Donate Now
News

Fish and Game wildlife recommendations; various subdivisions;new dumping ordinances

BOCC Public Hearings Thursday, May 17

Although everything heard on this night was passed unanimously there were some interesting discussions that ran through the evening.  These are outlined briefly below, followed by brief reports of which subdivisions were passed.   

Fish and Game wildlife recommendations
Idaho Fish and Game is one of the agencies that reviews subdivision applications and had submitted letters on the applications under review outlining recommendations to be included on plat notes.  When Commissioner Stevenson asked the applicants whether all the recommendations had been incorporated into the proposals, on two separate applications the answer essentially was “We included what we thought was relevant”.  The P&Z has also in the past agreed that some of the Fish and Game’s recommendations are not appropriate

Sharon Woolstenhulme of A&W Engineering told the BOCC that Fish and Game submits the same boiler plate letter on every application although not all of the points are relevant to every proposed development.  She suggested that if an applicant is going to be expected to comply with every one of the Fish and Game’s recommendations then Fish and Game should have to do site visits to ensure their recommendations make sense.  

Dust Control

The need for dust control by the developer during infrastructure construction and individual homeowners during home construction was raised by Commissioner Stevenson with each application.

Chair Larry Young recused himself from the deliberations on the following applications since he reviewed them while sitting on the P&Z commission before being elected as county commissioner.

Vistas at Waters Edge, Final Master Plan
This PUD proposal was passed unanimously with 44 lots on 140 acres and is located at 500 West and Packsaddle Road.  Commissioner Trupp addressed some concerns about changes being made to an intersection and making sure that appropriate sight distances are maintained during and after construction.  

Double “F” Ranch, Final Master Plan
The PUD had 29 lots on 80 acres and is located between 500 North and 600 North along 300 West. The BOCC had questions about the design of the open space, which follows a swell running across the property but has lots on both sides and two roads running through it, but concluded it made sense give the topography of the parcel.  Commissioner Trupp also stated that he hoped the future residents knew the distance of the development from county winter services.  The developer is going to have to upgrade 600 N as well as plow that road during the winter.  The application was passed with conditions that clarified some of the steps being taken to protect wildlife such as controlling domestic animals and the location of fencing.

Spring Hollow Ranch Phase II, Final Master Plan
This subdivision had 25 lots on 368.12 acres.  Some neighbors of the development had concerns about construction and ditch digging causing 300 W. to flood and also about the development negatively impacting waterfowl using ponds on the property.  The applicant said that the road typically floods in the spring but that he is going to do work on the road and culverts to prevent future flooding and support increased traffic.  While 15 acre lots are a radical change from the agricultural use of this property, this development is well under allowable densities.

Two new dumping ordinances
The BOCC unanimously passed two new ordinances that deal with “unauthorized dumping”.  The first ordinance makes in unlawful for someone to dump material into someone else’s dumpster without their permission.  The second ordinance makes it unlawful to dispose of unacceptable/unauthorized waste in the county landfill.  

The Ranch PUD was taken off the agenda due to the application being incomplete.  It had been put on the agenda as a courtesy to the developer who was hoping to have a required nutrient-pathogen study done by this date.   The Fairground easement vacation was also taken off the agenda because the easement is in the Driggs city of impact and needs to be heard by the city first.

0 Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *