proceeding, including on appeal, shall award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and other reasonable expenses, if it finds that the nonprevailing party acted without a reasonable basis in fact or law. I.C. § 12-117(1). Before this opinion, the question of whether building permit decisions were subject to judicial review under the LLUPA had not been decided. Several decisions had come close, but none addressed this important question, especially in light of the amended statute. See Highlands Development Corp. v. City of Boise, 145 Idaho 958, 188 P.3d 900 (2008) (declaring that the LLU-PA does not provide for judicial review of an initial zoning classification given to annexed property); Giltner Dairy, LLC v. Jerome Cnty., 145 Idaho 630, 181 P.3d 1238 (2008) (<HOLDING>); and Burns Holdings, LLC v. Madison Cnty. Bd.
holding that the llupa does not provide for judicial review of a request to change a comprehensive zoning plan holding that disability provision in comprehensive retirement plan constituted a welfare plan holding that because here the statutes in issue provide for judicial review via citizen suit provisions yet do not set forth a standard for that review judicial review is limited to apa review on the administrative record holding that reliance on comprehensive plan as basis for denying conditionaluse permit was improper where zoning ordinance did not list compliance with comprehensive plan as basis for denial holding also that the ordinance failed to provide for prompt judicial review