1

Fremont County Planning 1

& Zoning Meeting Minutes 2

June 20, 2016 3

County South Bridge Street Meeting Room 4

5 The Fremont County Planning & Zoning Commission met in a scheduled meeting on 6 June 20, 2016. They met in the County South Annex Building. Members in 7 Attendance were: Rod Nichols (Chair), Kim Ragotzkie (Vice Chair), Stephen Waite, 8 Kevin Hathaway, Joyce Edlefsen, Patti Crapo, Dale Swensen, and Jeff Rowe. 9 10 Absent: Lila Gold 11 12 Staff and others present: Tom Cluff (Administrator), Kaylie Bowman (P&Z Secretary). 13 City of St. Anthony Planning and Zoning Commission: Ted Fronk, Arlo Mendenhall, Jim 14 Hobbs, Evan Tibbitts, Karen Browning, Inella Douglas, and Jim Hunter. 15

1. Call to Order and Welcome

Mr. Nichols called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. He explained that part of the 16 meeting will be combined with the City of St. Anthony. He asked the commission if any 17 of them had a conflict of interest. 18 19

2. Approval of Minutes

2.1 Approval of Minutes – May 16, 2016

Mr. Waite moved to approve the minutes for May 16, 2016. Ms. Ragotzkie 20 seconded. All in favor. Motion Carried. 21

22

2.2 Approval of Minutes – May 31, 2016

Mr. Waite moved to approve the minutes for May 31, 2016 as corrected. 23 Mrs. Edlefsen seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. 24

25

3. Sketch Plan - None

None 26

4. New Business

4.1 Public Hearing - Joint Hearing with the City of St. Anthony – proposed Change

to Zoning Map for the area of City Impact (#16-044)

Mr. Nichols recused himself from the commission because he serves on both boards. He 27 turned the meeting over to the vice chair, Ms. Ragotzkie. 28 29 Ms. Ragotzkie opened the public hearing. She read the procedures of a public hearing. 30 She asked Mr. Hathaway to be the sergeant of arms. She asked if there was any conflict 31 of interest. She asked if proper notice was given. 32 33 Mr. Cluff said yes. 34 35 Ms. Ragotzkie turned it over to Mr. Cluff to introduce the application. 36 37

2

Mr. Cluff explained the City of St. Anthony’s changes. He explained that it requires that 38 the city and the county each adopt an ordinance affecting those changes. He explained 39 that the city has requested that we do that. This hearing is on that area of impact 40 agreement. The city has proposed some changes. You have gotten the information in 41 your packets about the differences between the old rules and the new rules. The hearing 42 is to take comments on those and discuss those. I don’t have a formal staff report on this 43 one, I am mostly interested in how the commissioners feel about it and want to discuss it. 44 He asked if there were any questions. 45 46 Mrs. Crapo asked if it expands the area of impact. 47 48 Mr. Cluff said no and explained. 49 50 Ms. Ragotzkie said there is nobody signed up to provide comments. She asked if there 51 was anyone in the audience that wanted to comment. There was none. 52 53 Mr. Cluff said it would be appropriate for the two commissions to discuss. 54 55 Ms. Ragotzkie opened it up for discussion. 56 57 It was asked by the commission to have the city explain why they wanted these changes 58 made. They explained that their current code was from the 1980’s and the request they 59 were getting it to fit more for now not in the 80’s, this was explained. The old zones 60 were explained. They explained they were changing it to be what they want to see going 61 forward. It was explained that as city volunteers they are controlled by their boundaries, 62 and they need to have a plan for expansion within their boundaries. This was explained. 63 Was explained that they used a professional planner and a model from the State of Idaho. 64 It was stated that the city didn’t think the county wanted to take on subdivisions 65 surrounding the city, and if the city was able to control the area around their boundaries, 66 it makes more sense. They also made the code easier to read. The state requires the city 67 to submit to the county the changes they are making. Was explained that they looked at 68 the roads coming into town and that is where they want the growth to happen, so that is 69 where the changes were made. It was asked if city services will be provided. Was stated 70 they can hook onto the city with conditions. Was asked how much public comment was 71 given. Stated they posted it, but tragically they didn’t have very much public comment. 72 This was explained. Was stated that one person objected to the proposal. Talked about 73 the changes that the county is trying to do to their code. Asked about the southeast area 74 the PL1 circle. Explained that that circle is for any public facility in that area, a school, 75 church, etc. 76 77 Ms. Ragotzkie closed the public hearing. 78 79

Mr. Hobbs moved to have the St. Anthony Planning and Zoning Commission 80 accept the area of city impact ordinance with the Fremont County Planning 81 and Building. Mrs. Browning seconded. All in favor motion carried. 82

83

3

Mrs. Crapo moved to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners to 84 adopt the zoning change to the city’s area of impact #16-044. Mr. Waite 85 seconded. All in favor. Motion carried. 86 87

The St. Anthony Planning and Zoning Commission left. 88 89

4.2 Public Hearing – DAMR cabin rental – 4037 South Gate, Island Park, ID (#16-

029)

Mr. Nichols moved on to the public hearing for the cabin rental. He reread the public 90 hearing procedures. He asked if proper notice has been given. 91 92 Mr. Cluff said yes. 93 94 Mr. Nichols asked if anyone had a conflict of interest. There were none. He continued 95 reading the hearing procedures. 96 97 Mr. Cluff explained how cabin rentals are normally heard. He explained why this is 98 coming before the commission. He explained the application. He said the technical 99 proponents of the application seem to meet the code, but I am not going to make a 100 recommendation I am going to leave that up to you. 101 102 Dave and Michelle Richards 5631Bennion Dr. Taylorsville, UT 84129. 103 104 Mark Parrish P O Box 4604, Pocatello Idaho 83205. I am with Parrish Law in Pocatello. 105 I will make a couple of brief statements in behalf of my clients here. It is important that 106 we understand why we are here, we are here to approve a license. A license that all the 107 I’s are dotted, t’s are crossed, and correct boxes are checked. We are not here to 108 adjudicate a potential fight between a HOA and a homeowner. That is for a different 109 location. All inspections of the property have been made, the property has met all the 110 requirements required by the application. We expect the application to be approved. If 111 this application was for less than 15 occupants it would have been approved. Because the 112 county has a requirement of a hearing for anything over 15 occupants in a cabin that is 113 why we are here tonight. That doesn’t change the application or the application process 114 technically. 115 116 Mr. Nichols said as a point of order, you are here because the administrator referred it to 117 us. He could have taken care of this, but he has a discretion under our law that says he 118 can remand it to the commission. That is why you are here. 119 120 Mr. Parrish said I have been told by that office, the reason we are here is because it is 121 more than 15. Because it is over 15 it necessitated a public hearing whether in front of 122 you or Mr. Cluff, he explained. 123 124 Mr. Nichols opened the hearing for public comment. He said try to stick with facts. He 125 explained that they cannot nor will they try to enforce HOAs. The county does not do 126 that. The county doesn’t enforce them. He explained they will allow three minutes for 127 testimony. 128

4

Mr. Clair Bowen 1641 Granite Dr. Pocatello, ID 83201. My wife and I currently own a 129 cabin in the Bear Lake area and we have HOA rules there as well. It is very difficult to 130 police for our association. Because of what has evolved there we are seeking to leave. 131 We have purchased property up on 4462 Stone Run. In our investigation to locate 132 another property for our family we did our homework. This HOA has clear rules 133 regarding this issue, and has a history of policing it, and that is what attracted us to it. It 134 was important to us just as it would be at my home in Pocatello, for our neighbor not to 135 pop up with a rental next to me. Our experience at Bear Lake, which has led us to the 136 decision to leave there, is renters have a general disregard to other. We have had damage 137 to our own property from 4-wheelers, we have seen it with our neighbors, and one that is 138 coming up that gives me the fear every year is fireworks. We see that we know who the 139 rental properties are and we see that going on. Common sense tells you don’t go up on a 140 mountain and light off fireworks. Because of that I wanted to be here today to go on the 141 record and let you know my experience. Do you have any questions? 142 143 Mr. Wade Tolman 1699 Granite Dr. Pocatello, ID 83201. I came late to the party here. I 144 wasn’t aware this was an issue until last month, when this letter for public hearing was 145 published for May. At that time I wrote a comment letter, if you would like I would be 146 happy to read that into the record, if you have it I won’t bother the committee with that. 147 (It was in their packets). I would like to focus on a couple of things. Like I said I came 148 late to the party so things could have changed or they might not have. I will express my 149 concerns based on the knowledge that I have. I understand that Fremont County has an 150 ordinance 201001. He read it. With that being the case, it leads to the understanding and 151 the clear indication that the request at hand here would be contrary to the protective 152 covenants. I know that you are not here to enforce that, but the point of the matter is they 153 are asking for an opportunity to carry on a business that is contrary to the protective 154 convents as they were drawn up when the subdivision was built. We, most of us, since 155 there have been very few request similar to the one here tonight, the majority of us 156 purchased the property with the understanding that there would be no commercial use. 157 Therefore, we chose that subdivision with a very specific purpose. We know our 158 neighbors, we know who comes and goes, and we don’t need to worry about strangers. 159 We certainly don’t need to worry about the use to which this property is being made that 160 might be contrary to the purpose for which we purchased our property. We go to 161 Stonegate and when we go there we expect solitude and peace, we don’t expect parties. 162 So 22 people in one cabin, I am very grateful that we don’t live next door, but the point is 163 I live around the corner and one breach in the dike ultimately leads to a breach in the 164 dam. Therefore, I am strongly opposed to this request and I think in keeping with the 165 county’s own ordinance in defining commercial use it is clearly contrary to the protective 166 covenants of the subdivision. 167 168 Mr. Swensen said in your letter you say that the Stonegate protective covenants have 169 always precluded the use of property in this development for commercial use, including 170 the rental of any private residence or land. 171 172 Mr. Tolman said that was probably a bit of a stretch. He quoted from the CCR’s for 173 Stonegate. Specifically it says no commercial use, and by your own definition a rental 174 property is a commercial use. I can’t differentiate between a motel room and a cabin 175

5

rental. He explained this. I don’t think it is appropriate particularly where we bought our 176 cabins with the expectation that that would not be a practice or activity that would be 177 tolerated. 178 179 Mr. Swensen asked why Stonegate HOA doesn’t enforce that ordinance. 180 181 Mr. Tolman said we have the chairman of the HOA here to speak and he is on the list to 182 speak. Based on the knowledge that I have, they try very diligently to enforce that 183 covenant. That is one of the reasons why he is present here today, to make this statement 184 known and get the intention known that the enforcement is intended and will be 185 anticipated. The HOA of Stonegate is very active, we meet once a year in July. There 186 are many components to these protective covenants that are important to the residents 187 there, they are regularly and vigorously enforced to the extent that the HOA has the 188 capacity and funds to do it. We try to make our stands while we have the opportunity, 189 and this is one forum that has been given to us. We are here for that purpose. 190 191 Mr. Hathaway said he mentioned that 22 renters will have a bigger impact than 22 192 owners with visitors, I guess I don’t understand how this could be. 193 194 Mr. Tolman said well first off the owners won’t be there and then you run the risk that 195 there is going to be no control. Even with a motel there is someone in the office, he 196 explained. The owners aren’t anywhere around so there isn’t any control. That is one, 197 second of all, it is an issue of density. Most of the lots in Stonegate are at least a half of 198 an acre, some are an acre, and many are more. There is a density issue here. In one cabin 199 you have one family, it is different from having multiple families in a single cabin 200 surrounded by single family dwelling. It becomes an issue of population density. If 22 201 people come up with 22 ATVs at one location and start taking off in the neighborhood, 202 you can understand why that might become an issue. It is an issue of density and an issue 203 of control. Because owners are there and no one is there to enforce the rules of the 204 subdivision. 205 206 Mr. Hathaway asked if your HOA has those rules. 207 208 Mr. Tolman said yes, speed limits are enforced, the roadways are maintained and 209 enforced. The use of the roadways is defined. All of the protective covenants outline all 210 of that. It is very clear, even as far as pets are concerned. The fact that it specifically 211 indicates in the HOA’s agreement that there will be no traversing on private property. 212 These vehicles are authorized on the private roads of the subdivision so long as they keep 213 and maintain the speed limits as they are posted. We try to keep order, peace, and quiet. 214 All of this seems threatened if every other cabin in the subdivision could potentially 215 become a motel. 216 217 Mr. William Dillard 4514 Shadow Ridge Rd. Island Park, ID. I purchased my property 218 seven years ago and it was purchased for the purpose of a year round residence. The 219 covenants were allotted to me as they were to all the home owners. You sign for them at 220 the time of the purchase. You know what is in the covenants. Our covenants which were 221 enacted in 1997 haven’t been revised up until here recently on certain issues. The 222

6

covenants forbid transit rentals and any commercial activity whatsoever, along 223 restrictions in several other areas. As it was mentioned that the Fremont County zone 224 definition of a rental is commercial business with a permit. I feel confident, and am 225 strictly opposed to this. I feel surely that we will see the characteristics of the 226 neighborhood go down. We will see increased noises, property damages, etc. to the year 227 round residences. I do not think it is something that should be approved. 228 229 Dr. Byron Murray 4477 Stone Run, Island Park, ID. I have been a full time resident for 230 seventeen years. I am down the road and around from where the Richards have this 231 rental. The Richards are not residence of Fremont County and they don’t live in this 232 home, it is a rental. I brought the architectural plans and for the lay out of this, anyone 233 who looked at this would say it is laid out like a condo. This slipped by the AAC 234 committee. Right now I want to go back to a meeting of the Board of County 235 Commissioners on May 24th. On the 10th of May Mr. Cluff had received a letter from our 236 legal counsel and he knew what our rule was. In response to that on May 24, 2016 in the 237 boards meeting, Mr. Cluff said if a person wants to get a permit to a cabin the county will 238 permit it. It is my understanding that this committee makes recommendations to the 239 board. A month ago Mr. Cluff made that decision for you when he said, anyone who 240 came into this office and asks for a permit we will grant it. That is what he said, it is 241 right here in the minutes. Not only that he said that the county has no plan nor will we 242 enforce any violations of the rental agreement. Once they take the money go to the bank, 243 then it is up to the residence of Fremont County to handle this. I just paid my property 244 taxes $5000.00. I want to know when Fremont County is going to look out for the 245 welfare of its citizens. The issue tonight is that this is a real estate agent from Utah, 246 doesn’t live here, doesn’t live in that home, and they come up and stay elsewhere. It is 247 laid out as a condo. He read from the minutes from the Board meeting. 248 249 Ms. Ragotzkie said she would like to give him couple more minutes so he can finish. 250 The commission agreed. 251 252 Mr. Murray read again from the minutes of the board meeting. He said they need to take 253 this up to the board. It is my understanding that you make the recommendations to the 254 board but Mr. Cluff has made that recommendation for you. Tonight you guys need to 255 stand up on your hind legs and say we are not potted plants in the corner. We make the 256 recommendations to the board, and it may or may not be the same as what Mr. Cluff 257 wants. It is my understanding that this is your fiduciary responsibilities. This is my 258 home, there are 190 individuals who opposed rentals in this last go around. There will be 259 lawsuit after lawsuit because in our covenants it plainly states that any other homeowners 260 can sue another for violation of the covenants. Please I ask you use your discretion. I 261 would ask you to go up and look at this place and see if this is a typical cabin. A rational 262 mind would say this was laid out as a rental cabin. These out of state real estate agents 263 slipped in, built from the ground up a rental property, without the intent to live there. 264 This is a business. 265 266 Mrs. Crapo asked how many cabins and members of the HOA there are. 267 268

7

Mr. Murray said I think there are 276 lots. A little over 151 cabins built. There are no 269 rental cabins. 270 271 Mr. Nichols said you said it was designed as a condo that in and of itself is not our issue. 272 You can design and build a home anyway you want, so that is a moot point. You talked 273 about a rental agreement. I would like you to read Mr. Cluff’s first quote again please. 274 275 Mr. Murray read the quote again. In the earlier hearing, he stated the same thing. I am 276 not saying we want the county to enforce the HOA’s. 277 278 Mr. Nichols said it sounds to me like you are. We are bound by is it adequate, is it built 279 right, will it sustain renting. We don’t step into the HOA, if we did that then if you 280 wanted to change your covenants then you would have to have the county approve that. 281 282 Mr. Murray said what I am suggesting is this isn’t a cabin rental area. He stated that what 283 they are renting the cabin for and that they are making $75,000 a year on this. Is that 284 typical of a transit rental in the first place, and you’re going to give them a permit to do 285 that in the first place. It doesn’t matter if you give them a permit or not they are renting it 286 right now. What are you going to do about that? 287 288 Mr. Nichols said nothing there are a lot of them in the county that are doing the very 289 same thing. 290 291 Mr. Murray exactly and we’ll clean up the mess and whatever legal system it takes to 292 clean it up. 293 294 Mr. Nichols said that is a frustration for us. You said we shouldn’t be plants in the 295 corner, we are not plants in the corner. We know our fiduciary relationship and we are 296 serious about enforcing it. That fiduciary relationship puts a barrier on us that says we 297 can’t go beyond this point. We can’t go in and enforce your HOA’s or any other HOA’s. 298 You haven’t said one reason, our standards say is this building adequate, will the septic 299 handle it, will the water, is there enough bedrooms. 300 301 Mr. Murray said there were three garbage cans there for the last two weeks with the bears 302 out, which of you guys are up there checking on that. 303 304 Mr. Nichols said the planning and zoning doesn’t do that sir. 305 306 Mr. Murray said who does that in the county. 307 308 Mr. Nichols said I don’t know. 309 310 Mr. Murray said that is exactly my point. 311 312 Mr. Nichols said that is not the county. That is what I was trying to say in the beginning. 313 I know this is frustrating and emotional but we cannot enforce HOA rules. 314 315

8

Mr. Murray said that is not HOA that is the bear control for the State of Idaho. 316 317 Mr. Nichols said then call the county police to report that. You call the police and say 318 they are violating the law that is where that complaint goes. That shouldn’t be brought 319 up in this meeting. We can’t control the fact that some people who live in neighborhoods 320 are crummy, we can’t control that. You made some accusations tonight that I didn’t want 321 you to leave without us addressing. Mr. Cluff was absolutely right in what he said. If 322 someone comes in and wants a permit and they meet the county standards, we can’t tell 323 them no or they will sue the county. 324 325 Mr. Murray asked what is your role then. If the Richards come in and ask for a permit, 326 and you are going to give it to them, why are we here? Is this just a farce or are you 327 going to actually do something as a committee? 328 329 Mr. Nichols said we are going to do something and you may or may not like what we are 330 going to do. That was Mr. Cluff’s role to say this permit I want to go before the 331 commission. 332 333 Mr. Murray said why are we here if you guys don’t do something relative to what he said 334 in the meeting to the board on the 24th. 335 336 Mrs. Crapo said they haven’t heard this before have we? When you are talking about the 337 commissioners you are talking about the County Commissioners? 338 339 Mr. Murray said yes. 340 341 Mrs. Crapo said we have never seen this application before, this has never come before 342 us. We have never received any information other than an e-mail and this that we 343 received today. The thing that I read was that in September of 2015 Mr. Cluff denied it 344 because it was on a private road. 345 346 Mr. Murray said at that time Mr. Cluff was not aware that that ordinance was in the code. 347 Then the board went back, under the direction of Mr. Cluff to change that so that these 348 businesses can now be on our private roads. 349 350 Mr. Nichols said the HOA rules trump the county rules, but they have to be enforced by 351 the HOA because that is where the contract is. 352 353 Mr. Murray said make a decision not what Mr. Cluff has already told the Board a month 354 ago, if they come in here we are going to give it to them. To me that says this committee 355 right here has no standing. That is how I am interpreting that. 356 357 Mr. Nichols said I appreciate that, but I think you are interpreting that wrong. 358 359 Mr. Mike Skibo 4020 Bridger Run Island Park, ID. The HOA trumps the county? 360 361 Mr. Nichols said yes he explained. 362

9

Mr. Skibo said based on these rules shouldn’t this application be denied because we have 363 this in the HOA. 364 365 Mr. Nichols said no and he explained the county gives them a permit based on our rules 366 not the HOA’s rules. 367 368 Mr. Skibo asked if they have a fiduciary duty to enforce the rules that you are approving. 369 370 Mr. Nichols said yes. 371 372 Mr. Skibo said if a cabin has been rented for the past eighteen months and the rules have 373 not been enforced, how do we reconcile that? 374 375 Mr. Nichols said do we know that this has been going on and they don’t have a permit. 376 377 Mr. Skibo said my understanding is yes. 378 379 Mr. Nichols said if we know that one is being rented and they don’t have a permit from 380 us and we don’t know about it, there is nothing we can do about it. If this office finds out 381 they can refer it to the sheriff’s office. 382 383 Mr. Skibo said I am not going to reiterate what has been said. We still have a very strict 384 set of covenants and most of us moved into that neighborhood with the understanding 385 that it wouldn’t be used as transient rentals. We are an impassioned bunch that is why we 386 moved into that neighborhood. What is tugging at me is that the cabin has been rented 387 without a permit. 388 389 Mr. Nichols said to this point there is no permit for rental on this cabin. 390 391 Mr. Skibo said if they are going to rent it no matter what why issue a permit to do it. 392 393 Mr. Nichols said the that’s hard part is enforcement. 394 395 Mr. Skibo said I know you all have an impossible job. The one thing we need to take 396 into consideration is how do we enforce this if we are going to pay the money to permit 397 it. 398 399 Mr. Nichols said if you see something that is out of line then call the police on any 400 infraction. Tell them you expect some response and that you would like a call back on 401 what they have done within 48 hours. 402 403 Mr. Roy Lacey 13774 West Trail Creek Rd. Pocatello, ID. I have a cabin at 4445 404 Stonerun. As we look at this and as we move forward with this little problem, it is 405 basically the Richards cabin vs. the property owners of Stonegate. Our property rights 406 are being violated by rental cabins coming in. When we have all purchased our land and 407 built our cabins in an area where we were assured there was no transient rentals. This 408 goes back to Mr. Mike Vickers the fellow that developed it. I spent a lot of time with the 409

10

real estate agency and with him, they gave me the covenants and explained that to me. 410 We have an experienced realtor who is used to working with contracts and covenants, 411 buying a lot where they know rentals are not allowed and choosing to disregard that and 412 build a rental cabin. We could have bought a cheaper lot someplace else, we were 413 looking for some place with no rentals. We wanted families, we wanted to know our 414 neighbors, and we want to have control of what goes on. Some of the things that have 415 been going on since they have rented their cabin, and they have been renting it. I have 416 presented a complaint because of the rentals. Some of the things we have experienced 417 was the running of 4 wheelers up and down that back road, late at night zinging back and 418 forth. We have multiple people coming in using our roads, they don’t know the rules, 419 they don’t know it is 20 mph, they don’t know what they can and can’t do. We have 420 garbage left out. They disrespect our little forest, we pride ourselves in keeping our 421 cabins nice. This is the problem with the rentals. As I understand it the county doesn’t 422 issue licenses if it is against the HOA. You have said today that is not right, but part of 423 the application says to obtain a permit the applicant must be able to declare the 424 subdivision will allow this. Our subdivision does not allow this, so if it is on the 425 application it is falsified. 426 427 Mr. Jim Chapman 2426 Fairview Rd. American Falls, ID. I am the president of the 428 Stonegate HOA. I would be asked to be given a few more minutes to explain. This is an 429 important issue and it deserves to be talked through. I believe there is some confusion 430 between our property owners, Mr. Cluff’s office, our HOA, and the Richards. 431 432 Mr. Nichols asked if anyone on the commission has a problem with this. Decided to give 433 him 8 minutes. 434 435 Mr. Chapman said he would like to submit a letter from their attorney to the Richards and 436 some other documents. (Exhibit A- I). Mr. Cluff, in my opinion has been very 437 professional in doing his job. I appreciate that he didn’t make a recommendation because 438 I am not sure in this permit it is clear. I am hoping to make this clear for you folks 439 tonight. He read from the rental application, all of these statements they signed and 440 dated. You have a letter from our attorney telling them that our covenants don’t allow 441 renting. I think the grounds alone they have committed perjury on your application. 442 Unless the code has been change I think you do have the authority and the fiduciary duty 443 to reject this permit. He read from the code. You have a fiduciary duty to protect the 109 444 individuals from encroachment on their private property from their neighbors. He read 445 from the code again. He said ours covenants are more restrictive we do require greater 446 performance. He read the definition for abrogate. By issuing this permit you are 447 violating 1.08.010 of the code, by abrogating a private covenant. I am not an attorney, 448 we didn’t bring an attorney, we just brought people who live in a residential area and care 449 about where we live and want to follow the rules. I grew up in American Falls, ID where 450 you know the guy at the hardware store, and you give your word with a handshake. He 451 read from the code again. Ours are more restrictive therefore you should not abrogate. 452 We absolutely agree Fremont County shouldn’t enforce our HOA’s, we have taken steps, 453 we have Tim Hopkins, we have issued fines, and we will have a hearing for the Richards 454 if they choose to attend next month. We have every intention to stopping them. We do 455 not need your help, all we need you to do is to follow the code. He read from the code. 456

11

If it was incidental we wouldn’t be here. We don’t have a rental operating in Stonegate 457 other than the one that has been running without a license for the last eighteen months. 458 That will change the character thereof, this is your development code and the rules you 459 have. We aren’t asking you to enforce our covenants just enforce your code. He read 460 from the code again. I am a resident of Idaho and so are these people who have spoken, 461 the Richards are not residences. He continued reading the code. This is not a minimal 462 impact. So what is the purpose of this hearing? I submit to you that your job is to seek 463 out if this application is compliant and fits your criteria. I am here to help you see what 464 makes it uncompliant to your code. The Richards committed perjury on you application. 465 We notified them back in April that it is against the covenants, and yet they signed the 466 application saying it doesn’t restrict renting. The permit was denied and they just 467 disregarded your application and Mr. Cluff’s refusal to give them the permit. That is why 468 I have provided these papers, so you can read what a great time people have had. They 469 are advertising it from January throughout the year without a permit. They really don’t 470 have any consideration for our covenants any more then they have for Fremont County’s 471 rules and ordinances. That fact alone should disqualify this application from going any 472 further. Currently their cabin is rented out for the rest of June, all but three days in July, 473 and nearly every day in August. From the first of the year without a permit, they have 474 logged over 92 days or have them booked. I would ask any of you, if you were to go 475 home tonight and had a cabin that had a permit for 22 individuals, 5 cars, ATV trailers, if 476 you feel like that would change the character of your neighborhood . I am going home 477 tonight in 4487 Stone Run, that is where I want to retire. Again it isn’t the county’s job 478 to enforce the covenants that is my job. I am the president of the Stone Gate HOA, and 479 there was some implications that we are not active. We meet monthly or more so, we 480 have legal counsel, we have anACC committee, we gave a road committee, we have a 481 budget, and we are very active. We have no intention of drop this issue with the 482 Richard’s. We will stop them, I assure you if it goes to the Supreme Court, we will take 483 it as far as we have to. We don’t need you to do that, we need you to make them follow 484 your codes, and hold their feet to the fire when they violate your ordinance. Believe me 485 if this is denied they are going to continue to rent. This is who we are, we are just people 486 who have come here tonight, myself, the 188 residences I represent, and the few people 487 who have shown up here and passionately spoken about this issue. We aren’t talking 488 about a couple who took their life savings and bought their dream retirement home and 489 are having a hard time as residences of Fremont County paying the bills. They are 490 licensed real estate agents, there are plenty of places in Island Park that allow renting. 491 They chose ours in spite of the covenants, they had the knowledge they knew. They went 492 a head and built this cabin, rented it in violation of our covenants and in violation of your 493 ordinances. I would hope that you would take the time to look through these codes that I 494 have pointed out to you. I know that it is 305 pages, I have spent a lot of time studying it. 495 I don’t expect you to know them all that would be unreasonable to ask of a volunteer like 496 you. It is my responsibility to bring this to your attention. I would be more than happy to 497 answer any questions. 498 499 Mr. Nichols said he was in a courtroom with Judge Moeller, and he said to both sides, 500 give me some information in the law that will allow me to rule in your favor. I appreciate 501 your testimony, you pulled in part of the code because we don’t remember it all, we try, 502

12

but we don’t. Our job as a commission, at any hearing, is to say if there is a point in the 503 code that we have missed, please point it out to us. Thank you for your testimony. 504 505 Mr. Rowe asked if he has submitted a copy of the CCR’s. 506 507 Mr. Chapman said I can, he explained what he submitted from the CCR’s. If you would 508 like I can get you a full copy of the covenants. 509 510 Decided they didn’t need a full copy. 511 512 Mr. Chapman said if needs be they can get a hold of their attorney. I think that the best 513 decisions are made when we fully understand everything that is involved. 514 515 Mr. Nichols asked if there was anyone else that wanted to comment. He explained that 516 the applicant could have time to rebuttal. 517 518 Mr. Parrish I am not from Fremont County and by george tonight that seems to be a sin. I 519 sure hope they are more welcoming in Fremont County. I have been here lots of times, 520 my mother owned a cabin in Fremont County and I loved it up there. To hear so many 521 people say that they’re from Utah or they aren’t from here is disconcerting to me. This is 522 part of the United States not being from here, shame on you folks. First of all we are here 523 to approve a license, a license that if it had been for 15 people or less it would have 524 already been approved. We are not here to adjudicate whether Stone Gate’s CCR’s 525 restrict this. Since there were so many questions on that I will speak to it. I have spent a 526 lot of time looking at this issue. The language that is stated in the CCR’s attempting to 527 restrict the renting of these properties is informative. First of all I will address one thing 528 that was mentioned by Mr. Chapman. Mentioning that you all have a responsibility to 529 enforce encroachments on private property rights. The encroachment on property rights 530 is by the HOA against the Richards. He has it exactly backwards. In this country we 531 have the right to use your property however you want to use your property. That is the 532 fundamental right of property right in this county. You can do whatever you want with 533 your property. If you want to rent it out that is certainly one thing you can do. 534 Encroachment upon that right would be denying a person’s right to use their property. 535 He has that interpretation exactly backwards. He explained. That should be stood 536 against. The person has the ability to give away their rights, and they have the right to 537 sign that right away. That is not what the Richards have done in this case. They have a 538 statement that says you cannot use your property for a commercial use. The property 539 rights say that you can’t use your property for a commercial use, or the CCR’s say that. 540 The CCR’s were written in 1997 or 1999 depending on who you talk to. They come in 541 let’s say someone who bought the property seven years ago, but the county passed an 542 ordinance in 2010 a year or two after I bought my property and redefines commercial as 543 someone who rents their property as a transient use. My agreement that I bought and I 544 signed my agreement before 2010 said commercial then, and now you guys come back 545 and say now commercial is renting. If you buy a property seven years ago and this line 546 says no commercial use and the county says a few years later what commercial use 547 means, then that is now what it meant. That is not how that works. I would also like to 548 point out, it is important to this county, why they passed this ordinance, why they 549

13

redefined what commercial use was. He read from the code. They have said that the 550 code says it is commercial therefore they can’t do it, but before 2010 it was alright. 551 Looking at your county ordinance, yes Fremont County defined commercial as transient 552 rentals, for the purpose of providing a community benefit. He read from the code. The 553 purpose of passing this in the county was so more people would rent. So that they could 554 then regulate the rentals. We want to have the ability to make sure it is safe, etc. He read 555 from the code. This is what the purpose of the ordinance was. The purpose to change the 556 definition was because they wanted the cabin to be rented. He read from the code again. 557 The ordinance was passed to have the Richards do what they are doing. He gave 558 examples. So you pass laws that let people like Mr. Cluff say that it is what it needs to be 559 for the county. You went up there and verified what it is going to accommodate what 560 you are going to do. The HOA has rules and they are good rules, and they already exist. 561 Mr. Chapman said this could go to the Supreme Court, this has already been before the 562 Supreme Court. He talked about Pine Haven and what the Supreme Court said. It was 563 said they brought an attorney, if all of those folks were against me I would bring an 564 attorney also. They mentioned 4-wheelers and garbage cans, the Richards have for 565 possible rentals in the future have situations where garbage can will be cleaned and those 566 types of things. The HOA already has rules addressing those issues. I will address one 567 other item. Mr. Chapman claims the Richards committed perjury. The Richards filled 568 out in good faith your application and did exactly what they were supposed to do. Who 569 says whether you can rent or not, the Richards looked to find out. There are with you on 570 file opinions from three attorneys on whether these CCR’s can restrict renters. They look 571 at this form, they asked attorneys to look at this language, they say you are fine to rent. 572 We will definitely get those in the record. He said they all said they could rent. 573 574 They talked about an e-mail he sent that Lisa Benson will get to the commission. 575 576 Mr. Nichols said those opposed could find three attorneys that would say that they cannot 577 rent. 578 579 Mr. Parrish said they are wanting to say that the Richards committed perjury. They asked 580 if they were doing the right thing, and were told they were. 581 582 Mr. Nichols read from the application. They said they don’t restrict that, but it sounds 583 like it does. 584 585 Mr. Parrish said what is the restrictive document or the entity it restricts and what does it 586 restrict. Myself and many other attorneys in the State of Idaho looked at it and said that 587 language does not restrict rentals. The HOA is in here saying the language does restrict 588 rentals, but the question is are you going to be able to look at the language and say it does 589 or doesn’t restrict rentals. This isn’t the forum to look at this. Who determines if the 590 CCRs restrict it or not. In this case it is going to be a court of law somewhere down the 591 road. The Richards in good faith under direction of multiple attorneys who said you are 592 in great shape, signed the application. The attorneys said you have a free property use 593 right, that CCR doesn’t take your right away. If you have a lot in Stone 594 Gate your property value is going to go down. It was stated that they can get $70,000 a 595 year for this rental. The laws of supply and demand stay if you have an asset you can 596

14

rent for $70,000 a year and all the sudden you take away that ability to do that, that thing 597 is now worth less. 598 599 Mr. Nichols said that doesn’t hold water because value is based on the esthetics and the 600 location. If you are in a commercial area yes, but if you are in a residential area I wonder 601 if you what you say holds water, he explained. 602 603 Mrs. Richards said again that is an old school type of thinking. Now people want their 604 assets to work for them. Many people will say what will it be worth in two years, what 605 will it be worth in five years, can I rent it if I go on and do a different home. It is a very 606 sought after thing and value. And Stonegate has become a stigmatized area because of all 607 of the bickering people have moved out. You work with your neighbors and talk things 608 out, people want to get out and yet they can’t sell. You can ask the realtors in the area, 609 less have been sold in Stone Gate then in other areas where you can rent. Especially, 610 when you have Island Park which is a vacation destination. Another one of the things is 611 that people need to recognize is there are other ways people need to use your properties. 612 She gave examples. I wanted to say that we have been kind of blasted and blamed for 613 everything in the subdivision. All we have done is try to follow the rules. I called the 614 State of Idaho to find out the rules. They did not tell me about the rental permit thing. 615 Then I found out I needed a rental permit. The first thing I did was come to the county 616 and try to get it. I have jumped over evert single hoop to try and obey the laws. I asked 617 the county what am I supposed to do. Here I am and you guys keep denying me and 618 giving me more hoops to jump through. They lead me to believe that I could go ahead 619 and just do it, and they would get me the permit. 620 621 Mr. Nichols asked if they ever said that. 622 623 Mrs. Richards said no they didn’t say it in those words, but they were reassuring to me. I 624 was just trying to do what we were supposed to do. We got the legal opinion. We have 625 some beautiful plans. It is a home that anyone would want to live in, it is not a condo. It 626 is a second home you come to recreate in. I have been told that people, owners who are 627 there all the time, are doing things and yet who is to blame, the Richards. They lie, they 628 have 1000’s of snowmobiles in their place. Everything we have done is to try and obey 629 the rules. There has never been garbage out there. I feel we have been a little bit 630 targeted. We see people go up and down the road with a little sled, I am glad they are 631 enjoying themselves. I don’t have a problem with them going up and down our road 632 when there is snow on it. The value doesn’t decrease especially in Island Park, the value 633 increases. We have tried to do things by the law we have not tried to side step. I am a 634 law abiding citizen. We are ready to sell because we have had it. It would be joyous to 635 us not to have to deal with this kind of antagonism. 636 637 Mr. Waite asked if the CCRs in affect when you purchased this property. 638 639 Mrs. Richards said yes, but the Supreme Court of Idaho has ruled that that doesn’t take 640 away rental rights. 641 642

15

Mr. Parrish said the covenants that allow rentals were in place, and those covenants are 643 still in place. Those covenants allow rentals period. The issue is and according to the 644 Supreme Court the issue is, residential type activity if that is what is happening at that 645 property, meaning of the person is up there using the property in the same way an owner 646 would use their property it is allowed. He gave examples. That is where we get the 647 definition that these covenants allow rentals. The covenants when she bought them 648 allowed rentals. The point was stated how dare you have twenty people there. I’ll bet a 649 bunch of people have more than twenty people up there. 650 651 Mr. Nichols said no one has ever argued that point. 652 653 Mr. Parrish said they are using it the same way someone else would use it if they were 654 charging. 655 656 Mr. Hathaway asked when she bought this property did they buy it as a single family 657 residence or as a rental. 658 659 Mrs. Richards said they built it as a single family residence but also to rent it when they 660 weren’t using it. 661 662 Mr. Hathaway said some of the property owners said before they purchased the property 663 they were told these lots were for individual homes and not for rental properties, what 664 that told to you? 665 666 Mrs. Richards said we were told, we have legal opinions, the Supreme Court has ruled 667 that commercial is not, and that is what we were told. That is when we purchased the 668 property. 669 670 Mr. Hathaway asked if there were other people who told you that they were for single 671 family use or did you have that explained to you? 672 673 Mr. Parrish said I am going to answer that more broadly. There are families up there and 674 mine is one, and I believe the Richards are in this case, were never told they could not 675 rent the property. We bought for the purpose, and the Richards have said the same thing, 676 to use it for family reunions on a regular basis, I think some of my family has more than 677 22 people in their families, and also for the ability to rent. We were not told we couldn’t 678 rent it. A good number of folks who came up here and said they were told that they 679 couldn’t rent. There are a great number of other folks who were not told that. It is not 680 like you have to go through an approval process with the HOA, it is with the real estate 681 agents. The real estate agent wants to sell a property to you, and they say yes go use the 682 property the way you want to use it. 683 684 Mrs. Richards asked why would we have done that if we knew it would come to this? 685 We wouldn’t have. Why would we build this expensive cabin and do that if we thought 686 we were in violation, to see how long they could get away with it. We wouldn’t do that 687 nobody would. 688 689

16

Mr. Hathaway asked if there were other areas you considered purchasing property in that 690 you would have been allowed a cabin rental? 691 692 Mrs. Richards said absolutely. 693 694 Mr. Parrish said Stone Gate allows cabin rentals. 695 696 Mr. Hathaway said that is your interpretation of what the HOA says so you can see where 697 we are coming from. 698 699 Mr. Parrish said we are not here to adjudicate that question, you don’t want to be party to 700 that lawsuit. 701 702 Mrs. Richards said we purchased thinking we were okay. Why would you do that if you 703 didn’t think you were okay, you wouldn’t. I want to be done with this. It has just been a 704 nightmare. I hope these people are happy. They can have their environment. I don’t 705 want to be there. I want out. I want to go out with the right that I came in with. 706 707 Mr. Parrish said think of the type of person they would have to be to come in and say 708 screw these rules. It is not these folks and that is not what is going on here. They did 709 exactly what they were supposed to do. You have an ordinance that says if you have 710 more sixteen people you have to come have a public hearing so they have come and 711 subjected themselves to this. 712 713 Mrs. Richards said they have met all of the requirements to have our permit. We have 714 jumped over all the hoops. We would like to leave tonight with our permit. 715 716 Mr. Nichols said he is closing this portion of the public hearing. He said some of you 717 said that we shouldn’t follow Mr. Cluff just because he says something, you are wrong. 718 Mr. Cluff is the administrator for Fremont County and he understands the law. We take 719 his recommendations very seriously. Sometimes we rule in opposition of his 720 recommendations but it isn’t very often. It isn’t a rubber stamp and we aren’t plants in a 721 corner, each one of us is individuals and we think. If we agree with him we rule with 722 him, and if that doesn’t sit well with you we apologize but we don’t back down. We will 723 make a decision of some kinds tonight. He asked Mr. Cluff if he has read the CCR’s for 724 Stone Gate. 725 726 Mr. Cluff said he doesn’t read the CCR’s. 727 728 Mr. Nichols said we don’t know that they do specifically deny rentals, but we have every 729 other owner there saying they do. We don’t know what happened at the closing when the 730 Richards bought the property. There is one point that really sticks out to me, he read 731 from the application again. If they answered that incorrectly, in my opinion they have 732 violated the application. If they answered that knowing that there were restrictions, that 733 is not good. 734 735

17

Mr. Cluff explained that Mr. Nichols is correct. It is not because we are dealing with 736 CCRs, it is not our place to determine if one party says they can’t and the other party says 737 they can. The purpose of those questions and the initials and signature are to make it 738 clear to the person that they are doing this in good faith, and if they don’t do it in good 739 faith and we discover that don’t, we revoke the permit. The county doesn’t have the 740 proper venue to analyze the CCRs and say you don’t have the right to rent. There is a 741 dispute there that those parties are going to have to resolve. When a judge has said that 742 they do or they don’t, then the county can take action on what the judge says. He 743 explained. He explained why the county doesn’t look into the CCR’s. The rules we 744 follow have to go through final approval of the board, and if the rule doesn’t meet that 745 standard, then we can’t act upon it. CCRs don’t meet those standards. That is why they 746 have to determine in a meeting between them and a judge. He explained. 747 748 Mr. Hathaway asked if the permit were issued based on incorrect or incomplete 749 information and you later find out it was issued under those circumstances is it revocable 750 at that time? 751 752 Mr. Cluff said yes. 753 754 Mr. Hathaway said so the certificate of occupancy would be invalid. 755 756 Mr. Cluff explained that a certificate of occupancy for a cabin is for a residential use. 757 The cabin rental permit would be invalid. 758 759 Mr. Hathaway asked if it is the same occupancy regulation for a cabin rental and a single 760 family residence. Is there a difference in those two? 761 762 Mr. Cluff said no, a cabin rental is a residential use. 763 764 Mr. Hathaway said but the permit would be invalid. 765 766 Mr. Cluff said yes. He explained the purpose of the cabin rental permit. I really regret 767 some of the things that happened before I came to work for the county. One of them is 768 the 2010 ordinance characterizing rentals as a commercial use, not because there is 769 anything wrong with that if the county wanted to make that characterization. But that 770 language is out there and it confuses the issue. In 2011 the county adopted a new 771 development code that repealed the 2010 ordinance. Even though that is still on the 772 record, it is no longer valid and the meaning in the 2010 ordinance doesn’t control any 773 more. The cabin rental ordinance in the 2011 code is designed to treat cabins rentals of 774 thirty people or less as a residential use, as a home based business; which we characterize 775 as residential. Now I know that there are lots of people that feel that these aren’t that 776 they disturb the neighborhood. We aren’t the only place dealing with that or enforcement 777 problems. He explained our standards on this ordinance. 778 779 Mr. Swensen said what bothers me is in our packet we have a permit dated 11/12/15 780 stating that the Class II permit for a transit rental was denied, and we have evidence 781 before the commission tonight that rentals have continued going on. That bothers me that 782

18

that is going on with a denied permit. I don’t know if there is anything that we can do 783 about that, but it bothers me. 784 785 Mr. Cluff said yes there is a long discussion we could have about that, it would be better 786 if we did that on a different night. It would be better if the question on whether this 787 permit complies with the ordinance was not mixed up with the question of how the 788 property was used prior to the permit being approved or denied. Let’s stay focused on if 789 this permit application meets the standards. We will talk about enforcement separately. 790 791 Mr. Nichols asked if there is a provision in the county that says if someone does this 792 without a permit there will be a fine. 793 794 Mr. Cluff said yes there is a fine, he explained. 795 796 Mrs. Crapo asked if they approve this or any cabin rental permit who goes to police this. 797 798 Mr. Cluff said they do an inspection prior to this meeting. 799 800 Mr. Swensen said going back to the permit denial, there is a list of criteria that you point 801 out in here. Were all the criteria in there met except for the private road? 802 803 Mr. Cluff said the application meets the standards of the ordinance from my stand point, 804 but that is for you to determine. 805 806 Mrs. Crapo asked if it is a private road then they maintain it, do all the snow removal, 807 everything? 808 809 Mr. Cluff said yes. 810 811 Mr. Nichols said there was a lot of discussion about the county abrogating the rules. 812 813 Mr. Cluff explained this. 814 815 Mr. Nichols asked what impact does it have on their decision tonight that they have been 816 renting for the last 18 months. 817 818 Mr. Cluff said none, he explained. He said they may want to look into an ordinance that 819 says if they are in violation then they can’t get a permit. He talked about how they 820 typically handle people that are not in compliance. He said the bottom line is you have to 821 decide if it complies now. 822 823 Mrs. Edlefsen said it has been mentioned a couple of time the purpose of the ordinance 824 1.35, she read from the code, and I am looking at the findings of facts and I noticed that 825 those nebulous things are not mentioned in there, are they being considered. 826 827

19

Mr. Cluff said purpose statements are helpful to explain why an ordinance is put the way 828 it is, they are not controlling in the same way the standards the ordinance adopts. He 829 explained. 830 831 Mrs. Edlefsen said what you have in this list are the standards and what I just read was 832 the purpose statement. 833 834 Mr. Cluff said yes. He continued explaining. 835 836 Mrs. Crapo asked if they have met all the criteria. 837 838 Mr. Cluff said yes, I believe they have met everything. 839 840 Mr. Nichols said it was denied for one reason, the road. 841 842 Mrs. Crapo said I know that these people want an answer, but I feel that I need some 843 more time and we need more discussion. 844 845

Mrs. Crapo moved to postpone the decision to a date certain. Motion died 846 due to lack of a second. 847

848 Discussed the motion. 849 850 Ms. Ragotzkie said she appreciates Mr. Cluff explaining the differences between 851 purposes statements and standards. What we heard tonight was there is a track record of 852 the Richards renting their property and there being some real problems. We heard a lot 853 of evidence tonight about how because of the rental activities, private property is being 854 affected and, the neighborhood character is being affected. I feel this is a little different 855 from early on in the whole cabin rental process in 2010, they said well we think this is 856 going to happen. However, in this situation they have been seeing this happen between 857 12-18 months already. That concerns me that this is not meeting the purposes of 858 Appendix I. The CCR’s are not our role and I don’t think that is where the issue is. I am 859 not comfortable approving this permit. 860 861 Mr. Swensen said he is not comfortable approving it either, because of everything we 862 have heard that has been going on. Coming back to the permit being denied and them 863 still rented the cabin. On the other hand if they have met all the standards for a cabin 864 rental, then I don’t see how we can deny them the permit. 865 866

Mr. Swensen moved to approve the DAMR cabin rental at 4037 South Gate 867 Island Park, ID #16-029. Motion died due to lack of second. 868

869 Discussed the motion and enforcement. 870 871 Mr. Swensen said they need to make a decision either approve, deny, or postpone it. 872 873 Discussed what to do, was stated this approval doesn’t go to the Board. 874

20

875 Ms. Ragotzkie moved to deny the cabin rental permit #16-029 on the basis 876 that issuing this permit does not comply with Appendix I under 1.35. Mr. 877 Waite seconded. All in favor, Mrs. Edlefsen, Ms. Ragotzkie, Mr. Rowe, and 878 Mr. Waite. All opposed Mrs. Crapo, Mr. Swensen, and Mr. Hathaway. 879 Motion carried. 880

881 Discussed the motion. 882 883 Mr. Nichols said there would be a 5 minute break. He called the meeting to order again 884 at 8:45 p.m. 885 886

4.3 Public Hearing – Continuation – proposed amendment – Appendix W (#16-014)

Mr. Nichols explained this hearing is a continuation. He said they are not here tonight to 887 discuss a specific application. They are here to clarify the guidelines for CAFOS. He 888 explained. He said the same rules apply. 889 890 Mr. Cluff said he isn’t going to repeat the information from last time. He said they have 891 an administrator’s report and he went over that report. 892 893 Mr. Nichols opened the public hearing. He explained how the public hearing would 894 work. 895 896 Mr. Jeff Patlovich P O Box 486 St. Anthony, ID, representing All Idaho Land 897 Consulting. I am not here representing the City of Island Park. I also represent Tom 898 Brooks, a property owner in the area. Just to reiterate what you said, this is a text 899 amendment to a specific proposal not about a specific piece of property. You asked 900 about testifying only on its compliance or noncompliance with the comprehensive plan. I 901 disagree with the staff. I don’t think it does comply with the comprehensive plan. It does 902 say should, I completely agree with that, but I wonder why the county put in the word 903 should. My testimony is, I think you need to stop where you are and go back and 904 reevaluate the comprehensive plan, decide if this is really where you want to be, and what 905 you really want to do. If you want to proceed tonight, I would ask you where in your 906 record do you have a list of land use compatibility analysis. Where is your land use 907 analysis on how CAFOS would affect surrounding land uses? Property rights go both 908 ways, they go with an applicant and also the adjacent neighbors that may be adversely 909 affected by whatever the land use is. Where is the analysis on ground water on CAFOS 910 in general? Not site specific but in general in the upper Snake River plain drainage. 911 Have you looked at CAFOS and their effect on the ground water, let alone the surface 912 water? I also believe that the proposal before you the text is incorrectly written. For 913 example Mr. Cluff has testified that he has put it in specific rural zones. I am not going 914 to try and quote them because I don’t know them all, you have a lot. Still in section 915 1.04.01, the property zone doesn’t prohibit CAFOs. That to me says they are allowed 916 everywhere. How can you say they are only allowed in rural zones and yet you still have 917 that statement in there? The text writing is flawed, but first and foremost you need to 918 reconsider your comprehensive plan. This is a big issue, even if you allow it only in the 919 rural zones, that is a tremendous amount of acreage in this county. 920

21

Mr. Hathaway said I still have a question about you wanting us to regulate ground water 921 that is clearly not our responsibility. It is the state’s responsibility isn’t it? 922 923 Mr. Patlovich said no sir. I would go over to section 67.65.08 of the state statute which is 924 the land use planning duties, he read from the code. I disagree with you, I understand this 925 is the state’s responsibility, but from a comprehensive plan point it is one of the 926 requirements for you to look at or to say why it is not important. I agree it is the state’s 927 responsibility, but from a planning stand point it is yours. 928 929 Mr. Jerry Stenquist, Attorney for the law firm Moffat Thomas, 901 Pier View Drive. 930 Idaho Falls, 83402. Two points, first the proposed amendment doesn’t comply with the 931 comprehensive plans. He handed the commission copies of the comprehensive plan. He 932 read policy thirteen section one. He said on the map the purple are the industrial spots. 933 There aren’t a lot there admittedly. What the comprehensive plan says that is where it 934 should be. If you are making a zoning amendment that is where those people who spent a 935 lot of time thinking through this issue, where they wanted the industrial uses. They took 936 evidence and thought about it a lot granted that word should does provide a little bit of 937 discretion. But at the same time there is this rule, no interpretation should ever read out 938 to destroy any clause in any legal and binding language. The amendment does do that. If 939 you pull out the map again, the amendment allows for CAFOS to be in any rural area. He 940 referred to the map and said that is any brown area and the green are public lands, but any 941 brown that is significant. The administrator kept using the word out in the middle of 942 nowhere, rural living zones is not in the middle of nowhere. That is where subdivisions 943 are that is where houses are, people live there. Second point is that there I have looked 944 through every other county and how they regulate CAFOS and they have regulations 945 tailored to their counties. They all have more than state bare bone regulations. I don’t 946 think it is appropriate here to go to a bare bones, just state regulations. Other counties 947 don’t do that and I would like to see an analysis on why it would be appropriate in this 948 case. Everyone wants in Fremont County, it is a beautiful county, and you think there is 949 nothing that you can do to tailor CAFO regulations to this county. It seems odd to me. 950 951 Mr. Nichols said we are in the position right now that we can’t regulate CAFOS our 952 hands are tied, because it is so messed up in the existing code. This is an effort to try to 953 regulate them, and it can be changed in the future. Our effort tonight is to not to goof it 954 up, but to put something in there. He explained what the current code says. This isn’t the 955 constitution, but we are trying to get it right. We are trying to establish some CAFO rules 956 that give some direction to the county, property owners, and to businesses who may want 957 to start a CAFO. Our effort isn’t to do nothing, but to do something. 958 959 Mrs. Crapo said we have looked at other counties and what their CAFO restrictions are. 960 One we looked at was Jerome County’s and how condensed their dairies are, and we 961 don’t have that in Fremont County but they go by the state regulations also. 962 963 Mr. Hathaway said I am having trouble wrapping my head around when you say there is 964 a big general area where these CAFOs can be placed. That this is to general, yet we 965 allow that throughout the comprehensive plan for every other type use from residential 966 use to any other use. With the caveat it meets planning regulations and guidelines, but is 967

22

subject to review. Which is exactly what is being proposed here tonight. So I don’t 968 understand why you feel that it doesn’t complies with our comprehensive plan. 969 970 Mr. Stenquist said there is two ways you want to regulate zoning. There is geographic 971 zoning where you say certain things go here, and then there is the permit process. I admit 972 that permit process is in your hands. You can look at that in a case by case basis and that 973 is great. We can’t disregard that first part. He explained. 974 975 Mr. Jed Jacobs 4963 N 3000 E Sugar City, ID 83448. On the Ag consensus, USDA 976 website, agriculture is important to the economy of Fremont County. Unlike many areas 977 farms and ranches are going up in Fremont County. The number of farms has gone up by 978 12% about a third of that in land and pasture. He continued reading the statistics from the 979 website. We need a clear ordinance that lets ranchers and feeders know where they can 980 feed and pasture their stock. I feel like Mr. Cluff has done a great job in recommending 981 an ordinance in accordance with the state law. That is what we are here asking you 982 tonight, to be able to adopt the state law so we have somewhere to go. We are saying if 983 we get a CAFO and it isn’t in compliance then it is denied. We are not talking about the 984 requirements of the CAFO we are talking about what we can do as a farmer and rancher 985 before you need a CAFO. The state lays down a real strict law. We need something to 986 go off of and right now we don’t know what it is. I grew up on a ranch and I want my 987 kids to grow up on a ranch. I know if we have 250 head and that is the max, they are not 988 going to grow up on a ranch. We don’t regulate how many acres a farmer farms, we 989 don’t regulate how many customers walk into Maverick each morning, but we do 990 regulate on how they operate and in which order. I don’t feel that the rancher should be 991 the only ones regulated. I realize that there are guidelines and I agree 100% with the state 992 on that. But we need room to grow and we need a guideline that we can follow. We 993 need to know how many crops we need to grow to feed our cattle. We can’t go on not 994 knowing every day if we are going to get shut down because somebody thinks it should 995 be 250. Back then when they made the rules, 250 head was probably a big number, but 996 as much money as it takes to operate now days in equipment and everything else 250 997 isn’t that many. If you are going to have 250 you might as well have 500 because it takes 998 about the same amount of money. 999 1000 Mr. Nichols said it needs room to grow. Do you feel that Appendix W gives you room to 1001 grow or does it restrict you. 1002 1003 Mr. Jacobs said I think it gives you lots of room to grow, at least we know how far we 1004 can go before we have to do a CAFO. Right now if it is 250 or 300 who knows that 1005 doesn’t give a lot of ranches who have more than that or that number any room to grow. 1006 I know ten ranches, right off the top of my head that would be shut down tomorrow if 1007 they can’t run more than 250 head. I feel like it will give us a lot of room to grow. 1008 1009 Ms. Billy Siddoway P O Box 704 Driggs, ID. But of course I hail from the beautiful 1010 town of Egin. My family has been ranching in Fremont County since 1886. We run 1011 sheep, elk, bison, and horse here in Fremont County. As Mr. Jacobs said agriculture is 1012 certainly an important industry here. It is a significant percentage of the economy in 1013 Fremont County. We do need some clarity on the CAFO ordinance. A lot of the 1014

23

counties in eastern Idaho need a little help in this area. Jefferson is one of the counties 1015 that have followed the state definitions for the most part. Our ranch was involved with 1016 that because that is where we have our lambing operations. Some of these issues were 1017 really critical in helping us figure out how many animals we could keep in a certain 1018 location and for how long in order to get that lambing done. We need clarity on how 1019 many head we can have, how long they can be confined, where and what zones we can 1020 have that confinement, and the conditions that constitute that confinement. This 1021 Appendix W gives us that; we know that if we have under 1000 cattle, but once we get 1022 1001 we need to comply with the permit requirements. We know that the duration is 90 1023 days, so people who have to bring their livestock in to feed them for a season aren’t going 1024 to come under this rule if they get them in for thirty days. Also we know that we are in 1025 rural and industrial zones. I know that the people who were in on the comprehensive 1026 plan know that that whole area out by the junipers isn’t going to be a subdivision any 1027 time soon. I think that the expectation is that that is the kind of area where we would 1028 have confined or concentrated feeding. Not over there by the airport, I think if we herded 1029 20,000 sheep in there people would be pretty freaked out. I do have one suggestion, and 1030 this deals with the traditional winter feeding, and I have written this up. She read the 1031 write up. (Exhibit A) She explained winter feeding and why they feed where they feed. 1032 1033 Mr. Luke Davis 1942 E 400 N St. Anthony, ID 83445. I have been asked to attend this 1034 meeting on behalf of the Fremont County Farm Bureau Federation, which I am a board 1035 member of. We have talked about this at length, and we would like to ask the 1036 commission to adopt this. We feel it is a huge step in the right direction to set some 1037 regulations and monitor these activities. We feel it would protect the county from 1038 possible litigation that may cost the taxpayers’ dollars downs the road. ISDA, EPA, and 1039 DEQ all play a role in CAFOs. It has been brought up that the requirements may not be 1040 strict enough, if you feel it is not who are you going to call? None of us are going to run 1041 out there and be an expert, we are going to use the DEQ and the EPA who are already in 1042 place to regulate these things at the state level. Idaho rules governing beef cattle feeding 1043 operations are administered by the ISDA as well as inspections and enforcement 1044 authority. They do all those things for us; we don’t have to do anything at the county 1045 level if our regulations mirror theirs. Counties hold the authority to regulate siting of 1046 CAFOs. I feel this still leaves the commission with that authority to look at those on a 1047 site by site basis. We feel that Appendix W also addresses the zoning issue brought up at 1048 the last meeting, as far as them being in the rural zones where they belong not in the 1049 industrial areas. The state can play an advisory role in the siting of these, they review the 1050 site and they are there to help you guys if there are issues when it comes to siting. 1051 Adoption of Appendix W appears to be consistent with the state code. 1052 1053 Ms. Janet Keefer 588 N 2800 E St. Anthony, ID 83445. I would like to call your 1054 attention to a couple of things. CAFOs are not allowed in all zones, correct, but they are 1055 going to be allowed in all three of the rural zones and industrial zones. If you look at the 1056 demographics for Fremont County you will find that approximately 60% of the 1057 residences are in the rural zones. So you kind of have to be careful what you are going to 1058 be doing in these rural zones. You may be asking these citizens and other citizens to bear 1059 increased cost for road maintenance due to the year around travel of the industrial 1060 operations. You may be asking the citizens to pay for an increased land field fees to 1061

24

accommodate carcass removal. You may also be asking some citizens to take a decrease 1062 in their property values. These amendments are not just about cows. They are for 1063 dairies, pigs, chickens, and sheep. Most of these CAFOs are operated by corporate agri 1064 businesses which doesn’t have a tie to Fremont County. She read from the DEQ on the 1065 siting of CAFOs. You can do more than what the state allows. She continued reading. 1066 I would ask you to really study this one mile distance, where only people within this area 1067 can testify at that hearing. The residence that lives further than a mile could be affected 1068 by increased traffic and odor, but would not be able to comment at that. I ask you to look 1069 at a couple of things before you make a ruling and think about adding in more specifics. I 1070 happen to agree with Mr. Jacobs, I don’t think we should limit agriculture, but I do think 1071 we should protect the citizens of Fremont County. 1072 1073 Mr. Nichols said you were concerned about increased landfill fees. The owner of the 1074 feedlot will pay the fee. Appendix says they can’t be buried or destroyed on site. The 1075 testimony within one mile is to the board not us. They can increase that, but we can’t. 1076 He explained. 1077 1078 Mr. Cluff said you could if you wanted, you could recommend to the board to change that 1079 one mile. 1080 1081 Mr. Nichols said so we can recommend that to the board but they don’t have to accept it. 1082 1083 Ms. Keefer said I think you can do something with that one mile radius. 1084 1085 Mr. Nichols said we can recommend but we can’t force them. 1086 1087 Ms. Keefer said the county can make things more restrictive but not less restrictive. 1088 1089 Mr. Nichols said we can. 1090 1091 Mr. Ty Nedrow 1401 N 3125 E Ashton, Id 83420. In interest of time I will make it short. 1092 I have lived here all of my life. At that time on my side of the river where I lived there 1093 were seventeen family farms. Every one of those farms had between 25-75 milk cows 1094 besides a small herd of beef cattle. Every one of those cattle lived right around the well 1095 all winter long, several of those herds wintered on the Snake River. We have come a 1096 long ways from those times. He explained the work ethic of farm/ranch boys. But today 1097 in that same area where those seventeen family farms were, and they all had a herd of 1098 pigs and chickens, and they didn’t destroy the environment. Today there are three cattle 1099 ranchers that encompass the same area and there are actually less cattle on that area. If 1100 you want to start buying your beef from China then lets regulate us down to 250 head a 1101 piece, because in today’s world you will starve to death trying to raise only 250 head of 1102 beef. 1103 1104 Mr. Nichols asked how he feels about the amendment. 1105 1106 Mr. Nedrow said I think the amendment is headed in the right direction. I think those 1107 opposing it don’t realize where they are trying take us. 1108

25

1109 Mr. Brody Harshbarger 1000 N 4581 E. Squirrel, ID. I think that this is going in the right 1110 direction. I was at that meeting years ago when they made the rule of 300 cows, and I 1111 objected to it right then. One of the fellows in front of me opposing it, his brother had 1112 more than 300 head of cattle and I told him he was putting his brother right out of 1113 business. When they said blood sweat and tears, that issue got pushed through that night 1114 because there were bigger things to talk about that night. I want to make sure that you 1115 know that this was in my opinion pushed through. When I heard those numbers again 1116 last fall, I thought I am out of compliance sometimes. Our own federal government isn’t 1117 in compliance in Fremont County, he explained. I think this is the better way to go on 1118 this. These people talked about having 200-300 head of cattle that just isn’t economic. 1119 One other thing about this CAFO is it is not economically viable to have a dairy in 1120 Fremont County. There isn’t one in Ashton and there were fifty before my time, in St. 1121 Anthony there are two. My point being there is only a handful of them and in ten years 1122 they won’t be here. If someone wants to put a CAFO and is man enough to make it work 1123 then let’s accommodate that. We have the Right to Farm Act and it is spelled out in 1124 there. I know you could say a feedlot is industrial but it is still agriculturally based. As 1125 these people come in and hire lawyers to represent them, they have cattle on their 1126 property as we speak, I bet money they are also out of compliance with what they are 1127 doing. They are paying agricultural property taxes, so that is why those cattle are on their 1128 property. They are sliding under the radar not paying the county the taxes they should. 1129 They complain about the increase of taxes on road and bridge. Who do they think pays 1130 those taxes, I do. I have an 800 acre piece of ground I live on and I own every bit of it, 1131 but when I brought my cattle home I was out of compliance. That is hypocrisy to me that 1132 they can fly under the radar on an Ag exemption and then say my property is worth this 1133 much and I don’t want cows by it. It is not a good balance. I think this Appendix W is a 1134 wonderful thing and I don’t think we should over regulate ourselves. 1135 1136 Sheryl Hill P O Box 449 Ashton, ID 83420. Mr. Cluff made the comment does evidence 1137 exist that the state standards are not adequate. You could easily flip that comment and 1138 ask does evidence exist that state standards are adequate. I would argue that there is not 1139 evidence for either. We don’t collect the data that is necessary to answer those questions. 1140 Please don’t be lulled into thinking everything is okay just because evidence doesn’t exist 1141 to support the argument one way or the other. She talked about Ashton’s water problem. 1142 One of the things that you could consider is the source water assessments that are written 1143 for every municipal drinking water system. She explained this. So that is just one thing 1144 that I would have you think about. 1145 1146 Mr. Nichols closed the portion of the public comment. 1147 1148 Mr. Nichols said Mrs. Siddoway brought up changing the wording, would we have to 1149 have another public hearing. 1150 1151 Mr. Cluff said it is not a significant change to have a new hearing. 1152 1153 Mr. Nichols read from Mrs. Siddoway’s suggestion. 1154 1155

26

Discussed the suggestion. Discussed how to add this. 1156 1157 Mr. Cluff said he doesn’t have very much. There have been CAFO ordinances 1158 overturned in court in other states because the local county adopted standards without a 1159 rational basis for those standards. He explained. He said this is our reason for relying on 1160 the state standards. The state has standards that they have adopted; I think we are entitled 1161 as a county to rely on the state and their standards. In the absence of evidence either for 1162 or against those standards, by relying on the state at least we have a basis. He explained. 1163 If you want to do something else, you need to have an evidentiary basis, or you risk 1164 having that challenged and overturned. Maybe the state doesn’t have a good basis for 1165 their standards, but that is their problem. They have adopted a standard and we are 1166 presuming they have done their work. We need to be able to say here is why we are 1167 doing it. That applies to the things like the ground water and the nitrates. If we are going 1168 to do something different we need to have a basis for doing it different. It also applies to 1169 that one mile rule; you are simply adopting what the state has said. We don’t have a 1170 reason not to; if you say three miles you better have a reason for not saying five miles. He 1171 explained. You can rely on the state, they said a mile and you better go with that. 1172 1173 Mrs. Crapo said they did change the wording and we did have a circle one mile in 1174 diameter from the center of the pens and we changed it to one mile from the distance of 1175 the CAFO boundary. 1176 1177 Mr. Cluff said in terms on one mile for public comment, if you want to say one mile isn’t 1178 far enough, you better be able to say why. Other than that I don’t have much to say. I 1179 think the analysis in the staff reports gives you enough . And about that I would like to 1180 say the comprehensive plan is yours and the boards to interpret. He explained. Your 1181 interpretation of the comprehensive plan will hold up. That is your call to make. 1182 1183 Mrs. Crapo said in order to testify it said they have to live in Fremont County. 1184 1185 Mr. Swensen said it says their primary residence. 1186 1187 Mr. Cluff stated it is in 1.05.040. 1188 1189 Ms. Ragotzkie said on 1.05.040, do we have the prerogative to adjust that to a larger 1190 radius. What if we put a letter “a” under there, but then we have to spell out exactly why. 1191 1192 Mr. Cluff said I think you need to be able to say why two miles is the right distance, or 1193 three miles. He explained. 1194 1195 Ms. Ragotzkie said when the commission reviews the application; I think we ought to 1196 recommend that people up to two miles out are heard. 1197 1198 Mr. Cluff said I think you need to have a standard of who gets to testify and who doesn’t. 1199 Whatever that is I think you need to be comfortable and stick with it. Later on if it isn’t 1200 working then we can readdress it. But doing a case by case recommendation wouldn’t be 1201 a good idea. He gave an example. 1202

27

1203 Mr. Nichols closed the public hearing. 1204 1205 Mrs. Crapo said just confirming on 1.04 we took out blank acres. I just wanted to make 1206 sure we took it out. 1207 1208

Mr. Rowe moved to recommend that the board approve the proposed 1209 amendment Appendix W permit #16-014 with the change to 1.03.040 as 1210 recommended by Billy Siddoway, wording attached, and with the findings of 1211 facts attached by staff. Ms. Ragotzkie seconded. All in favor. Motion 1212 carried. 1213

1214 1215

5. Other Business – Larry Armburst – discuss reclamation on Atchley gravel pit –

POSTPONED

1216

6.1 Administrator’s Report - None

Decided to meet twice in July on the 11th and 25th. 1217 1218 Mr. Nichols adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m. 1219