Idaho Code
Idaho Code § 67-6517 (2026)
Future acquisitions map.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IClegislature.idaho.gov
Justiaon Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Future acquisitions map.
Upon the recommendation of the planning or planning and zoning commission each governing board may adopt, amend, or repeal a future acquisitions map in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. The map shall designate land proposed for acquisition by a public agency for a maximum twenty (20) year period. Lands designated for acquisition may include land for:
(a) Streets, roads, other public ways, or transportation facilities proposed for construction or alteration;
(b) Proposed schools, airports, or other public buildings;
(c) Proposed parks or other open spaces; or
(d) Lands for other public purposes.
Upon receipt of a request for a permit as defined in this chapter, or a building permit as defined in a local ordinance, for a development on any lands designated upon the future acquisitions map, the zoning or planning and zoning commission or the governing board shall notify the public agency proposing to acquire the land. Within thirty (30) days of the date of that notice, the public agency may, in writing, request the commission or governing board to suspend consideration of the permit for sixty (60) days from the date of the request to allow the public agency to negotiate with the land owner to obtain an option to purchase the land, acquire the land, or institute condemnation proceedings as may be authorized in the Idaho Code. If the public agency fails to do so within the sixty (60) days, the commission or governing board shall resume consideration of the permit. Nothing in this chapter shall limit a governing board from adopting local ordinances as required or authorized which include lands on the future acquisitions map.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 2008–2017 · leading case: Taylor v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 210 P.3d 532 (Idaho 2009).
Taylor v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 210 P.3d 532 (Idaho 2009). “Therefore, we hold that the Board's approval of the conditional rezone of Savala's property and corresponding Development Agreement is "a permit authorizing the development" under LLUPA that is subject to review by this Court pursuant to the standard set forth in IAPA.”
Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008). “§ 67-6516; and building permits, I.C. § 67-6517. It does not mention any permit that would relate to the initial zoning of land annexed by a city.”
Burns Holdings, LLC v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 214 P.3d 646 (Idaho 2009). “" [2] In Crown Point, the Court considered the city's denial of Crown Point's preliminary plat review application and design review application, and in Evans , this Court considered a challenge to the county's approval of an application for a Planned Unit Development (PUD).”
Giltner Dairy, LLC v. Jerome Cnty., 181 P.3d 1238 (Idaho 2008). “§ 67-6516; and building permits, I.C. § 67-6517. A request to change the comprehensive plan map is not an application for a permit, and Giltner Dairy admits there was no application for a permit in this case.”
Thomas Arnold v. City of Stanley, 394 P.3d 1160 (Idaho 2017). “I.C. § 67-6517. Idaho Code section 67-6517 does not purport to authorize or require building permits; rather it addresses future acquisition maps, which are maps designating land proposed for acquisition by a public agency.”
Kirby Vickers & Cheryl Vickers v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. Of Commissioners (Idaho 2009). “Therefore, we hold that the Board‘s approval of the conditional rezone of Savala‘s property and corresponding Development Agreement is ―a permit authorizing the development‖ under LLUPA that is subject to review by this Court pursuant to the standard set forth in IAPA.”
Burns Holdings, LLC. v. Madison Cnty. (Idaho 2009). “Both parties seek attorney fees under I.C. § 12-117 and I.C.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.