Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-6519 (2026)

application granting process.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

application granting process.

(1) As part of ordinances required or authorized under this chapter, a procedure shall be established for processing in a timely manner applications for zoning changes, subdivisions, variances, special use permits and such other applications required or authorized pursuant to this chapter for which a reasonable fee may be charged.

(2) Where the commission hears an application, the commission shall have a reasonable time fixed by the governing board to examine the application before the commission makes its decision on the application or makes its recommendation to the governing board. Each commission or governing board shall establish by rule a time period within which a recommendation or decision must be made. Provided however, any application that relates to a public school facility shall receive priority consideration and shall be reviewed for approval, denial or recommendation by the commission or the governing board at the earliest reasonable time, regardless of the timing of its submission relative to other applications which are not related to public school facilities.

(3) When considering an application that relates to a public school facility, the commission shall specifically review the application for the effect it will have on increased vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian volumes on adjacent roads and highways. To ensure that the state highway system or the local highway system can satisfactorily accommodate the proposed school project, the commission shall request the assistance of the Idaho transportation department if state highways are affected, or the local highway district with jurisdiction if the affected roads are not state highways. The Idaho transportation department, the appropriate local highway jurisdiction, or both as determined by the commission, shall review the application and shall report to the commission on the following issues as appropriate: the land use master plan; school bus plan; access safety; pedestrian plan; crossing guard plan; barriers between highways and school; location of school zone; need for flashing beacon; need for traffic control signal; anticipated future improvements; speed on adjacent highways; traffic volumes on adjacent highways; effect upon the highway’s level of service; need for acceleration or deceleration lanes; internal traffic circulation; anticipated development on surrounding undeveloped parcels; zoning in the vicinity; access control on adjacent highways; required striping and signing modifications; funding of highway improvements to accommodate development; proposed highway projects in the vicinity; and any other issues as may be considered appropriate to the particular application.

(4) Whenever a county or city considers a proposed subdivision or any other site-specific land development application authorized by this chapter, it shall provide written notice concerning the development proposal by mail, or electronically by mutual agreement, to all irrigation districts, ground water districts, Carey act operating companies, nonprofit irrigation entities, lateral ditch associations and drainage districts that have requested, in writing, to receive notice. Any irrigation districts, ground water districts, Carey act operating companies, nonprofit irrigation entities, lateral ditch associations and drainage districts requesting notice shall continue to provide updated and current contact information to the county or city in order to receive notice. Notice shall also be given to a pipeline company operating any existing interstate natural gas transmission pipeline or interstate petroleum products pipeline, as recognized by the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration, with a center point within one thousand (1,000) feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered, provided that the pipeline company is in compliance with section 62-1104, Idaho Code. Any notice provided under this subsection shall be provided no less than fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing date concerning the development proposal as required by this chapter or local ordinance. Any notice provided under this subsection shall not affect or eliminate any other statutory requirements concerning delivery of water, including those under sections 31-3805 and 67-6537, Idaho Code.

(5) Whenever a governing board or zoning or planning and zoning commission grants or denies an application, it shall specify:

(a) The ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application;

(b) The reasons for approval or denial; and

(6) Every final decision rendered shall provide or be accompanied by notice to the applicant regarding the applicant’s right to request a regulatory taking analysis pursuant to section 67-8003, Idaho Code. An applicant denied an application or aggrieved by a final decision concerning matters identified in section 67-6521(1)(a), Idaho Code, may within twenty-eight (28) days after all remedies have been exhausted under local ordinance seek judicial review under the procedures provided by chapter 52, title 67, Idaho Code.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1978–2022 · leading case: Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 28× “The dissent argues that Idaho Code § 67-6519 grants Highlands the right to file a petition for judicial review because it was "aggrieved by a decision.”

Burns Holdings, LLC v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 214 P.3d 646 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 36× “We first noted that " Idaho Code § 67-6519 applies to applications for a permit required or authorized under Chapter 65 of Title 67, Idaho Code.”

Palmer v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 790 P.2d 343 (Idaho 1990). · cites it 36× “First, Idaho Code §§ 67-6519 and 67-6521 both provide that a person "aggrieved by a decision may within sixty (60) days after all remedies have been exhausted under local ordinances seek judicial review under the procedures provided by sections 67-5215(b) through (g) and…”

Hill v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 623 P.2d 462 (Idaho 1981). · cites it 18× “The district court, following a pretrial conference and a denial of appellant's motion to dismiss, issued a pretrial order which stated in part: "This case will be heard as an appeal by means of a trial de novo because the record of the hearing before the Board of County…”

Buckskin Props., Inc. v. Valley Cnty., 300 P.3d 18 (Idaho 2013). · cites it 14× “This Court has held that former I.C. § 67-6519 “grants the right of judicial review to persons who have applied for a permit required or authorized under LLUPA and were denied the permit or aggrieved by the decision on the application for the permit.”

Giltner Dairy, LLC v. Jerome Cnty., 181 P.3d 1238 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 8× “During oral argument, Giltner Dairy also relied upon Idaho Code § 67-6519 (4), which states: (4) Whenever a governing board or zoning or planning and zoning commission grants or denies a permit, it shall specify: (a)The ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application;…”

Bone v. City of Lewiston, 693 P.2d 1046 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 8× “The City argues that this method of review is outside of I.C. §§ 67-6519 and -5215(b-g), which are the exclusive procedures for appealing an adverse zoning decision.”

Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley Cnty., 176 P.3d 126 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 4× “According to Neighbors, the Commission did not recommend the Modified Plan, and the Board acted without its recommendation because it approved a plat that was materially different from the plat presented to the Commission.”

Cooper v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Ada Cnty., 614 P.2d 947 (Idaho 1980). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to I.C. §§ 67-6519 through 67-6521 of the Local Planning Act of 1975, which is now in effect, judicial review shall be sought and conducted in accordance with the provisions of I.”

Stafford v. Kootenai Cnty., 252 P.3d 1259 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 20× “Former Idaho Code § 67-6519 (4) granted the right of judicial review regarding applications for a permit required or authorized under LLUPA.”

Giltner Dairy, LLC v. Jerome Cnty., 249 P.3d 358 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 8× “" Idaho Code § 67-6519 and I.C. § 67-6520 authorize judicial review under the procedures described in I.”

McCuskey v. Canyon Cnty., 851 P.2d 953 (Idaho 1993). · cites it 6× “” The Court of Appeals held that: petitions for declaratory judgment are outside of I.C. §§ 67-6519 and -5215(b-g), which set forth the exclusive procedures for seeking judicial review of zoning decisions made under Idaho’s Local Planning Act, and, therefore, this matter was not…”

Show all 44 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 67-6519(2) — 2 cases

Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley Cnty., 176 P.3d 126 (Idaho 2007). “According to Neighbors, the Commission did not recommend the Modified Plan, and the Board acted without its recommendation because it approved a plat that was materially different from the plat presented to the Commission.”

Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008). “The dissent argues that Idaho Code § 67-6519 grants Highlands the right to file a petition for judicial review because it was "aggrieved by a decision.”

— Idaho Code § 67-6519(4) — 8 cases

Burns Holdings, LLC v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 214 P.3d 646 (Idaho 2009). “We first noted that " Idaho Code § 67-6519 applies to applications for a permit required or authorized under Chapter 65 of Title 67, Idaho Code.”

Buckskin Props., Inc. v. Valley Cnty., 300 P.3d 18 (Idaho 2013). “This Court has held that former I.C. § 67-6519 “grants the right of judicial review to persons who have applied for a permit required or authorized under LLUPA and were denied the permit or aggrieved by the decision on the application for the permit.”

Dry Creek Partners, LLC v. Ada Cnty. Commissioners Ex Rel. State, 217 P.3d 1282 (Idaho 2009).

Burns Holdings, LLC v. Teton Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 272 P.3d 412 (Idaho 2012).

Wohrle v. Kootenai Cnty., 207 P.3d 998 (Idaho 2009).

— Idaho Code § 67-6519(4)(c) — 1 case

Stafford v. Kootenai Cnty., 252 P.3d 1259 (Idaho 2011). “Former Idaho Code § 67-6519 (4) granted the right of judicial review regarding applications for a permit required or authorized under LLUPA.”

— Idaho Code § 67-6519(c) — 1 case

Soloaga v. Bannock Cnty., 809 P.2d 1157 (Idaho Ct. App. 1990).

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.