COMMISSIONERS MINUTES                                 October 15, 2007

The Commissioners met on the above date in the Commissioners Room at 1:30 p.m., basement of the Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4th East, Mountain Home, Idaho.

Present at the hearing was Chairman Larry Rose, Commissioners Connie Cruser and Arlie Shaw. Also present was Civil Attorney Richard Roats and Deputy Clerk Steele.

Motion by Rose, second by Shaw, to go into Executive Session pursuant to I.C. 67-2345(d) to meet with Social Services Director Marianne Bate. Roll call vote was taken.
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - AYE
SHAW - AYE Motion carried and so ordered.

The following decisions were made:

K-10-07-04 Motion by Rose, second by Cruser, to approve the cremation.
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - AYE
SHAW - AYE Motion carried and so ordered.

K-09-07-01 Motion by Cruser, second by Rose, to deny as unable to make a determination of indigency, County may not be the last resource, incomplete documentation, no response to correspondence, and unable to locate.
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - AYE
SHAW - AYE Motion carried and so ordered.

K-01-07-03 & K-06-07-04 Motion by Shaw, second by Rose, to combine the cases with a reimbursement order of $300.00 per month with 50% of Federal and State Income tax until paid in full.
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - AYE
SHAW - AYE Motion carried and so ordered.

Regular session resumed.

At 2:00 p.m. Frank Hicks and Bob Rowett, Historical Society Committee members and Nancy Marshall Executive Director of the Mountain Home Museum appeared before the Commissioners. Mr. Hicks inquired about the IWS Community Service Grant and the status. Deputy Clerk Steele stated the Committee is still working on ironing out the requirements of applicants for the Grant.

Mr. Hicks stated the former Executive Director of the Museum wrote some letters regarding the establishment of a Historic Preservation Commission. Elmore County Ordinance 87-7 did create a Historical Preservation Commission. Mr. Hicks stated a Commission needs to be appointed by the Elmore County Commissioners. The Commissioners stated they would help with the formation of the Commission. Mr. Rowett stated there may be some costs involved, the Ordinance states the members of the Commission may be reimbursed by the County for expenses incurred in connection with their duties.

Commissioner Cruser stated that former Executive Director Josh Newby wanted to review our new Planning and Zoning Ordinance to make sure the history of the County was protected. Mr. Hicks stated that would be a good idea and that Ordinance 87-7 reflects the protection of historical sights also. The Board thanked the group for coming in.

Mr. John Chapman phoned regarding the Hammett Park property stating it has been roped off from public use. Chairman Rose will drive by the property on his way home and will phone Mr. Chapman.

Correspondence was reviewed.

Motion by Rose, second by Shaw, to sign the Memorandum of Agreement between County of Elmore, State of Idaho and County of Ada, State of Idaho. The Agreement will be effective to September 30, 2008.
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - AYE
SHAW - AYE Motion carried and so ordered.

Motion by Rose, second by Shaw, to sign the Certificate of Residency for Sarah Rose Pennington.
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - AYE
SHAW - AYE Motion carried and so ordered.

Discussion followed on the information received from the Growth and Development Department by the Commissioners on appeals.

Ann Atkin, Sunrider Ranch Subdivision appeal, was discussed. Ms. Atkin emailed the Commissioners information on the appeal which they opened and read. The public hearing was closed and no testimony can be received at this point. Attorney Roats stated due to this information being submitted, the Commissioners having read the information, the public hearing will be re-opened, and a new time and date will be set at a later time. The re-opening of the public hearing will have to be published and the notices will be mailed to the affected parties.

General discussion followed on Commissioners activities. Flu shots for Elmore County Employees were discussed, Commissioner Cruser stated she checked with Doctor Keller and he quoted $20.00 per shot. Central District Health quoted the County $25.00 per shot. Commissioner Cruser will schedule a day with Dr. Keller for the shots.

The public hearing for Prairie Sun Subdivision was opened. Chairman Rose read the public hearing notice into the record:

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, October 15, 2007 at the hour of 4:00 p.m. in the Commissioner’s Room, basement of the Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4th East, Mountain Home, Idaho, a public hearing will be held to hear public comment on an appeal of a Planning and Zoning Commission decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Plat for a 73 lot platted subdivision to be known as Prairie Sun Subdivision in an Agriculture A Zone located in Elmore County. The decision was based on a failure to comply with item #22 located on the Conditional Use Permit Application. The three specific “failures” cited were, 2. C.14-1, 3. C.14-1 and 5. C14.1: Lots are too small/too many lots (lots: smallest 1.5 acres, largest 3.6 acres, average 2.4 acres), Lack of second egress/ingress, and Community well versus private individual wells. The appellant is Jay P. Clark/Developer. Site is located in a portion of the West Half of the Northwest Quarter and being in the North Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 3 and being in the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter and the East Half of the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 4, Township 2 South, Range 5 East, B.M., Elmore County. A more common means of locating this site is from Simco Road and I-84, head northeast on Simco Road to Desert Wind Road. Turn right/southeast for approximately 5 ¼ miles to W. Tilli Road. Turn left/east onto W. Tilli Road for approximately 1 ½ miles. The property is located on the right/south side of the road.

The appellant, Jay Clark, was asked to come forward.

Karissa Hardy, Sunrise Engineering, came before the Board as Jay Clark’s Representative. She submitted written testimony as follows:

At the September 5, 2007, public hearing, the Elmore County Growth and Development (“G&D”) Board denied the Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) for the Prairie Sun Subdivision (see Appendix A, Finding of Fact). As permitted by the Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinances as adopted 3/14/1994 and amended 12/26/1995 (page 96) an appeal of the decision was filed by the DEVELOPER, and a public hearing date was set by Elmore County for October 15, 2007.

In response to the denial issued by the G&D Department for the CUP for the Prairie Sun Subdivision located in Elmore County, the DEVELOPER has prepared the following response(s). As outlined in the Findings of Fact, G&D staff report (see Appendix A), the board cited a failure to meet three (3) on the nine (9) criteria listed in item #22 in the County’s Conditional Use Permit Application as a reason for the denial of the permit.

The three (3) items listed in the “Findings of Fact” by G&D and the DEVELOPER’S responses to the items are as follows:

1. [CUP #22, 2.C.14-1] “How will the proposed land use be in harmony and accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance?”

[G&D] It was the opinion of the Commission that “This proposal with lot sizes less than five (5) acres would not be harmonious with the intended character of the general vicinity because of the intended five (5) acre minimum lot size overlay proposed by the adopted Comprehensive Plan.” (Finding of Fact, CUP for Prairie Sub Subdivision)

[DEVELOPER] Although the Comprehensive plan for Tipanuk Community encourages five (5) acre minimum lot sizes, it does not require them; and the five (5) acre lot size is not part of the current ordinances. The current Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance allows for as small as one (1) acre lots, with a minimum lot size being determined by Central District Health.

Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance Page 30 as adopted 3/14/94 and amended 12/25/1995: “Base lot size throughout the county shall be one (1) acre lots or parcels created or developed on or after March 14, 1994, the date of adoption of the Ordinance….Minimum lot size shall be determined as regulated by Central District Health Department.”

In addition, three separate planners at G&G (Danette Arbuckle, Lori Kane and Bonnie Sharp) told the developer that smaller than five (5) acre lots were allowed with the approval of Central District Health. Central District Health has approved this subdivision with the current lot sizes. (See Appendix B, Central District Health Approval Letter) The smallest proposed lot size in the Prairie Sun Subdivision is 1.5 acres, and the average is 2.4 acres which is above the one (1) acre minimum designated by the county ordinance. Based on test pits taken at the proposed Prairie Sun Subdivision, Marty Jones, from Central District Health Department, determined that the property was not in an area of concern and approval lots smaller than five (5) acres as shown on the Preliminary Plat. (see Appendix D for Overview of Preliminary Plat)

2. [CUP #22, 3.C.14-1] “What about the proposed land use’s design, construction, operation, and maintenance makes it harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing of intended character of the general vicinity and how will it not change the essential character of said area?”

[G&D] It was the opinion of G&D that “this proposal with lot sizes less than five (5) acres would not be harmonious with the intended character of the general vicinity because of the intended five (5) acre minimum lot size overlay proposed by the adopted comprehensive plan.”

[DEVELOPER]The proposed subdivision has larger lots than what the ordinances allow (see above statement). The proposed subdivision has larger lots than other similar subdivisions already in the area, such as Red Baron Estates, and has similar lot sizes to other approved subdivisions in the area.

3. [CUP #22, 5.C14-1] “How will the proposed land use be served adequately by available public facilities/services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or how will these public services be provided by the applicant/developer.”

[G&D] It was the opinion of G&D that “lack of a second exit/entrance created safety issues and concerns.”

[DEVELOPER] The Elmore County Planning and Development Ordinance states on page 121, Section D.4-2 as adopted 3/12/94 and amended 12/26/1995:

“Public streets and road right-of-way widths and surfaces shall conform to the requirements of the highway district having jurisdiction; however, the Commission may require wider right-of-ways.”


This ordinance states that the highway district having jurisdiction (Mountain Home Highway District) determines the suitability of the highways. The Prairie Sun Subdivision design gained the approval of the Mountain Home Highway District. “Lack of a second egress” was an issue that concerned the highway district and was resolved with their approval by creating a larger entrance road. The proposed paved road has an additional 13’ (a commuter road) of pavement to allow more traffic in case of an emergency. This solution has been approved by the Mountain Home Highway District and the Oasis Volunteer Fire Department.

[G&D] It was the opinion of G&D that “because this proposal site resides within the Cinder Cone Butte Critical Ground Water Management Area, the Commission felt this proposal should have a community water system with associated water rights in compliance with all Department of Environmental Quality and Department of Water Resources regulations.”

[DEVELOPER] Idaho State Law allows for domestic use of 13,000 gpd, including irrigation of up to ½ acre of land OR if you are running a business (truck stop, restaurant, day care, etc.), 2,500 gpd. Prairie Sun easily falls under the domestic exemption law (see Well and Drilling Permit attachment under Appendix C). Also, at this tine, the Domestic Exemption does not require individual water rights. Currently, IDWR cannot legislate any other flow rates (even in the Cinder Cone Butte Critical Groundwater). However, IDWR does not want home owners to pump more water than what is necessary. If the CCR’s suggest something less than 13,000 gpd with ½ acre of landscaping (no flood irrigation allowed), IDWR does not see any problem with approving individual well and drilling permits. Based on Idaho State Law, the potential for complex geology, finding established water rights, designing a water distribution system and the need for licensed water operators, the DEVELOPER requests the right to maintain individual wells for the Prairie Sun Subdivision.

For and Overview of the Prairie Sun Subdivision Proposed Preliminary Plat, see Appendix D.

(Appendix A, B, C & D are part of the record available in the Recorder’s Office.)

Commissioner Shaw asked Ms. Hardy asked about the road going to Mr. Schiro’s property, she stated it is a gravel road and Mr. Schiro does not currently have any legal access to this road but the Developer will leave the road available to him.

Jay Clark, Developer, 160 North 3rd East, Mountain Home came forward and stated the first Title Company he checked with could not find an easement for the road (Ocean View Drive) to Mr. Schiro’s property, the second Title Company, Guaranty Title, stated there was a hand written easement by one of the previous land owners giving Mr. Schiro access to his property. They will not be blocking his access anyway. This road could also serve as an additional access in case of an emergency. Mr. Clark referenced the fire that came through Tipanuk a couple of years ago and how the BLM crews responded, they drove down Ocean View Drive to fight the fire. Some of the issues he wanted to address again were the same ones brought up at Mr. Gearharts appeal. Reyes Lopez and others stated there should be fair notice to the developers regarding the community water systems. Also the lot size issue was not mentioned until the final hearing of the Planning & Zoning Commission. No one in the Adminstrative Office of Planning and Zoning or the Ordinance stated anything about lot sizes and they were already 8 to 9 months into the process. Had they known the 5 acre lot size would be required they would have drawn up the Plat accordingly. They have met the threshold that Central District Health has set. Regarding the egress/ingress of the road, they have worked with the Mountain Home Highway District and addressed their concerns about the traffic. Mr. Clark stated they did a traffic impact study and increased the access by another 13 feet of pavement. The engineering of the wide road and more asphalt has added more cost. Mr. Clark feels it is unfair at the eleventh hour that the Planning & Zoning Board wants something different. If they would have known a community water system was going to be a requirement they would have done things different. That requirement is a huge change in being able to develop this Subdivision. When they started this process and if there had been an ordinance stating a community water system would be required, they might not have developed this subdivision.

Commissioner Shaw asked about the Growth and Development Department and questioned Mr. Clark regarding the staff not mentioning the various conditions that were put on the Plat. He stated there was no mention of the three conditions he is appealing. They were told they were in full compliance. Chairman Rose questions Mr. Clark about the County’s Comprehensive Plan regarding the lot sizes. Mr. Clark stated when they submitted the preliminary plat they were told it looks good. Then conditions were required.

Craig Deppen, 13542 W. Tilli Road, Mountain Home, Idaho, questioned if any proof from Central District Health has been submitted that these wells have been approved. Who will bear the cost of deepening their wells if these individual wells are allowed and the water table drops. The current fire district that is out there is actually a wild land fire service. The size of lots have already been addressed. Mr. Deppen stated if he remembers correctly, the first meeting with the Planning & Zoning Commission, Mr.Bennett said there would be no access through his property. Mr. Deppen stated that Mr. Clark said there was an easement granted 30 years ago for Ocean View Drive. He is opposed to this development.

Guy Burnham, 24300 Ditto Creek Road, submitted a letter and wanted to emphasize that this property is within a ground water management area. The Developer is asking you to change the classification of the land from Ag A use to residential with a Conditional Use Permit. He is asking that you deny this appeal. Mr. Burnham brought up fairness, is it fair to him as an agricultural enterprise in the same area to live under one set of regulations, and a business man who is speculating on land wanting to make it a commercial use under another set of regulations. If you grant him the ability to split this and have these individual wells which can’t be denied, the effect of your decision would be to subsidize the Developer and add a burden to Mr. Burnham’s operation. There is no public need being served by approving this plat.

The letter states:

October 15, 2007 – To the Elmore County Commission

Dear Commissioners:

I am writing to you in opposition to the appeal of the denial of conditional use permit by Jay Clark, developer of Prairie Sun Subdivision. I am in opposition to this appeal for numerous reasons which I will outline below.

1. There seems to be an unfortunate trend where developers receive a Conditional Use Permit after public hearings and exposure of the full plan and impacts. Then, amendments are requested on a piecemeal basis, often masking the bigger picture and the issues involved. The public input process is made much less effective. Next, when there is a denial, an appeal is made. This process (is) unfair to the public. The matter is never really settled. The developer gets to chip away at the requirements hoping that the public will be confused, worn out, or just too busy to respond. Yet if the public has issues later, it is just too bad. The developer is “grandfathered” in. One is reminded of the proverb of the camel and the tent. Due to the expense to the County of these, the burden it places on the public, the risk of bad decisions resulting from piecemeal decisions, and the negative perception created of the land use and permit process, these amendments and appeals should really be rejected as a matter of course except in a very few circumstances. These should be limited to public safety or benefit and unforeseeable circumstance. This appeal does not meet the test.

2. I believe the Growth and Development staff took a reasonable and prudent approach to the original CUP request. The conditions were not onerous and included some protection for neighboring property and for conforming uses in the area. There is not ground for appeal on that score.

3. The denial of appeal was reasonable since there was no compelling public interest in the proposed changes, in fact just the opposite in the case. Amending the CUP would only serve to enhance the profits of the developer while adding financial burdens to the County and to other residents. Also, the requested changes did not result from some unforeseeable requirement or change in circumstance. A prudent business person could reasonably foresee the requirements of the CUP. All these matters may be costly or inconvenient, but that is a business risk associated with land speculation and not a matter to be solved at the public expense.

4. Lastly and to me most importantly I want to address the water well issue. It is no secret to anyone that there is an issue with groundwater in the area. The Department of Water Resources has declared a management area. What is a surprise to most people is that there are huge differences between developments with community wells and developments based on individual (domestic) wells. Specifically, in the case of the community well it is the responsibility of the developer to show that there is water available without impacting existing users. He is on the hook for engineering studies, etc and must take responsibility for the impact of this business. In the case of individual wells, because of a quirk of state law, domestic wells permits will usually be granted without proper studies or a form of “due diligence”. If existing wells are impacted then it is up to the existing users to pay for engineering studies and file a lawsuit for damages. This is a huge expense and risk to place on the owners of the surrounding property. This shift of risk and expense reduces the property value of all the surrounding area.

In my case, I cannot get a permit to irrigate a 10 acre piece of my ranch (a conforming use in this area by the way). I tried and the expense was too great. Just this10 acres of hay and grain would make a huge difference in my bottom line but I understand the reasons. In the case of this appeal, if granted, the effect would be to allow 36 acres to be irrigated, assuming that everyone sticks to the letter of law. It makes no sense to me why a conforming use should be jeopardized to enhance a non-conforming use. That mocks the whole planning process. In essence, the commission would be subsidizing the profitability of one commercial interest at the expense of another without any compelling public benefit as justification. I believe this is at least unfair if not worse.

Guy Burnham, 24300 Ditto Creek Road.

Mary Brethauer, 1020 Desert Wind Road, appeared and stated she is in favor of community wells and also for fire hydrants for fire protection. No matter how wide you make your driveway it still empties out on to a two lane blacktop road. She was requested to have two exits (accesses) off their property.

Jolene Hobdey, 10844 W. Hobdey Ln, Oasis, ID read a letter into the record:

October 15, 2007

My primary concern is the density of the Prairie Sun Subdivision and the effect it would have on this critical water area. One of the statements J.P. Clark made at the P&Z meeting was that Hiddleston Drilling made the observation that they didn’t think the area could support a community well. My thought is if it won’t support a community well, how will it support 73 more individual wells? Current residents in the immediate vicinity cannot get enough water to install a sprinkler system to water their existing trees. How can this small area support 70+ more households?

In my opinion the second issue of a single point of ingress/egress presents a public safety hazard. Fire statistics show that the fires in the Oasis Rural Fire Protection District frequently occur in a pattern from the Northwest to the Southeast. I refer to the last year’s fire that destroyed homes in Tipanuk. This fire started just behind Tony Schiro’s property where this subdivision is planned and moved in that general direction. Were a fire to start off of Tilli Roard and threaten the homes in the Prairie Sun Subdivision (given the proposed layout), the only road in and out would be immediately cut off and no emergency vehicles could enter on the most expedient road and quick evacuation of residents would be almost impossible. I hope the Commissioners agree and make sure that public safety is served by requiring at least two ways in and out.

I feel the Planning and Zoning Board has been working very hard to make sure the growth in Elmore County is reasonable and in keeping with the character of this rural desert area. Therefore I ask that the Elmore County Commissioners to uphold the Planning and Zoning’s denial of this Conditional User (Use) Permit.

Respectfully, Jolene A. Hobdey

Bob Ruth stated he agrees with Jolene and did not come forward to speak.

Dr. Tony Schiro, 17198 N. Ocean View Lane, Mtn Home, stated this subdivision circles his property. He stated it was made it perfectly clear to him by the developer he intended to land lock him out. With a little research he has found a deeded easement filed in 1976 to his property. When he bought his property he was looking for a particular life style, he wanted to be away from people and wanted to be by himself. Mr. Schiro stated he was very concerned about the water. He has been told he can only irrigate a small portion of his 10 acres. Mr. Schiro asked what will he do when his well water level goes down. Also he is concerned about 73 more septic systems. Commissioner Cruser asked if he had a copy of the easement, he stated he did not but would get a copy of it to the Commissioners. Chairman Rose asked how deep his well is. He replied it is around 550 to 600 feet and Chairman Rose asked if he has any problems. Mr. Schiro stated if he has two hoses running he does. Mr. Schiro stated he has had the road grated and there is no upkeep by anyone else. Chairman Rose asked if the easement is across the property in question and the answer was yes.

Ken Jones, 11153 W. Desert Duck , Tipanuk area, stated he talked to a guy doing a survey yesterday and power lines will be going across the subdivision in question. And he questioned if houses could be built under the power lines. Mr. Jones submitted a letter in writing:

Mr. Chairman and board members:

My name is Ken Jones. I live at 11153 W. Desert Duck Ave., in Tipanuk. I am a member of the fire commission creating a fire district in our area.

I don’t oppose development if done in a responsible manner. I do oppose 73 wells in the development that they are proposing. I do believe that a community well is a more responsible way to go. I don’t know for sure. But I believe the three million that the developers are asked to come up with for the Community Well would be considered bond money. I believe that developer should be bonded, just like the contractors doing the work. There are two kinds of Bonds, Asset Bonds and Cash Bonds. Bonding means that the work being performed would be meeting County and State Specifications. It’s a Guarantee that the work will be done Wright (right).

My main concern also is water contamination that the septic systems might create. I’m not saying that is will because nobody really has the answer. My proposal is that they, the developers, put in a community sewer system with a lagoon for disposal of waste.

For Fire Protection, Fire hydrants in the development area to be scattered throughout the Subdivision.

I live downstream from the developments and I am concerned about the contamination of the aquifer that may occur. Who will pay for the contamination?

I was talking to a surveyor who said that the ranchers over off Simco Road are having a hard time maintaining their water level. Their wells are a lot deeper than we are out here. I told him about the two new developments that did (are) being proposed out here and them (they) want to put in wells for each house, around 150 homes. In Ada County, subdivisions must put in community wells or hook up to city water. Their not allowing individual wells to be drilled. Put in a community well and a thousand homes could be hooked up. It just makes more sense to go with a community well.

If one developer is allowed to put in a well for every house, everybody that wants to develop property will want the same thing. Some one down the line will ask for 150 wells. If you allow the two proposals on the table now to do it then the others will say that you allowed them individual well-why not us also. Now is the time to put your foot down and simply tell the developers-NO!

Ken Jones, Tipanuk

Jay Clark was asked to come forward to rebut any testimony given. Mr. Clark stated he was unaware of the power lines. One item of testimony was about Hiddleston and their statement why the area may not support a community well as there might not be enough water. Mr. Clark stated the issue is the ability for the water to flow through the soil. Mr. Clark stated we have heard a lot of emotion but you have heard no science to support the emotions, no water table studies and no well logs. The law tries to duplicate what is fair and what is right and that is why domestic wells are allowed everywhere. There is an Idaho Constitution that states if there is water under your property you can utilize it for your own domestic use. The leech fields have been done in a way that is proven to be safe unless we have evidence to the contrary. Mr. Clark stated grass fires that come with storms have already started, burned and are gone before people come out of their houses to see what has happened. He feels that another paved road through someone elses property would not make any difference in the fire fighting effort. Mr. Clark feels it would be safer with the subdivision there as the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R’s) would require weeds to be cut down. He asked the Commissioners to focus on the facts and the law. Commissioner Cruser asked how the CC&R’s would be enforced. Mr. Clark stated the homeowners association enforces them.

The Commissioners have decided because of the conflicting reports being given the Board will invite the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Water Resources to come to a regular meeting to gain facts. The hearing will remain open until the Commissioners can meet with those agencies. A mailing will go out to the same parties that received a notice of hearing.

Additional written testimony was handed in. #1 A petition stating: We the undersigned residents and/or property owners of the northwest area of Elmore County to include Tipanuk, Oasis and Mayfield are very concerned with the future development and the subsequent number of individual wells in this area. We are not against growth but rather are trying to encourage RESPONSIBLE GROWTH AND SENSIBLE WATER USAGE through PRACTICAL AND FARSIGHTED planning. Therefore we are asking the Commissioners of Elmore County to uphold the Elmore County Growth and Development’s decision on the CUPs for Sunrider Ranch and Prairie Sun Subdivisions. Specifically: We fully support the Growth and Development’s decision to: 1) to limit the number of wells to 25 in the Sunrider Ranch Subdivision, and 2) to require a community water system in the Prairie Sun Subdivision. The petition was signed by approximately 81 people.

The next written testimony reads:

October 8, 2007

Elmore County Commissioners
Mountain Home, Idaho 83647

Dear Commissioners,
I am a resident of Oasis, Idaho and am gratified that Elmore County Planning and Zoning has seen fit to deny CUPs for Sunrider Ranch and Prairie Sun based on their desire to allow individual wells at a density that is not appropriate for a critical water area.

I am concerned about the water quantity and the quality as well. Introduction of numerous wells in the area not only depletes a water supply that is undocumented in quantity, but individual septic tanks greatly increase the risk of polluting that water supply. I thank the members of the commission for the effort they have shown in supporting this area’s desire for a reasonable rate of growth and a density suitable for a desert with limited resources. Therefore I ask that you support the Planning and Zoning’s denial of a Conditional Use Permit for these two planned communities based on inappropriate density and use of water. Thank you, Teresa Ruth, 19550 N. Del Norte Place, Oasis, Idaho 83647.

The next written testimony reads:

Greetings, I am very concerned over tht (the) direction Elmore County seems to be heading with the water resource in the Oasis area. Last Friday (24, August, 2007) Tamara called me out-of-state, frantic that the well pump had quit. The following Monday, a pump man confirmed the pump had run out of water, and a new pump was required. The water stratas in the Oasis area, on the whole, are very slow to recover. The IDWR has been aware ov (of) this for years and can suggest ways or means to assist existing residents in coping with the problem. However, it must be noted that to continue to assist in the uncontrolled growth and subsequent abuse of the waining water resource will shortly be their undoing. If something is not done fast and soon, I fear a lot of people are going to get hurt. And then, as a matter of human nature, those hurt will start pointing fingers demanding redress and compensation. As a matter of fact and for the record, we had to lower the new pump an additional 20 feet to compensate for slow recovery. Although we are moving, we would be in-human not to be concerned about our friends still living there. Please, if you can, please protect our property values and rights by somehow limiting the sacred water right to all the new growth. Respectfully, Dan Hennis.

The Public Hearing was Recessed.

The public portion of the meeting was held.

Michael Fry, 305 East 13th North, Mountain Home, appeared before the Commissioners regarding a decision on the indigent lien on his house he purchased with his girlfriend. Attorney Roats stated he and Attorney Jay Friedly are playing telephone tag on this issue. Attorney Roats stated he will call Mr. Friedly with the decision the Commissioners made.

Assessor Gridley appeared before the Board and gave the Commissioners a report on all of the Counties and the comparisons on the Utility Rolls. Discussion followed on a piece of property that the County owns, 1 foot by 120 feet in Mountain Home Townsite and Assessor Gridley asked if the County could donate it to the Mountain Home Youth Center. The Commissioners agreed to donate the property.

Motion by Shaw, second by Rose to adjourn.
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - AYE
SHAW - AYE Motion carried and so ordered.

/S/ LARRY E. ROSE, Chairman
ATTEST: /S/ MARSA GRIMMETT, Clerk