Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 67-6535 (2026)

Approval or denial of any application to be based upon EXPRESS standards and to be in writing.

✓ current as of May 2026

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

Approval or denial of any application to be based upon EXPRESS standards and to be in writing.

(1) The approval or denial of any application required or authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be based upon standards and criteria which shall be set forth in the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance or other appropriate ordinance or regulation of the city or county. Such approval standards and criteria shall be set forth in express terms in land use ordinances in order that permit applicants, interested residents and decision makers alike may know the express standards that must be met in order to obtain a requested permit or approval. Whenever the nature of any decision standard or criterion allows, the decision shall identify aspects of compliance or noncompliance with relevant approval standards and criteria in the written decision.

(2) The approval or denial of any application required or authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be in writing and accompanied by a reasoned statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the relevant contested facts relied upon, and explains the rationale for the decision based on the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, relevant ordinance and statutory provisions, pertinent constitutional principles and factual information contained in the record.

(a) Failure to identify the nature of compliance or noncompliance with express approval standards or failure to explain compliance or noncompliance with relevant decision criteria shall be grounds for invalidation of an approved permit or site-specific authorization, or denial of same, on appeal.

(b) Any applicant or affected person seeking judicial review of compliance with the provisions of this section must first seek reconsideration of the final decision within fourteen (14) days. Such written request must identify specific deficiencies in the decision for which reconsideration is sought. Upon reconsideration, the decision may be affirmed, reversed or modified after compliance with applicable procedural standards. A written decision shall be provided to the applicant or affected person within sixty (60) days of receipt of the request for reconsideration or the request is deemed denied. A decision shall not be deemed final for purposes of judicial review unless the process required in this subsection has been followed. The twenty-eight (28) day time frame for seeking judicial review is tolled until the date of the written decision regarding reconsideration or the expiration of the sixty (60) day reconsideration period, whichever occurs first.

(3) It is the intent of the legislature that decisions made pursuant to this chapter should be founded upon sound reason and practical application of recognized principles of law. In reviewing such decisions, the courts of the state are directed to consider the proceedings as a whole and to evaluate the adequacy of procedures and resultant decisions in light of practical considerations with an emphasis on fundamental fairness and the essentials of reasoned decision making. Only those whose challenge to a decision demonstrates actual harm or violation of fundamental rights, not the mere possibility thereof, shall be entitled to a remedy or reversal of a decision. Every final decision rendered concerning a site-specific land use request 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. An appeal shall be from the final decision and not limited to issues raised in the request for reconsideration.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 38 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Evans v. Teton Cnty., 73 P.3d 84 (Idaho 2003).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Evans v. Teton Cnty., 73 P.3d 84 (Idaho 2003). · cites it 32× “Teton Springs’ reliance on the language of I.C. § 67-6535 to argue the appellants lack standing is equally misplaced.”

Jasso v. Camas Cnty., 264 P.3d 897 (Idaho 2011). · cites it 26× “Idaho Code § 67-6535 (2) provides: *794 The approval or denial of any application required or authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be in writing and accompanied by a reasoned statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the relevant…”

Cowan v. Bd. of Com'rs of Fremont Cnty., 148 P.3d 1247 (Idaho 2006). · cites it 14× “Idaho Code § 67-6535 (b) also requires that written findings be accompanied by a reasoned statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the relevant contested facts relied upon, and explains the rationale for the decision based on the applicable…”

Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley Cnty., 176 P.3d 126 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 12× “With regard to the mislabeling claims, Neighbors points to I.C. § 67-6535, which provides: “In every case in this chapter where an appeal is provided for, a transcribable verbatim record shall be made and kept for a period of six (6) months after a final decision on the matter.”

Davisco Foods Int'l, Inc. v. Gooding Cnty., 118 P.3d 116 (Idaho 2005). · cites it 24× “The majority holds that the Archibalds had "standing" to appeal the P & Z's decision to the Board and, having so held, determines also that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and comported with the "reasoned decision-making" requirements of I.”

Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008). · cites it 12× “I.C. § 67-6535 deals with the "approval or denial of any application provided" in LLUPA.”

Marcia T. Turner, L.L.C. v. City of Twin Falls, 159 P.3d 840 (Idaho 2007). · cites it 8× “I.C. § 67-6535. If the APA's reasoned statement requirement produced the rule in Woodfield , one could reasonably conclude the rule would apply to decisions that must conform to I.”

Terrazas v. Blaine Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 207 P.3d 169 (Idaho 2009). · cites it 8× “3d 805 , 811 (2005); see also I.C. § 67-6535(a-b). Applicants have not established that it was clear error for the Board to find that the areas of disturbance in lots one and two sat above a 25% slope or that the 5,740-foot contour line demarcated the top of that first slope.”

Bone v. City of Lewiston, 693 P.2d 1046 (Idaho 1984). · cites it 6× “Bone’s rezone application without formally adopting any findings of fact or conclusions of law occurred before the enactment of I.C. § 67-6535 which became effective on July 1, 1982, and which contradicts that which the city did.”

Foster v. City of St. Anthony, 841 P.2d 413 (Idaho 1992). · cites it 6× “§ 67-6536, (2) have standards and criteria within its zoning ordinances by which to evaluate the merits of issuing a special use permit as required by I.”

Gumprecht v. City of Coeur D'Alene, 661 P.2d 1214 (Idaho 1983). · cites it 4× “See I.C. § 67-6535. Additionally, I.C. § 67-6536 requires that "[i]n every case .”

Rural Kootenai Org., Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 993 P.2d 596 (Idaho 1999). · cites it 5× “Other than the deficiencies outlined above, the remainder of the Board’s factual findings are adequate and meet the requirements set forth in I.C. § 67-6535(b). 2 Again, the Board on remand will need to: (1) reconsider McCormack’s application for a proposed PUD and ninety-two…”

Show all 38 citing cases →

— Idaho Code § 67-6535(1) — 6 cases

Vets. Park Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Boise (Idaho 2025).

Richardson v. Blaine Cnty. (Idaho 2023).

NW Neighborhood Assoc v. City of Boise (Idaho 2023).

Abbott v. Canyon Cnty. (Idaho Ct. App. 2024).

Renaissance Proj. Dev., LLC v. Twin Falls (Idaho 2024).

— Idaho Code § 67-6535(2) — 8 cases

Jasso v. Camas Cnty., 264 P.3d 897 (Idaho 2011). “Idaho Code § 67-6535 (2) provides: *794 The approval or denial of any application required or authorized pursuant to this chapter shall be in writing and accompanied by a reasoned statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the relevant…”

Sopatyk v. Lemhi Cnty., 264 P.3d 916 (Idaho 2011).

NW Neighborhood Assoc v. City of Boise (Idaho 2023).

Renaissance Proj. Dev., LLC v. Twin Falls (Idaho 2024).

Richardson v. Blaine Cnty. (Idaho 2023).

— Idaho Code § 67-6535(2)(a) — 3 cases

Vets. Park Neighborhood Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Boise (Idaho 2025).

Renaissance Proj. Dev., LLC v. Twin Falls (Idaho 2024).

NW Neighborhood Assoc v. City of Boise (Idaho 2023).

— Idaho Code § 67-6535(2)(b) — 4 cases

Richardson v. Blaine Cnty. (Idaho 2023).

S Bar Ranch v. Elmore Cnty. (Idaho 2022).

New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC, etal. v. Kootenai Cnty. Idaho (D. Idaho 2025).

Citizens Against Linscott v. Bonner Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 483 P.3d 380 (Idaho 2021).

— Idaho Code § 67-6535(3) — 5 cases

Ciszek v. Kootenai Cnty. Bd. of Com'rs, 254 P.3d 24 (Idaho 2011).

Linda Ciszik v. Kootenai Cnty. Bd of Commissioners, 254 P.3d 24 (Idaho 2011).

Renaissance Proj. Dev., LLC v. Twin Falls (Idaho 2024).

S Bar Ranch v. Elmore Cnty. (Idaho 2022).

— Idaho Code § 67-6535(a) — 2 cases

Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008). “I.C. § 67-6535 deals with the "approval or denial of any application provided" in LLUPA.”

Evans v. Teton Cnty., 73 P.3d 84 (Idaho 2003). “Teton Springs’ reliance on the language of I.C. § 67-6535 to argue the appellants lack standing is equally misplaced.”

— Idaho Code § 67-6535(b) — 8 cases

Cowan v. Bd. of Com'rs of Fremont Cnty., 148 P.3d 1247 (Idaho 2006). “Idaho Code § 67-6535 (b) also requires that written findings be accompanied by a reasoned statement that explains the criteria and standards considered relevant, states the relevant contested facts relied upon, and explains the rationale for the decision based on the applicable…”

Evans v. Teton Cnty., 73 P.3d 84 (Idaho 2003). “Teton Springs’ reliance on the language of I.C. § 67-6535 to argue the appellants lack standing is equally misplaced.”

Rural Kootenai Org., Inc. v. Bd. of Commissioners, 993 P.2d 596 (Idaho 1999). “Other than the deficiencies outlined above, the remainder of the Board’s factual findings are adequate and meet the requirements set forth in I.C. § 67-6535(b). 2 Again, the Board on remand will need to: (1) reconsider McCormack’s application for a proposed PUD and ninety-two…”

Davisco Foods Int'l, Inc. v. Gooding Cnty., 118 P.3d 116 (Idaho 2005). “The majority holds that the Archibalds had "standing" to appeal the P & Z's decision to the Board and, having so held, determines also that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and comported with the "reasoned decision-making" requirements of I.”

Castaneda v. Brighton Corp., 950 P.2d 1262 (Idaho 1998).

— Idaho Code § 67-6535(c) — 6 cases

Evans v. Teton Cnty., 73 P.3d 84 (Idaho 2003). “Teton Springs’ reliance on the language of I.C. § 67-6535 to argue the appellants lack standing is equally misplaced.”

Neighbors for a Healthy Gold Fork v. Valley Cnty., 176 P.3d 126 (Idaho 2007). “With regard to the mislabeling claims, Neighbors points to I.C. § 67-6535, which provides: “In every case in this chapter where an appeal is provided for, a transcribable verbatim record shall be made and kept for a period of six (6) months after a final decision on the matter.”

Terrazas v. Blaine Cnty. Ex Rel. Bd. of Commissioners, 207 P.3d 169 (Idaho 2009). “3d 805 , 811 (2005); see also I.C. § 67-6535(a-b). Applicants have not established that it was clear error for the Board to find that the areas of disturbance in lots one and two sat above a 25% slope or that the 5,740-foot contour line demarcated the top of that first slope.”

Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008). “I.C. § 67-6535 deals with the "approval or denial of any application provided" in LLUPA.”

Whitted v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 44 P.3d 1173 (Idaho 2002).

— Idaho Code § 67-6535(e) — 2 cases

Highlands Dev. Corp. v. City of Boise, 188 P.3d 900 (Idaho 2008). “I.C. § 67-6535 deals with the "approval or denial of any application provided" in LLUPA.”

Blaha v. Bd. of Ada Cnty. Commissioners, 9 P.3d 1236 (Idaho 2000).

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.