie; five council members participated in the vote and all voted to affirm the board.

City staff had traced the case through two separate enforcement actions. The first was a code enforcement notice citing the city's weed ordinance for vegetation taller than the 10‑inch height limit; that charge was appealed and, at one hearing, the Board of Adjustment found no weed violation. Later staff concluded the property also exhibited an agricultural use incompatible with R‑1 zoning and issued a zoning violation; the Board of Adjustment upheld that zoning violation at a later hearing and issued a "reason statement" explaining the basis of its decision. Beck advised the council that the written reason statement, once affirmed, starts timing for further appeals under state law.

Kingsbury told the council he did not receive some documents he expected in his packet and objected to procedural problems he said he encountered while filing appeals; staff said emails and mailed notices had been sent and Naysha Foster, who handled distribution of the board's reason statement, was included on the distribution list. Kingsbury also said he now uses the alfalfa to feed animals kept off his property and that the plants are used for noncommercial family purposes.

After the vote, the council instructed the city attorney to draft a final written reason statement consistent with the council's affirmance; that document will be returned to the council for formal approval on the next regular agenda and will complete this stage of the appeal process.

Votes at a glance: The council voted to sustain the Board of Adjustment decision (second hearing) that growing alfalfa on the R‑1 property constituted an unpermitted agricultural use; the motion carried 59 to 0 (Councilors Francis, Freeman, Dingman, Larson and Mayor Burton Shaw voting yes). No no votes, abstentions, or recusals were recorded among participating members.

Why it matters: The ruling clarifies that in Idaho Falls' residential (R‑1) zones the city will enforce the code's permitted‑use chart even when property owners claim hobby agriculture or invoke the state Right to Farm Act; council members stressed the municipal zoning purpose of protecting neighboring property owners and the residential character of R‑1 neighborhoods.

What’s next: The city attorney will prepare the written reason statement reflecting the council's decision; that statement will be placed on the next regular council agenda for adoption. The appellant retains any further appellate rights under state law.