PER CURIAM.

In March of 1981, Mr. and Mrs. Warren W. Haven and Noranda Mining, Inc. jointly filed a formal application for reclassification of property owned by the Havens from the then "A" agricultural classification to the "M" manufacturing classification as defined in Chapter 1 of the Bingham County Zoning Ordinance.

Subsequent to that application and after all required notices were given, a public hearing was held before the Bingham County Planning and Zoning Commission, following which the Zoning Commission recommended to the Bingham County Commissioners that the proposed zone change be granted. After giving all proper notices, the Bingham County Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed zone change and thereafter granted it by Ordinance No. 81-1. The plaintiffs-respondents, Love, et al, who had protested the change, appealed to the district court. Following an appellate review, the district court issued a Memorandum Decision which reversed the County Commissioners, ruling as a matter of law that the rezoning was not in accordance with Bingham County's comprehensive land-use plan and that the findings of the Board of County Commissioners were inadequate. Further details are available in Love v. Board of County Commissioners of Bingham County, 105 Idaho 558, 671 P.2d 471 (1983) ( Love I), where this Court affirmed the district court on an appeal taken by Bingham County.

Impliedly, we directed that the district court remand to the County Commission for the making of written findings in support of its conclusions. Thereafter, the Board of County Commissioners made and file extensive additional findings with the district court, and contemporaneously reenacted the County's prior Ordinance No. 81-1. Love, et al, filed objections in district court, one of which contended that the additional findings were in direct violation of the Comprehensive Planning and Zoning Act. In a short Memorandum Decision and Order, the district court again reversed the decision of the Commission adopting Ordinance No. 81-1, stating the reasons for so doing: "The court has reviewed the record, and still holds the opinion rendered heretofore that the zoning amendment is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan, is invalid under the law and cannot stand." This was in conformance with the district court's statement of its earlier view prior to the first appeal to this court: "This court clearly stated its decision that the proposed change was not in conformance with the comprehensive plan and only an amendment of the comprehensive plan could support the proposed zone change." From the district court's reversal the Bingham County Commissioners have again appealed to this Court.

I.

In Love I, this Court agreed with the district court that the findings of fact and conclusions of law adopted by the Bingham County Commissioners were inadequate. Said a unanimous Court in part:

The findings of the Commissioners contained the following conclusory language that "[t]he proposed change in zone classification is in accordance with the intent and policy of the Comprehensive Plan of Bingham County, State of Idaho." This is not a finding of fact, but rather a conclusion of law which if erroneous may be corrected on judicial review.

From our review of (1) the Bingham County Comprehensive Plan, (2) the findings of fact of the Commissioners regarding the petition for zone reclassification, and (3) the ordinance amendment, we agree with the district court that as a matter of law the findings of fact are insufficient to support the conclusion that the amendment was in accordance with the comprehensive plan. The district court's decision reversing the decision of the Commission was appropriate because of the Commission's failure to make written findings in support of its conclusions.

Love I, supra, at 559-60, 671 P.2d at 472-73 (footnote omitted) (emphasis added).

Nowhere in the opinion, however, did we intimate any agreement with the district court's conclusion that, based upon its search of the record, the zoning amendment in issue was not in accordance with the county's comprehensive plan. In fact, in footnote 2 to the opinion we stated:

Our holding does not preclude further proceedings which could result in a valid rezoning of the Havens' property. To be valid the rezoning decision must be supported by adequate findings of fact to support a conclusion that the zoning amendment was in accordance with the plan.

Since the Board of County Commissioners' findings of fact and conclusions of law were inadequate, we were unable to determine upon the record whether the decision to grant the rezone request was or was not in accordance with the County's comprehensive plan. Accordingly, that issue was not addressed by us at that time.

In both proceedings before the district court, we note that it was in the unenviable position of applying the "in accordance with" language of I.C. § 67-6511 without the benefit of a statutory or judicial interpretation of the language at issue. Subsequently, in Bone v. City of Lewiston, 107 Idaho 844, 693 P.2d 1046 (1984), we supplied that interpretation. The holdings in Bone are dispositive, answering the issues here presented.

II.

In Bone a unanimous Court decided two issues. First, that "in accordance" does not mean that a zoning ordinance must be exactly as the Comprehensive Plan shows it to be. Rather, the question of whether a zoning ordinance is "in accordance" with the Comprehensive Plan is a question of fact. Thus, a governing body charged to zone "in accordance" with its comprehensive plan pursuant to I.C. § 67-6511 must make a factual inquiry to determine whether the requested zoning ordinance or amendment reflects the goals of, and takes into account those factors in, the comprehensive plan in light of the later present factual circumstances surrounding the request. Bone, supra, at 849-51, 693 P.2d at 1051-53.

The Court's second holding in Bone was that a district court's review of a governing body's zoning decision is governed by I.C. § 67-5215(b) through (g). Thus, a district court may only reverse a zoning decision if one of six grounds set forth in § 67-5215(g) is found to exist: the decision is (1) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (2) in excess of the agency's statutory authority; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by error of law; (5) clearly erroneous in view of the evidence in the record; or (6) arbitrary, capricious, or characterized by abuse of discretion. Id., at 847-49, 693 P.2d at 1049-51.

In light of Bone, of which the district court did not have the benefit, it is readily apparent that we must reverse its decision. First, its interpretation of "in accordance" was far too strict wherein it ruled as a matter of law that the Bingham County Commissioners could not approve the rezone request in this case where the rezone apparently would not be in exact conformance with the County's Comprehensive Plan.

Second, the district court's review was beyond the scope of review limited by I.C. § 67-5215(b-g). Whether a zoning ordinance is "in accordance" with the comprehensive plan is a factual question, which can only be overturned where the fact found is clearly erroneous. Here, the court below did not so find, but rather ruled that "the zoning amendment is not in accordance with the comprehensive plan. [Therefore,] it is invalid under the law and cannot stand."

In the interests of judicial economy, we have carefully reviewed the evidence (which included 200 pages of testimony) which the Board of County Commissioners had before it when making its findings of fact, and conclude that the findings are adequately supported by substantial and competent evidence. The findings and conclusions of the Board support its decision. Accordingly, we direct the district court to enter judgment upholding the validity of Bingham County Ordinance No. 81-1.

Reversed and remanded with directions. Costs to appellant. No attorney's fees.

APPENDIX