Relying on a decision from last year, the Idaho Supreme Court reiterated that since an amendment to a county comprehensive plan is not the same as a permit authorizing development, the parties challenging the amendment lacked standing to do so since they do not qualify as an “affected person” under I.C. §67-6521(1)(a). The statute defines “affected person” as “one having an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of a permit authorizing development.” Since the Board’s amendment to the Plan, designating an area as “rural” did not constitute a permit authorizing development, the petitioners were not entitled to judicial review.
Neighbors for Responsible Growth v. Kootenai County, 2009 WL 903320 (Idaho, 4/6/2009).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/Neighbors%20v.%20Kootenai%20County%203459-34592%20(2).pdf
