ELMORE COUNTY

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

War Memorial Hall (American Legion) 515 East 2nd South; Mountain Home, ID 83647
Telephone: 208-587-2142 ext 502 or Fax 208-587-2120

MEETING
WEDNESDAY, 7:00 PM SEPTEMBER 29, 2004

Chairman Nettleton called the meeting to order, and established a quorum. Members of the Elmore County Planning and Zoning Commission present were Chairman Nick Nettleton, Vice-chairman Al Sobtzak, Patty Osborn, Courtney Hiler, Doug King, Todd Waite and K. C. Duerig. Also present were Attorney of Record Phil Miller, Senior Planner Bonnie Sharp, and Administrative Assistant Hermila Kuannark.

PUBLIC HEARING

BERNIE BROWN DAIRY
Chairman Nettleton stated there was a request to disqualify a member from the commission. P. Miller asked Clifford Brown if they had any additional legal authority on this matter. Clifford Brown stated Idaho law is vague, he could not find anything. P. Miller stated there is no clear law, it is not addressed in the bylaws or ordinance or Local Land Use Planning Act. He looked at case law regarding bias, the case decision stated if the member can make a decision based on the evidence presented, then okay. He asked Commissioner Duerig if he was comfortable meeting that standard. K. Duerig stated yes, he was. Chairman Nettleton stated Commissioner Duerig will remain part of the proceedings.

P. Miller stated as a reminder that any decision made tonight entitles the aggrieved party to appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. The Board will hold a denovo hearing and accept new testimony.

Chairman Nettleton stated that they accepted written public testimony into the record on September 1, 2004. Bernie Brown was permitted to review the written testimony and submit response before the deadline on September 17, 2004, which he did. His response is accepted into the record. Chairman Nettleton closed the public hearing.

REGULAR MEETING
NEW BUSINESS
1. BERNIE BROWN
Chairman Nettleton stated they will address and vote on each of the nine standards for the conditional use permit:
1. Will, in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by the Official Schedule of District Regulations for the Zoning District involved;
Discussion: none. Met standard by unanimous aye vote.
2. Will be in harmony with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance;
Discussion: K. Duerig stated he did not believe this was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan land use objective #10, because it is too close the Mountain Home Air Force Base.
Met standard by majority vote: 5:2, dissenting votes: T. Waite and K. Duerig
3. Will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in such a way as to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity; and that such use will not change the essential character of said area;
Discussion: none. Met standard by majority vote: 5:2, dissenting votes: T. Waite and K. Duerig
4. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses;
Discussion: A. Sobtzak felt this would change the general characteristics of the area. K. Duerig stated he was concerned with the bird traffic, felt this would be disturbing. P. Osborn stated the use was agriculture, and density is small. She felt a facility of this nature would insure there would be no population encroachment on the base. C. Hiler stated she did not think the base would expand towards the dairy. Existing use is just desert.
Met standard by majority vote: 4: 3, dissenting votes: T. Waite, A. Sobtzak, and K. Duerig.
5. Will be served adequately by available public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer, or that the person responsible for the establishment of the proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services;
Discussion: A. Sobtzak stated the Idaho Department of Transportation may ask for Highway 51 to be widened. They could meet this standard with the condition the developer meet costs if the state requires. Chairman Nettleton stated same with Glenns Ferry Highway District.
Met standard with conditions by unanimous vote.
6. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the County;
Discussion: K. Duerig stated he felt 15,000 trucks a year would warrant a traffic study.
Met standard with conditions by unanimous vote.
7. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment, and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors;
Discussion: K. Duerig stated he sees potential there for health problems. DEQ has information on lagoon nutrients, but not on airborne pathogens. Odor does affect the quality of life. C. Hiler asked if those studies were dry scrape or flush. K. Duerig stated it was based on number of animals not on the system. A. Sobtzak stated his concern was with birds, and the noise affect on cattle.
Met standard by majority vote:5:2, dissenting votes: T. Waite and K. Duerig
8. Will have vehicular approaches to property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public or private roadways;
Discussion: none. Met standard by unanimous vote.
9. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature or major importance.
Discussion: none. Met standard by unanimous vote.

Chairman Nettleton had the Commission address each of the following standards for new CAFO facilities individually. The Commission voted unanimously that each standard has been met.
CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR NEW FACILITIES (Ordinance 2003-4 Article VII):
A. General requirements:
1. The New CAFO shall be within an area zoned Agriculture.
a. Area is zoned Agriculture A
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
2. The New CAFO Facility Area shall be located a minimum of one and one-half (1-½) miles outside the defined Area of Impact adopted pursuant to I.C. § 67-6526 of any incorporated municipality within Elmore County.
a. Facility Area is located approximately over 2 miles from the Area of Impact
b. Land Application Site (not part of the facility area) is over 1.5 miles from the Area of Impact
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
3. A New CAFO Facility Area shall not be located within any aquifer recharge Community Development Overlay as adopted and defined by the Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance.
a. This is not located within the Community Development Overlay
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
4. The New CAFO shall comply with and not be in violation of any federal, state or local law.
a. None known at this time.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
5. An Applicant shall not begin construction of a New CAFO prior to approval of the CAFO Siting Permit.
a. Construction has not begun.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
6. A New CAFO shall provide a pest abatement plan if it is required by any governing agency.
a. No agency has submitted a letter for the record requesting a pest abatement plan.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
7. A New CAFO shall comply with IDAPA rules governing dead animal movement and disposal.
a. Per application the dead animal removal method will be a rendering plant.
b. A rendering plant is acceptable under IDAPA 02.04.17 with the conditions the pick up site is screened from public view, in a dry area, and not in a water runoff or drainage area, and also any runoff from the holding area must be contained.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.

B. Animal Waste:
1. The New CAFO shall comply with the terms of its NMP for Land Application.
a. See NMP., compliance not known at this time.
2. The New CAFO shall be in compliance with all environmental regulations, requirements and permits imposed by state or federal law or any regulatory agency.
a. Not known at this time
3. Liquid animal waste shall not be applied on snow, ice or frozen soil.
a. Addressed in NMP.
Meets all three standards by unanimous vote

C. Site Setbacks:
1. The location of Animal Waste Management Systems, corrals, wells, and septic systems shall conform to all applicable rules, regulations and specifications as required by any regulatory agency.
a. Not known at this time.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
2. Silage, potatoes or any feed product resulting from the ensilage process shall be located at least seven hundred feet (700’) from any existing residence not belonging to the owner or operator of the CAFO.
a. Application states there is no residence within 1100’ of the CAFO Area (Including Land application site).
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
3. All agricultural buildings, feed storage areas, feed bunks or feed racks shall be setback a minimum of one hundred feet (100’) from property lines and public rights of way.
a. See Topo Map. Feed areas are located by scale approximately 100’ from public right of way and property line.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
4. Lights shall be placed and shielded to direct the light source down and inside the property lines of the New CAFO. All direct glare from the CAFO lights shall be contained within the CAFO facility area.
a. Not known at this time.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
5. No New CAFO Facility Area shall be approved and/or located within one and one-half (1 ½) miles of a parcel of property in a residential zone or a platted, approved or developed subdivision or an unincorporated townsite that has been platted for five (5) years or more as of the effective date of this ordinance….
a. The CAFO Facility Area is exactly 1.5 acres from two platted subdivisions.
i. Desert Edge Subdivision: Platted in 1977, lots in this subdivision are approx. 28acres.
ii. Ashwood Subdivision: Conditional Use Permit is granted, but acreage next to the 1.5mile boundary has not been platted.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
6. The Animal Waste Management System shall not be located or operated closer than eleven hundred feet (1,100’) from a residence belonging to someone other than the Applicant, or be located and/or operated closer than three hundred feet (300’) from property lines….
a. Per application there are no residences within 1100’
b. Site plan indicates the wastewater (lagoons) will be approximately 300’ from SW Division Road.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
7. No Animal Waste Management System shall be located and/or operated closer than five hundred feet (500’) from a domestic well.
a. Nutrient Management Plan indicates a 100’ setback.
b. Per the Topo map, the nearest domestic well would be located approximately 1400’.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
8. No Animal Waste Management System shall be located closer than three hundred feet (300’) from a public right of way.
a. Site plan indicates the wastewater (lagoons) will be approximately 300’ from SW Division Road.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
9. No New CAFO Facility Area shall be approved and/or located within one and one half (1 1/2) mile of the Snake and/or Boise Rivers or within a floodplain as set out on the most recent Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map for Elmore County.
a. CAFO Facility Area is about 6 miles from the Snake River, and is not in the floodplain.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.
10. Aquaculture CAFOS are exempt from the setbacks contained herein except for the storage of solid waste on the land.
a. Does not apply
11. The setbacks contained herein shall not apply to Land Application.
a. CAFO meets setback requirements.
D. Exemption to Site Setback…
a. No exemption or variance appears to be required.
Meets standard by unanimous vote.

Commission had general discussion on possible conditions the Commission would like to see.

C. Hiler motioned to approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit and Confined Animal Feeding Operation for a dairy, with the following conditions:
1. Applicant will be required to have an odor management plan.
2. Applicant will have an aggressive bird abatement plan to minimize the number of birds on premises.
3. Operator will not hold the United States Air Force liable for any negative impact on production or any other dairy concerns due to flyover and/or jet noise.
4. Operator will bear fiscal responsibility for any upgrade or construction necessary to handle increase in traffic as determined by the state and local jurisdictional highway districts or departments. Applicant will enter into a memorandum of understanding to this effect between the applicant and each entity which will consent. Such copy of memorandum will be on file in the Growth and Development Office.
5. Applicant will abide by all regulations required by all state, local, and federal agencies.
6. Irrigation well will be protected to the satisfaction of the Department of Water Resources.
7. Any required water right transfer for the CAFO shall be completed prior to construction of the CAFO.
8. Facility will remain in compliance with Zoning and Development Ordinance and Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Ordinance 2003-4.
A. Sobtzak seconded.
Roll call vote as follows: Chairman Nick Nettleton - yes, Vice-chairman Al Sobtzak - yes, Patty Osborn - yes, Courtney Hiler - yes, Doug King – yes, Todd Waite – no, and K. C. Duerig –no.

Motion carried by majority.

MEETING ADJOURNED

_____________________________________
Nick Nettleton, Chairman Date

Attest:_________________________________
Bonnie Sharp, Director Date