COMMISSIONERS MINUTES
APRIL 28, 2004
A public hearing was held on April 28, 2004 in the Commissioner’s Room, basement
of the Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4th East, Mountain Home, Idaho.
Present at the meeting were Chairperson Mary Egusquiza-Stanek and Commissioners
Larry Rose and Calvin Ireland. Also present was Prosecutor Aaron Bazzoli and
Deputy Clerk Barbara Steele.
The purpose of the public hearing was to re-hear testimony on an appeal of a
Planning and Zoning Commission decision on an application from Weitz and Company
for a Zoning change application in a Light Industrial Zone to a
Residential/Mixed. Site is located in a portion of the East Half of Section 22,
Township 3 South, Range 6 East. A more common means of locating the site is from
the intersection of Elmcrest and Air Base Road, north on Elmcrest approximately
one half mile. The property is located on the west side, and is approximately
228 acres.
Prosecutor Bazzoli explained why the issue is being re-heard. The Prosecutor
explained that there was some bad information at the first hearing. Mr. Weitz is
not asking for the entire zone to be changed, but only for the property he wants
to develop. However, you cannot “spot” zone. Prosecutor Bazzoli explained to the
Board that they were not just amending the zoning, but would actually be
amending their ordinance.
Chairperson Egusquiza-Stanek read written testimony into the record. The first
was a letter from J. R. Simplot Company (letter of March 8 and January 15):
Simplot, Corporate Headquarters
P. O. Box 27
Boise, Idaho 83707-0027
March 8, 2004
Via Telefacsimille
Mary Egusquiza-Stanek, Chairperson
Elmore County Commissioners
Elmore County Courthouse
150 South 4th East
Mountain Home, Idaho 83647
Re: Appeal to Denial for Zone Change Application.
Dear Ms. Egusquiza-Stanek:
On behalf of the J. R. Simplot Company I am attaching written comments we
submitted with the Elmore County Planning and Zoning Department opposing the
application by Wietz & Co. (Weitz) for rezone on January 15, 2004. We strongly
oppose this application and we urge you to review the attached letter before
making a decision on this application.
In our view, Weitz is proposing a speculative residential land venture in an
industrial zone, ultimately at the expense of Elmore County and the City of
Mountain Home. Weitz is not providing a compelling reason to change the
designated land use for this area. The risk to the County in approving the
application will be the discouragement of existing and future industrial growth
in a location reserved by the City and County for this use. The economic risk in
losing such growth in favor of creating a residential enclave among industrial
uses is not worth taking to subsidize this developer.
This proceeding is an appeal of previous denials by the City of Mountain Home
and the County’s Planning and Zoning Commission for this project. We hope the
Commission will consider these previous denials as strong opposition by the
local community who will be responsible for paying the costs to subsidize
Weitz’s project. Should the Commission reverse these previous denials, at a
minimum, the conditions specified in the attached letter need to be components
of any approval.
Sincerely, /S/ Vic Conrad, Land, Water & Asset Recovery
Enclosure
Simplot, Corporate Headquarters
P. O. Box 27
Boise, Idaho 83707-0027
January 15, 2004
Via Telefacsimile
Mark Russell
Planning and Zoning Administrator
Elmore County Planning and Zoning
520 East Second Street
Mountain Home, ID 83647
Re: Application for Re-Zone: White Sage Development
Dear Mr. Russell,
The City of Mountain Home denied an application for the development proposed by
this zoning request in May, 2003. J. R. Simplot Company (“Simplot”) submitted
written comments objecting to that application through the City. The application
before the County is an apparant attempt to circumvent the earlier denial by the
City. For this reason we request that the record containing the earlier City
proceedings, including Simplot’s written comments, be included as part of the
official record in the proceedings for this application.
The current industrial zone is appropriate for this area. Simplot relied on this
zoning designation in making substantial investments in this area. As a result
of our investments and investments by others also relying the current land use
designations, we expect further industrial growth in this area and the related
economic benefits associated with that growth.
The applicant’s intended use is within the City’s Area of Impact. The proposed
residential use conflicts with the land use specified in the City’s
Comprehensive Plan. A residential enclave among existing and future industrial
users is inappropriate for land suited for the current zone. Furthermore, such a
residential enclave may discourage further industrial development, which is
contrary to the future economic interests of Elmore County.
There is no compelling reason to change the current land use zone to accommodate
this speculative development venture. Industrial users provide the services
necessary to support their operations at their own expense. These include water
supply systems and related water rights, electrical power service and
transportation improvements to create safe access for traffic relating to these
industrial uses. Should the County consider approving this application, such
approval should contain the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall provide evidence of the rights to pump water in
sufficient volume and flow to support the anticipated future needs for the
proposed project. This land is within the Mountain Home Groundwater Management
Area. New rights authorizing the pumping of groundwater are prohibited for
industrial users. Individual domestic wells are currently exempt from these
restrictions. By changing the land use designation, the application will be
authorized to expand the pumping of groundwater prohibited under the current
zone. It is not equitable to existing water right holders to subsidize
increasing aquifer withdrawls to support this project by simply changing the
allowed land use.
2. The application shall be required to install, at their sole expense, the
appropriate transportation infrastruture necessary to allow for ingress and
egress to and from the proposed development. This may include, but is not
limited to, expanding existing roadways, adding turn lanes, traffic signals and
any other measures to insure safe residential ingress and egress among heavy
industrial truck traffic.
3. The applicant shall be required to covenant and agree that changes to the
current land use zone shall not interfere with or add additional cost to the
existing or future industrial operations constructed in conformance with the
current land use zone. Furthermore, as a condition of any approval of this
application, the applicant should be required to waive any claims or objections
that existing or future industrial operations constructed in conformance with
the current land use zone interfere with or constitute a nuisance to the
proposed residential development. Otherwise, legitimate industrial uses in
surrounding industrial zone could be subject to inappropriate nuisance, inverse
condemnation and similar actions.
Please include these comments opposing this application and the record developed
during the proceedings of the City application as part of the official record
for this zoning request.
Sincerely, /S/ Vic Conrad, Director, Land, Water & Asset Recovery
A brief recess was taken.
Regular session resumed. The second letter read into the record was from the
City of Mountain Home, and the third letter was from Claudine Brazelton.
City of Mountain Home
160 South 3rd East
P.O. Box 10
Mountain Home, Id 83647
April 20, 2004
Elmore County Planning and Zoning Commission
Courthouse Annex
190 South 4th East
Mountain Home, ID 83647
Re: Weitz And Company Public Hearing
The City of Mountain Home would like to restate our opposition to the
application of Weitz and Company to change zoning from industrial to a mixed use
of commercial and residential. We strongly recommend Elmore County comply with
the City’s Area of Impact governed by the negotiated agreement between the City
of Mountain Home and Elmore County. This proposed zone change is not in
agreement with the Projected Land Use Map, which designates this area for light
industrial use.
Weitz and Company applied to the City previously for annexation and a zone
change, and was denied for the same reasons.
Sincerely,
/S/ Gary W. Tuller, Development Services
cc: Elmore County Commissioners
April 14, 2004
Commissioners Elmore Co.
Dear Gail L. Best
I received your letter on a Zoning change. I vote for residential/mixed.
I would like to be there in person but my health won’t let me travel. Will you
let me hear how things progress?
My address has changed - I have moved into a senior court.
My address is: Claudine Brazelton
4200 Philbin Road #37
Pocatello, Idaho 83202
Thanks, Claudene
Prosecutor Bazzoli asked the Board members if they had received any information
by telephone or in person. Commissioners Ireland and Rose stated they had not.
Chairperson Egusquiza-Stanek stated she had in that Ron Leydet had stated to her
that he did not like the decision they had made - but that was all.
The Chair opened the period for testimony. Greg Sabala, 2036 S. Longmont, Boise,
Idaho, 83706, stated that the written testimony was nothing new. The testimony
was the same from J.R. Simplot and the City of Mountain Home as was heard during
the first hearing. Only the letter from Claudine Brazelton was new, and that
input was positive toward their position. Mr. Sabala commented on the letter
from Simplot saying what good is it if they could not pump water?
Mr. Sabala stated he would like all the documents by his group to also be
included in the hearing materials for this hearing. The materials would include
a document on Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. letterhead beginning with
a general history and project history, the Engineer’s Opinion of Probably Cost
for White Sage Estates Subdivision (All Phases), and a booklet White Sage
Estates, Mixed Use Planned Development dated September 17, 2003.
Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc.
To: Elmore County Commissioners
c/o Mark Russell, Growth and Development Director
520 East 2nd South
Mountain Home, ID 83647
Date: March 16, 2004
Re: Rezone on Weitz & Co. property
Dear Commissioners:
As you are aware Weitz and Co. is requesting a rezone to allow a mixed-use
development on their property located generally west of the Elmcrest St. and W.
5th South intersection. Weitz & Co. is requesting approval by the Elmore County
Commissioners for the rezone request based on history, facts, plans, and public
record that support the request.
GENERAL HISTORY
The general history of the site has been constructed from information gathered
from Weitz & Co. and other individuals as follows:
1984 - The majority of Elmore County was zoned agricultural including Weitz &
Co. property.
1991 - Weitz & Co. purchased the property with a zoning designation of
agricultural. Property to the east was also placed under option with
agricultural zoning.
1994 - Elmore County adopted a Comprehensive Plan with the property designated
agriculture.
1996 - Mountain Home City designates the property industrial within the Area of
Impact in anticipation of the Cornell Corrections Prison.
May 12, 1997 - Weitz & Co. objects to Mountain Home’s strip annexation and
industrial zoning of the properties to the west at a public hearing. Weitz & Co.
indicated that the prison would conflict with their plans for a residential
subdivision. Cornell Corrections abandoned plans for a prison yet annexation and
industrial zoning was left in place.
PROJECT HISTORY
October 5, 2002 - Weitz & Co. and Westside Development submitted a letter to
Mountain Home requesting annexation.
October 8, 2002 - Mountain Home City Staff responded to Weitz & Co. stating that
Mountain Home is not interested in any annexation in their area.
November 19, 2002 - Weitz & Co. formally applied for and requested annexation.
Spring 2003 - Several work sessions/hearings were held with Mountain Home
Planning Commission regarding the annexation and project. The Mountain Home
Planning Commission recommended approval of the annexation contingent on
bringing the property on line with sewer and water.
June/July 2003 - The Mountain Home City Council denied the request for
annexation. Several of the main factors stated were: 1) the proximity to
Optimist Park which has loud noises and crowds at times; 2) the proximity to the
Mountain Home airport which also has noise associated; 3) the Mountain Home
sewer system doesn’t have the capacity for the development and the City’s water
system may not be adequate; 4) the City will have difficulty finding funds to
support the development.
PROJECT SUPPORT
At the Commission hearing on March 8, 2004, the Commissioners indicated that
they have difficulty approving a rezone with community opposition. However, the
project did not have any property owners testifying in opposition at the
Mountain Home City Council Hearing and only two letters in opposition were
received. Elmore County extended the property owner notification from 300 ft. to
1,000 ft. Even with the increased notification distance, there has not been any
substantial showing of community opposition. It appears that the project has
community support based on the size of the proposal, the increased notification
distance, and the fact that there has been very little community opposition.
OPTIMIST PARK AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Mountain Home zoning regulations require a Conditional Use Permit
for outside recreation facilities with the I-L (Light Industrial) zone. The
Optimist Park located west of Weitz & Co. property does not have a Conditional
Use Permit for operation. While some of the facilities may be grandfathered in
prior to the zoning regulations, there are various new facilities and events
that have occurred within the last few years without any public hearing process
(as required for a Conditional Use Permit). One of Mountain Home’s primary
objections was the proximity to Optimist Park and the noise associated with the
same. However, this park facility doesn’t even have a valid Conditional Use
Permit within which an argument against residential could be made. Further, an
access road across Weitz & Co.’s property (from Elmcrest St.) has been utilized
by the City of Mountain Home to access a well site within Optimist Park area and
by the citizens of Mountain Home traveling to Optimist Park for events. Weitz &
Co. has not restricted or eliminated this access believing that the Optimist
Park would be mutually beneficial with a residential/mixed-use development.
Additionally, the City of Mt. Home has a noise ordinance that restricts noise
emissions during the nighttime hours from 10:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. This
ordinance, which applies to all uses citywide, will assist in mitigating any
potential adverse impact from Optimist Park on a residential development.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSIDERATIONS
Idaho State Statute provides requirements for the preparation of a Comprehensive
Plan. The Statute indicates many different items that must be included, with the
land use map being only one of the points. The Comprehensive Plan for Elmore
County has many policies and goals that support the proposed request (see letter
dated August 04, 2003 from Landmark Engineering & Planning). Further, the land
use map associated with the proposed Comprehensive Plan update shows mixed-use
adjacent to and west of this site. Therefore, the Weitz & Co. property would be
‘sandwiched’ between mixed use and agricultural designated lands. This strip of
industrial designated land is also located west of Mountain Home, which may have
an adverse effect on Mountain Home from odor, dust, etc., if developed as
industrial, due to prevailing wind directions.
Mountain Home and Elmore County have been experiencing a significant growth rate
with projections of growth for many years. The Elmore County Comprehensive Plan
specifies these growth projections. Therefore, while most development is
speculative, based on the previous building permits and growth rate in the area,
projections for further growth, and development absorption in the area, Weitz &
Co. believes the project will be marketable.
WATER RESOURCE CONSIDERATIONS
The Mountain Home area is in a Groundwater Management Area as established by the
Idaho Department of Water Resources on November 09, 1982. Weitz & Co.’s
understanding is that new wells for industrial uses are not allowed. However,
new domestic residential wells are allowed. Further, the Idaho Department of
Water Resources, for health and monitoring reasons, would rather have a few
community wells than hundreds of individual wells within the same geographic
area.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Based on information previously submitted to the record, the project is
anticipated in generating over $1.5 million in annual property tax revenue at
build out. Total profit for the developers of the project is projected at over
$13 million with additional annual revenue from the proposed four-plex units.
Construction of the project, property taxes, and money spent within Elmore
County from new residents, will have a beneficial financial impact on Elmore
County.
CONCLUSION
Weitz & Co. is requesting your approval of the requested rezone given: 1) the
support of goals and objectives contained within Elmore County Comprehensive
Plan; 2) lack of substantial community opposition to the request; 3) Groundwater
Management Area restrictions on wells for industrial development; and 4) other
evidence contained in this letter and previously submitted to the record.
Weitz & Co. believes that without a residential/mixed-use zoning designation
that they will not have any viable economic use for the property. The property
was purchased by Weitz & Co. with an agricultural designation in anticipation of
a residential/mixed use development. Subsequent to that, the property was
designated industrial by Elmore County. Weitz & Co. has protested any rezone and
change to the Comprehensive Plan (including industrial designation) that would
adversely affect the development of the property as residential/mixed-use. At no
point has Weitz & Co. petitioned to change the Comprehensive Plan or zoning from
the initial agricultural designation prior to this request.
The property is located within Elmore County and has not been annexed into any
municipality; therefore, the Elmore County Commissioners have the final decision
making authority for this application. Again ,Weitz and Co. is requesting
approval of the submitted rezone request.
Sincerely, /S/ Clinton E. Boyle, AICP
Certified Land Use Planner
ENGINEER’S OPINION OF PROBABLE COST FOR
WHITE SAGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION (ALL PHASES)
QUANTITY UNITS DESCRIPTION OF ITEM UNIT PRICE TOTAL
PAVING AND GRADING
100,000 YD Clearing and Grubbing $ 2.00 $ 200,000.00
1,450,000 SQ. FT. Paving 2-1/2" Asphalt, 14" Base $ 1.25 $1,812,500.00
71,106 LF Roll Curb/Gutter $ 6.00 $ 426,636.00
9,062 LF Vertical Curb/Gutter $ 7.00 $ 63,434.00
1,185 LF Spill Curb/Gutter $ 10.00 $ 11,850.00
9,062 LF 5' Sidewalk $ 7.00 $ 63,434.00
71,106 LF 4' Sidewalk $ 7.00 $ 497,742.00
1,520 LF Valley Gutter $ 18.00 $ 27,360.00
104 EA Handicap Ramp $ 500.00 $ 52,000.00
4 EA Barricades $ 500.00 $ 2,500.00
SUBTOTAL $3,157,456.00
DRAINAGE
72 EA Inlet Catch Basin $ 1,000.00 $ 72,000.00
20 EA Sand and Grease Trap 1500 Gal $ 3,000.00 $ 60,000.00
9,500 LF 12" PVC $ 30.00 $ 285,000.00
26 EA Standard Manhole $ 1,500.00 $ 39,000.00
15,000 CY Swale/Retention Pond $ 2.25 $ 33,750.00
SUBTOTAL $ 489,750.00
SANITARY SEWER
38,255 LF 8" Main $ 35.00 $ 1,338,925.00
125 EA Standard Manhole $ 1,500.00 $ 187,500.00
680 EA Per lot sewer cost $ 500.00 $ 340,000.00
15 EA end caps $ 200.00 $ 3,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 1,869,425.00
WATER
2,000 6" (Fire Hydrant Lines) $ 25.00 $ 50,000.00
40,000 8" PVC Water Main $ 30.00 $ 1,200,000.00
20 EA Blow Offs $ 1,000.00 $ 20,000.00
3E Live Tap $ 2,500.00 $ 7,500.00
70E Fire Hydrants $ 2,200.00 $ 154,000.00
680 E Per lot water cost $ 400.00 $ 272,000.00
70EA 6" Fittings Tee’s Elbow’s, Crosses $ 400.00 $ 28,000.00
50EA 8" Fittings Tee’s Elbow’s, Crosses $ 500.00 $ 25,000.00
70EA 6" Valve $ 400.00 $ 28,000.00
50EA 8" Valve $ 800.00 $ 40,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 1,824,500.00
IRRIGATION
21,000 LF 8" Pressure Irrigation Piping $ 20.00 $ 420,000.00
19,195 LF 6" Pressure Irrigation Piping $ 15.00 $ 287,925.00
100 EA 8" Fittings, Tee’s Bends, Crosses etc. $ 100.00 $ 10,000.00
65 EA 6" Fittings, Tee’s Bends, Crosses etc. $ 100.00 $ 6,500.00
15 EA 8" Valves $ 100.00 $ 1,500.00
30 EA 6" Valves $ 100.00 $ 3,000.00
680 EA Per lot irrigation service $ 250.00 $ 170,000.00
4 EA Pump Out $ 800.00 $ 3,200.00
3,400 LF 36" Gravity Irrigation main $ 50.00 $ 170,000.00
1 LS Well/Pump Station $ 75,000.00 $ 75,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 1,147,125.00
LANDSCAPE
685,000 SQ. FT. Sodding & Prep. $ 0.85 $ 582,250.00
750 LF 5' Asphalt Path $ 15.00 $ 11,250.00
SUBTOTAL $ 593,500.00
MISCELLANEOUS
1 EA Signing & Striping $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00
680 EA Underground Electrical $ 1,500.00 $ 1,020,000.00
1 EA Plan Reviews/Permits $10,000.00 $ 10,000.00
1EA Civil Engineering/Surveying $600,000.00 $ 600,000.00
1 EA Soils Testing $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00
1 EA Spur RR Crossing $135,000.00 $ 135,000.00
60 EA Street Lights $ 1,500.00 $ 90,000.00
SUBTOTAL $ 1,880,000.00
SUM $10,961,756.00
15% CONTINGENCIES$ 1,644,263.40
TOTAL $12,606,019.40
680 EA Number of Lots COST PER LOT $ 18,538.26
680 EA Lot sale price $ 30,000.00 $20,400,000.00
PROFIT $ 7,793,980.60
MULTI-FAMILY
150 EA Multi-Family Lots $ 18,776.00 $ 2,816,400.00
150,000 SQ. FT. Cost to Build $ 50.00 $ 7,500,000.00
150,000 SQ. FT. Sale Cost $ 75.00 $11,250,000.00
PROFIT $ 5,433,600.00
TOTAL PROFIT $13,227,580.60
Clint Boyle, 104 9th Avenue South, Suite C, Nampa, ID 83651, testified that the
school districts would have an easier time pre-planning with a large development
built in phases. Sewer and water are also a consideration. Tax benefits from the
new development should also be taken into consideration as a benefit to the
County as a whole.
Prosecutor Bazzoli asked if the bottom line is that they wanted a zoning change?
Mr. Sabala said yes, they wanted it changed from industrial to residential.
Mark Russell, P. O. Box 10, Mountain Home, stated he was representing the City
of Mountain Home as a member of the City Council and submitted a letter
requesting the Board deny Mr. Weitz appeal to rezone his property that lies
within the Mountain Home - Elmore County Area of City Impact boundary for the
following reasons:
1. Idaho Code 67-6526(d) Areas of city impact, plan, and ordinance requirements
shall remain fixed until both governing boards agree to renegotiate. In the
event the city and county cannot agree, the judicial review process of
subsection (b) of this section shall apply. Renegotiations shall begin within
thirty (30) days after written request by the city or county and shall follow
the procedures for original negotiation provided in this section.
2. Elmore County Ordinance 99-8 (October 27, 1999) titled ELMORE COUNTY/CITY OF
MOUNTAIN HOME AREA OF CITY IMPACT AGREEMENT, SECTION 3, Paragraph A: ZONING. The
Zoning Ordinances applying the zoning requirements in effect at the time of
adoption of this ordinance, or as subsequently modified in accordance with this
ordinance, shall govern land use within the Mountain Home Area of City Impact.
The County’s zoning requirements, within the Mountain Home Area of City Impact,
shall be based upon the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Mountain Home, in
effect at the time of adoption of this Ordinance, or as subsequently modified.
Prosecutor Bazzoli read from Idaho Code 67-6511 and the Elmore County Zoning and
Development Ordinance that was adopted on March 14, 1994:
67-6511. Zoning Ordinance. Each governing board shall, by ordinance adopted,
amended, or repealed in accordance with the notice and hearing procedures
provided under section 67-6509, Idaho Code, establish within its jurisdiction
one (1) or more zones or zoning districts where appropriate. The zoning
districts shall be in accordance with the policies set forth in the adopted
comprehensive plan.
Within a zoning district, the governing board shall where appropriate establish
standards to regulate and restrict the height, number of stories, size,
construction, reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings and
structures; percentage of lot occupancy, size of courts, yards, and open spaces;
density of population; and the location and use of buildings and structures. All
standards shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout each
district, but the standards in one (1) district may differ from those in another
district.
Ordinances establishing zoning districts shall be amended as follows:
(a) Requests for an amendment to the zoning ordinance shall be submitted to the
zoning or planning and zoning commission which shall evaluate the request to
determine the extent and nature of the amendment requested. Particular
consideration shall be given to the effects of any proposed zone change upon the
delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services,
including school districts, within the planning jurisdiction. An amendment of a
zoning ordinance applicable to an owner’s lands or approval of conditional
rezoning or denial of a request for rezoning may be subject to the regulatory
taking analysis provided for by section 67-8003, Idaho Code, consistent with the
requirements established thereby.
(b) After considering the comprehensive plan and other evidence gathered through
the public hearing process, the zoning or planning and zoning commission may
recommend and the governing board may adopt or reject an ordinance amendment
pursuant to the notice and hearing procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho
Code, provided that in the case of a zoning district boundary change, and
notwithstanding jurisdictional boundaries, additional notices shall be provided
by mail to property owners or purchasers of record within the land being
considered, and within three hundred (300) feet of the external boundaries of
the land being considered, and any additional area that may be impacted by the
proposed change as determined by the commission. Notice shall also be posted on
the premises not less than one (1) week prior to the hearing. When notice is
required to two hundred (200) or more property owners or purchasers of record,
alternate forms of procedures which would provide adequate notice may be
provided by local ordinance in lieu of posted or mailed notice. In the absence
of a locally adopted alternative notice procedure, sufficient notice shall be
deemed to have been provided if the city or county provides notice through a
display advertisement at least four (4) inches by two (2) columns in size in the
official newspaper of the city or county at least fifteen (15) days prior to the
hearing date, in addition to site posting on all external boundaries of the
site. Any property owner entitled to specific notice pursuant to the provisions
of this subsection shall have a right to participate in public hearings before a
planning commission, planning and zoning commission or governing board subject
to applicable procedures.
(c) If the request is found by the governing board to be in conflict with the
adopted plan, or would result in demonstrable adverse impacts upon the delivery
of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including
school districts, within the planning jurisdiction, the governing board may
require the request to be submitted to the planning or planning and zoning
commission or, in absence of a commission, the governing board may consider an
amendment to the comprehensive plan pursuant to the notice and hearing
procedures provided in section 67-6509, Idaho Code. After the plan has been
amended, the zoning ordinance may then be considered for amendment pursuant to
section 67-6511(b), Idaho Code.
ARTICLE XX-II-1 AMENDMENT
Section A-22-1 General Whenever the public necessity convenience , general
welfare, or good zoning practices require, the Board may by ordinance (after
receipt of a recommendation from the Commission, and subject to procedures
provided by law) amend, supplement, change, or repeal the regulations,
restrictions, and boundaries or classification of property.
Section B.22-1 Initiation of Zoning Amendments. Amendments to this Ordinance may
be initiated in one of the following ways:
1. B.22-1 By adoption of a motion by The Commission.
2. B.22-1 By adoption of a motion by the Board; and/or
3. B.22-1 By the filing of an application by a property owner or a person who
has existing interest in property within the area proposed to be changed or
affected by said amendment.
Section C.22-1 Contents of Application. Applications for amendments to the
Official Zoning Map adopted as part of this Ordinance shall contain at least the
following information:
a. Name, address, and phone number of applicant.
b. Cover letter explaining all relevant factors and conditions;
c. Present land use;
d. Present zoning district;
e. Proposed use;
f. Proposed zoning district;
g. A vicinity map at a scale approved by the Administrator showing property
lines, thoroughfares, existing and proposed zoning and such other items as the
Administrator may require;
h. A list of all property owners and their mailing addresses who are within a
minimum of three hundred (300) feet of the external boundaries of the land being
considered. NOTE: If subject property is located in a sparsely populated rural
area, the Administrator may require that notification to all property owners be
extended to a radius greater than 300' or on a case by case basis of the
external boundaries of the land being considered; In the Heavy Industrial M2
Zone, this radius may be extended to fifteen (15) miles;
i. A statement on how the proposed amendment relates to the comprehensive plan,
availability of public facilities and compatibility with the surrounding area;
and
j. A fee as established by the Board.
Section D.22-1 Transmittal to Commission. Zoning district shall be amended to
the following manner:
1.D.22-1 Request for an amendment to the zoning ordinance shall be submitted to
the Commission which shall evaluate the request to determine the extent and
nature of the amendment requested.
2.D.22-1 If the request is in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan,
the Commission may recommend and the Board may adopt or reject the ordinance
amendment under the notice and hearing procedures as herein provided; and
3.D.22-1 If the request is not in accordance with the adopted comprehensive
plan, the request shall be submitted to the Commission or, in its absence, the
Board, which shall recommend and the Board may adopt or reject an amendment to
the comprehensive plan under the notice of hearing procedure provided in Section
67-6509, Idaho Code. After the comprehensive plan has been amended, the Zoning
Ordinance may be amended as hereinafter provided for.
Section E.22-1 Commission Public Hearing. The Commission shall hold a public
hearing on the proposed amendment, publish a notice in the newspaper and give
written notice to all parties as required for conditional use permits (see
Article XIV).
Section F.22-1 Recommendation by Commission. Within Sixty (60) days from the
receipt of the proposed amendment, the Commission shall transmit its
recommendation to the Board. The Commission may recommend that the amendment be
granted as requested, or it may recommend a modification of the amendment
requested, or it may recommend that the amendment be denied. The Commission
shall insure that any favorable recommendations for amendments are in accordance
with the comprehensive plan and establish goals and objectives. If extenuating
circumstances prevail such as inadequate time for hearing notices, lack of
quorum, illness, acts of God, etc., the Commission may require more than sixty
(60) days from the receipt of the proposed amendment to transmit its
recommendation to the Board. The Commission will make every attempt to meet the
sixty (60) day schedule.
Section G.22-1 Action by the Board. The Board, at its next regular meeting
following the receipt of the Commission’s report, shall consider the
recommendation of the Commission. The Board shall accept the recommendation of
the Commission’s report unless rejected by a vote of a majority of the members.
Upon granting or denying an application, the Board shall specify:
1.G.22-1 The Ordinance and standards used in evaluating the application;
2.G.22-1 The reasons for approval or denial; and
3.G-22-1 The actions, if any, that the applicant could take to obtain a permit.
In the event the Board shall approve an amendment, such amendment shall
thereafter be made a part of this Ordinance upon the preparation and passage of
an ordinance in accordance with the hearing procedures as established by Idaho
Code §67-6509.
Section H.22-1 Resubmission of Application. No application for reclassification
of any property which has been denied by the Board shall be resubmitted in
either substantially the same form or with reference to substantially the same
premises for the same purposed within a period of one (1) year from the date of
such final action, unless there is an amendment in the comprehensive plan which
resulted from a change in conditions as applying to the specific property under
consideration.
Commissioner Ireland requested a recess while Mark Russell went to City Hall to
get a map from the City of Mountain Home.
Regular session resumed. The map was reviewed.
Chris Alzola, P.O. Box 793, Mountain Home representing the Mountain Home Rural
Fire District asked if this issue would go back through the process again if the
concept changes? Ms. Alzola stated if Mr. Weitz developed a large development,
Mountain Home Rural Fire would need time to be able to build an adequate fire
facility to serve the new area.
Prosecutor Bazzoli attempted to clarify what “spot” zoning is.
Phil Gridley, Fire Chief, who had signed up to speak stated he did not want to
testify.
The Chair asked Mr. Sabala if they would like time for a rebuttal. Mr. Sabala
stated they would. Mr. Sabala stated if the land is zoned industrial, then the
land is worthless to Mr. Weitz. Mr. Sabala pointed out that there is already a
residential area right across the street, so this development would not be
totally out of line.
Clint Boyle asked the Board to review the letters in the booklet they had
presented. Mr. Boyle stated the goals Weitz and Company had:
Housing Goal 1
To set aside adequate areas for housing that will accommodate present and
anticipated residential growth and to implement zoning as a way to safeguard
property rights and quality of life.
Housing Goal 2
Adequate affordable housing should be available throughout the County to meet
the needs of all socio-economic backgrounds, such as the elderly, disabled and
low, middle, upper income groups.
Housing Goal 3
To provide for a variety of housing types and developments to meet market
demand.
Housing Objectives
1. Land in the County that is contiguous with residential areas in Cities should
be used for residential development and for the future growth of the city.
2. New subdivisions developments located within the Impact Area around the
cities require County approval before development occurs unless otherwise
specified in a negotiated Area of City Impact Agreement.
3. Discourage residential development in prime agricultural areas throughout the
County.
4. Seek to minimize the conflicts between new housing developments and existing
agricultural operations by designating areas for suburban housing preference and
areas for agricultural preference.
5. Support new housing developments near, adjacent to or within Areas of City
Impact.
6. Discourage new housing development that is removed from Areas of City Impact
and is located in productive or prime agricultural areas.
The aforementioned housing goals and objectives demonstrate the need for
residential development areas that are near urban areas and cities. The
preservation of prime agricultural land is also deemed important. The Weitz &
Co. property meets these goals and objectives by providing land that is
developable as primary residential without the elimination of prime agricultural
lands.
The Chair asked if there was any further testimony, there was not. The Chair
announced that no further testimony will be received on the matter. Prosecutor
Bazzoli cautioned the Board that they should not talk to anyone on the subject
and especially not to speak to each other concerning the matter. The Chair
announced that a decision would be made on May 10th and a notice of the decision
would be sent to Mr. Sabala.
Motion by Ireland, second by Egusquiza-Stanek to adjourn for lunch.
EGUSQUIZA-STANEK - AYE
ROSE - AYE
IRELAND - AYE Motion carried and so ordered.
/S/MARY EGUSQUIZA-STANEK, Chairperson
ATTEST: /S/ GAIL L. BEST, Clerk
