Background
In 2021, Tricore Investment, LLC acquired three tracts of shoreline property on Priest Lake in Bonner County, Idaho, and promptly moved to divide the land into dozens of lots. Using a chain of 54 quitclaim deeds, Tricore first carved out 26 lakefront lots without triggering county planning review. For the remaining southern portion, Tricore submitted two simultaneous applications for minor land divisions (MLDs) — designated MLD 0143-21 and MLD 0144-21 — each proposing exactly four lots on contiguous parcels under common ownership. Under Bonner County’s ordinance, an MLD is defined as a division of land into four or fewer lots and receives an expedited review process; a “subdivision” requiring more rigorous review begins at eleven lots under county code, and at five lots under Idaho state law.
Neighboring landowners and the Priest Lake Cabin Owners’ Association opposed both applications, arguing that the two four-lot MLDs were a transparent attempt to avoid subdivision requirements for what was, in substance, an eight-lot subdivision. At the second hearing, Bonner County’s own attorney conceded the point explicitly, stating that Tricore “100 percent were” trying to avoid subdivision requirements — yet concluded that county code did not expressly prohibit that tactic. The Board of County Commissioners approved both applications. After petitions for reconsideration were denied, the neighboring landowners sought judicial review under Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA), Idaho Code §§ 67-6501 to 67-6529.
The district court dismissed the consolidated petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It reasoned that each MLD, viewed separately, fell below the statutory five-lot threshold for a subdivision, and that LLUPA’s judicial review provision did not extend to MLD applications because they were not expressly enumerated in the statute. The neighboring landowners appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Idaho Supreme Court reversed unanimously, holding that Tricore’s two MLD applications were subject to judicial review under LLUPA’s residual clause, which extends review to “such other similar applications required or authorized pursuant to this chapter.” Idaho Code § 67-6521(1)(a)(i). The Court found the phrase plainly functions as a residual clause covering applications similar to the enumerated types — subdivisions, variances, and special use permits — that are authorized under LLUPA. Adopting Tricore’s contrary reading, which would limit the clause solely to applications expressly listed in LLUPA, would render the “such other similar applications” language entirely superfluous.
The Court held that both prongs of the statutory test were satisfied. First, the two MLD applications were “similar” to a subdivision application: they were filed simultaneously by the same applicant, concerned contiguous property under common ownership, sought collectively to divide the land into eight lots, shared the same applicant objectives and policy concerns, and followed a review process materially parallel to that prescribed for subdivisions under LLUPA. The Court applied the principle that one cannot do indirectly what the law prevents from doing directly, citing Syringa Networks, LLC v. Idaho Dep’t of Admin., 155 Idaho 55 (2013). Second, Bonner County’s MLD ordinance was expressly adopted “pursuant to the authority granted at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code” — i.e., LLUPA itself — satisfying the “authorized pursuant to this chapter” requirement without the need for express enumeration in the statute.
The Court remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings consistent with LLUPA, including the procedural requirements of written findings of fact and conclusions of law that were absent from the County’s approvals. The Court also awarded appellate costs to the prevailing neighboring landowners under Idaho Appellate Rule 40.
Key Takeaways
- LLUPA’s judicial review provision contains a residual clause that reaches land use applications beyond those expressly enumerated in the statute, provided the applications are similar in character to subdivisions, variances, or special use permits and were authorized under LLUPA.
- Contiguous, simultaneously filed MLD applications from a single applicant may be analyzed together; splitting an eight-lot development into two four-lot MLDs to skirt subdivision requirements does not immunize the applications from judicial review.
- A county ordinance adopted expressly under LLUPA’s authority satisfies the “authorized pursuant to this chapter” requirement — express listing in the statute is not necessary.
- County land use approvals subject to LLUPA must include written decisions with findings of fact and conclusions of law; approvals by consent agenda vote, without such findings, do not satisfy LLUPA’s procedural requirements.
Why It Matters
This decision closes a significant loophole in Idaho land use law. By holding that paired or sequential MLD applications can constitute “similar applications” subject to LLUPA judicial review, the Idaho Supreme Court limits a developer’s ability to avoid subdivision scrutiny — and neighboring landowners’ rights to appeal — simply by structuring contiguous land splits as multiple sub-threshold applications. The ruling reinforces the principle that substance controls over form in land division review.
The decision also provides important guidance on the scope of LLUPA’s residual review clause, clarifying that local ordinances adopted under LLUPA’s authority are “authorized” for purposes of judicial review eligibility even without explicit statutory enumeration. Counties and developers across Idaho should take note: expedited MLD processes do not automatically foreclose judicial oversight when the practical effect of multiple applications mirrors a subdivision.