Fremont County | minutes | meeting 2025-08-13 | BOCC Aug 13 2025 Public Hearing source: https://fremont.municipalcodeonline.com/book/content?type=minutes&name=BOCC_Aug_13_2025_Public_Hearing BOCC Aug 13 2025 Public Hearing FREMONT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING Ensign Hospitality Appeal Hearing South Fremont High School Auditorium 855 N. Bridge Street, St. Anthony, ID 83445 Wednesday, August 13, 2025 5:00 PM Present for the meeting was: Commissioners Blair Dance, Rick Hill, and Mark Chandler Also attended by: Civil Attorney Blake Hall, Deputy Clerk Kim Fletcher, Planning and Building Administrator Tom Cluff, Planning and Building Planner Sara Bowersox, GIS Manager Jacob Farnes, and Bailiff Chuck Kunsaitis Civil Attorney Blake Hall called to order the Appeal Hearing to the Fremont County Commissioners of the Ensign Hospitality Appeal, file #25-002 of the denial of a Class II permit for a Guest Lodge, file #24-063. He is the County’s Civil Attorney, and he has been asked to serve as the Hearing Officer for this proceeding. He welcomed everyone and explained the procedure for the meeting. Mr. Hall discussed the purpose for the hearing. Mr. Hall asked Deputy Clerk Kim Fletcher if the hearing was properly noticed. Ms. Fletcher stated that it was. Mr. Hall asked if the appellant was present. He asked if they filed the original appeal, and received notice of this hearing. The appellant answered yes to all questions. Mr. Hall asked the Commissioners if any of them had any conflict of interest with this hearing, or if they have had any ex-parte communications about this hearing or the property. Commissioners have no conflict of interest, and have had no communication about this hearing or the property. Mr. Hall stated the Commissioners have been presented with all of the past and current written comments about this hearing. They will be marked as Exhibit 1. There will be no need for anyone to testify and read their written comment in today’s hearing, as there has already been time and opportunity for these comments to be reviewed by the Commissioners, and this would only create a duplication in the record. Mr. Hall discussed the process of the remainder of the meeting. Our Planning and Building Administrator Tom Cluff will be allowed 15 minutes to review his Staff Report. Following him, the Appellant has been allocated a total of 30 minutes to make their presentation. This time will be divided; they intend to use about 20 minutes initially to make their case, and reserve 10 minutes for their rebuttal after the Public Comment portion of the hearing. After the Applicant makes their initial presentation, the meeting will be opened for Public Comment. He asked those that wish to comment to clearly state their name and address so we have it as part of the record. He asked that everyone be respectful, and not make anything personal. Applause and boos are not appropriate. Four minutes will be allocated for each person to comment, and no one will be allowed to donate their time to another commenter. After everyone has had the opportunity to comment who would like to, the Appellant will be allowed the remainder of their time for rebuttal. The Commissioners are not likely to make a decision tonight on these proceedings. They have 60 days to make a decision, so they will take the matter under advisement, and within 60 days they will make a decision based on testimony and their interpretation of the Land Use Planning Act, the Fremont County Ordinance that governs this matter, and the evidence that is provided in this hearing today. Mr. Hall noted the Commissioners reserve the right to ask questions of Staff, the Appellant, and/or any of the Public at any time during these proceedings. Mr. Hall turned the time over to Planning and Zoning Administrator Tom Cluff to present the staff report. Mr. Cluff gave a brief overview of the Staff Report binder that was given to the Commissioners before the hearing, how it is set up, as well as a run through of the information in each tab. Commissioners have been provided with the appeal report, Ensign Hospitality’s appeal, written comments from the previously scheduled and then cancelled hearing, as well as the written comments that were collected for this hearing. They have the decision made by P&Z and their Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Decision, the minutes from the November 9th, 2024 hearing as well as P&Z’s deliberation before reaching a decision about Ensign’s Class II permit. There is a Staff Report for that hearing, as well as the comments received for the hearing on November 9th. The standards of review will help the Commissioners identify some of the rules they will need to apply to the decisions they may need to make as they deliberate. A summary and analysis of P&Z’s decision has also been provided; as they deliberated, they were concerned about the compatibility of Ensign’s project with the surrounding land uses, impacts on wildlife, and the definition of a “guest lodge.” They then denied Ensign’s application. Also provided in the binder is a summary and analysis of Ensign’s appeal; since they are here to present their appeal, he did not review this portion of the binder, although the appellant did state that P&Z was wrong about the guest lodge and asked that their Class II permit be approved. Additional analysis was provided, which includes some of the key issues of this appeal which is “What is the definition of a ‘guest lodge?’” and “What is the difference between a ‘guest lodge’ and a ‘hotel?’”. This analysis provides Staff’s definition of these terms, P&Z’s definition of these terms which led them to make the decision that they made, as well as Ensign’s definition of these terms, and why they believe P&Z are wrong. The last part of the binder is next steps and staff recommendations. Commissioners will conduct today’s hearing and hear public comment. They’ll review the comments from today’s hearing, the written comments and all of the materials presented here and on the record, and then they will deliberate with each other and their legal council. They will need to try to resolve disputed facts and decide if P&Z was correct to find that Ensign’s project was not a guest lodge and therefore not allowed in the Rural Base zone. They’ll need to decide what a “guest lodge” means to them, and explain why they have come to that conclusion. Then they will direct Staff to prepare written explanation of their decision in Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Decision. Staff also provided an addendum in the binder about decisions that may be helpful to the Commissioners in their deliberations. Mr. Hall turned the time over to Ensign Hospitality for their presentation. Jared Nelson is from the law firm, Dorsey & Whitney in Boise, and their address is 101 S. Capital Blvd Suite #1100, Boise, Idaho. He is representing Ensign Hospitality to appeal the decision of the Planning and Zoning Commission as it relates to the preliminary application of their Class II permit for the hotel to be built as a guest lodge in a rural base zone. There are 3 points of the Commissions decision he wants to address. The first was that P&Z felt the proposed development was outside the character of uses in the surrounding area. The second was that the proposed development would not protect wildlife in the surrounding area. And the third was that the proposed development wasn’t consistent with public perception of a “lodge” in Island Park. He discussed the term “guest lodge” which is an expressly permitted use within the rural base zone and is listed in the Fremont County Code as a commercial use. There is no specific definition in Section 10 for how large a guest lodge can be. The proposed development is for a hotel. Ensign is not trying to hide the definition of “Hotel” behind “Guest Lodge”; they intend to build a hotel which is well within the guidelines of the code and fit within the zone. A guest lodge is something in addition to a hotel. A “Resort” is a broader term which offers more destinations and services, and can include the term “Lodge”. Something can be 2 things at once. A “Lodge” is also defined as a rustic structure typical or reminiscent of the historical view of the area, and offering overnight visitor accommodations. These structures may include dining areas. A guest lodge is intended to be for commercial use, and not as a home-based operation, such as a bed and breakfast or an AirBnB. “Guest Lodge”, while not specifically defined in Section 10 of the Code, is defined in the code as a commercial use, is synonymous with a “hotel”, and matches the rustic aesthetics of the surrounding area. He asks the Board of Commissioners reconsider that the term of “guest lodge” does fit within the terms of our county code and the use of the rural base zone they would like to build it in. He addressed concerns about how the development will interfere with the protection of the wildlife in the area. They have been in communication with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game about these concerns. The rural base zone has an open space requirement for a reason, and the proposed development meets this open space requirement. Wildlife is being taken into consideration by the code by that open space requirement. There is nothing within the rural base zone requirements that require the preservation of wildlife; that provision is a goal of the comprehensive plan, which is important, but doesn’t codify to a rural base zone. The protection of the wildlife alone is not a reason in itself to deny the application. Lastly, he addressed the surrounding uses. There is nothing in the rural base zone requirements that requires their development to match the surrounding area or uses, nor are there requirements in the Class II permit that require them to match the surrounding area or uses. Neighboring parcels have various businesses near this property. There is a towing company right across the street, as well as other overnight accommodations and residences nearby. There is nothing in the code that states that Ensign has to meet what the public perception of “guest lodge” needs to be. The code is the code. This is a permitted use within the zone. Ensign is not attempting to rezone the land, or attempting to make it something that it is not. On behalf of Ensign Hospitality, he requests the Commissioners reverse the decision made by the P&Z Commission. Commissioner Hill asked what was meant by “plain meaning” in their documentation about what Guest Lodge means versus what a Hotel means. Mr. Nelson explained that in this context, what he meant by “plain meaning” is that in reviewing the Fremont County Code, it is very clear, or “plain” what a guest lodge is to him; it is for commercial use, not a home-based use, not a small bed and breakfast or AirBnB type operation. Also, the term “lodge” seems to be intended to be synonymous with “hotel” according to the code. He feels if you are looking at all of these things together, the plain meaning of a guest lodge is to be a hotel. Mr. Hall opened the floor for public comment. He reminded everyone about the purpose of this portion of the meeting and what comments would and would not be appropriate. Everyone will have 4 minutes. Time cannot be given to someone else. PUBLIC COMMENT: Richard Vause, 3561 Rock Creek Ln, Island Park, Idaho. Mr. Vause challenged the comment about not being required to protect wildlife in the area. Our code states it is required to protect fish and wildlife in the area. He has done some research about guest lodges; most have at least 7 rooms, but no more than 20, and most don’t provide a lot of services. This proposed plan isn’t even a hotel, but a complex. There will be the 132-room hotel, housing for 25 employees, 3 to 5 houses, a spa, a restaurant, a bar, and a convention center. There are already 1100 short term rentals in Island Park that aren’t rented all of the time, we don’t need more rooms. The Island Park waste water system already can’t handle more rooms. The average person uses 100 gallons of water per day. A 132-room hotel would put more strain on the water system. There have already been boil orders in Island Park because of the number of people in the area. The needs of the many are more important than the needs of the few. This isn’t needed. A guest lodge is a guest lodge, but this is a hotel complex, and it does not meet the definition of our county code. Commissioner Dance stated that the boil orders in Island Park were due to private systems that failed. Mr. Vause understands, but it still affected all of them, and at the last hearing they were told that our current wastewater system would not sustain another project this size. The homes and businesses currently on the sewer system are overwhelming it. Nothing has ever been mentioned about Ensign putting in a sewer system of their own, which means they would likely tap into our sewer system putting 13,000 gallons a day into that system. Angie Illum, 3524 Bull Moose, Island Park, Idaho. Ms. Illum has 35 years of experience in hospitality. She has managed hotels and guest lodges, and they are different. A hotel is anything larger than 20 rooms and 15 bathrooms. A guest lodge is anything smaller than 20 rooms and 15 bathrooms. The largest guest lodge in the country only has is Timber Creek Lodge in Fort Lyle, and only has 13 rooms and 17 bathrooms. It does not have employee housing, a spa, or a restaurant. Nothing has changed since the P&Z Commission denied this application. Nowhere in the code for rural base zone is hotel listed as an allowed use within the zone. Guest lodge is listed, but it isn’t defined, and there is no use outlined within the development code at all. This application is inaccurate and should not have been heard as published. They identify several times within their documentation that they intend to build a resort hotel, which is also vastly different than a guest lodge, or even a hotel/motel. According to our code, there is no confusion on this matter. Jan Brown, 1870 Saint Clair Road, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ms. Brown ran a guest lodge. She was a year- round resident of Island Park from 1982 to 2000. She was part of the Land Use Advisory Committee that helped P&Z create the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code between 1990 and 1992. She also sat on the P&Z commission for Island Park and helped write code guidelines with the county for commercial use along Hwy 20 in Island Park (Island Park Guide to Commercial Development.) This was intended to aid those who wanted to build commercially in visually sensitive areas. In that code, this project would have immediately been prohibited. Under the current code, a guest lodge is not equivalent to a hotel. On page 56 of our code, they are listed as 2 separate uses and do not seem to be interchangeable or else they would not be listed on 2 separate lines. She doesn’t feel it can be assumed that they are interchangeable. Elaine Winegar, 3686 Bills Loop Road, Island Park, Idaho. Ms. Winegar is opposed to any development on the flats. The commercial developments that were there have been there for many years. Some were conditional use permits. She is upset that this meeting wasn’t held in island park. This proposed permit isn’t the correct use. It isn’t a lodge, it is a hotel complex. The aquifer and the animals need to be left alone. She doesn’t want Island Park to be another Park City. She hopes the Commissioners will really consider what is being done here. Leanne Yancey, 753 N 3100 E, Chester, Idaho, and 5174 Shawna Drive, Island Park, Idaho. Ms. Yancey discussed the development code and the proposal made by Ensign for this project. The scale and scope exceeds the 15,000 square foot limit. Rural Base zoning doesn’t allow this scale of development. They didn’t define their proposal as a guest lodge. At their original hearing, they defined it as a hotel 3 times. They didn’t define it as a guest lodge in their original application. It wasn’t changed to “guest lodge” until they filed their appeal. Fremont County doesn’t have a category or definition for a guest lodge. Ensign itself is using the Fremont County Code definition of a hotel for their project, and failed to define it as a guest lodge, if that is what they intended. Rather, they stated they “intend to build a resort hotel with residence, and employee housing in an area commonly known as the flats in Island Park.” She feels P&Z rightfully denied this application based on code and policy, and urges the Commissioners to uphold their decision. Teri Ehresman, 3304 Lariat Road, Island Park, Idaho. Ms. Ehresman stated this application is out of place if they are to be held by the same standards of hotels/motels. Being allowed to request a Class II permit rather than a conditional use permit within commercial zones, we are being asked to allow less restrictions in rural zones which are usually designated as ag and low impact development. Other developments should not be considered in any rural zones in island park, let alone on the flats. The ability to regulate a conditional use permit versus a Class II permit is very different. On July 10, 2024, a letter was sent to Mr. Hall with explaining concerns that a hotel wasn’t an allowed use in a rural base zone with a Class II permit. On July 17, 2024, 7 days later, the developer sent an email to the Planning Administrator changing the name from the Flat Rock Hotel to the Flat Rock Lodge. It seems the developer is aware of the conflict, and supports the attempt to reclassify the resort hotel as a guest lodge. A name change doesn’t change the nature of the development. The application doesn’t comply with Code or Comprehensive Plan. She asks Commissioners uphold decision of P&Z. David Bloxham 4534 Cobblestone, Island Park, Idaho. Mr. Bloxham urged the commissioners to deny the application based on previous comments. It doesn’t fit the Comprehensive Plan. It is a large-scale project. P&Z denied it and he doesn’t see any reason to change that decision. He hopes Commissioners will hear the constituents in Island Park and be transparent in their decision. Jon Bodine, 4768 Caribou Drive, Island Park, Idaho. Mr. Bodine stated the proposal being brought forward is dishonest. They proposed it as a resort hotel. When they were confronted with the fact it doesn’t fit in the code, they called it a lodge. Just because someone interprets our code how they want to interpret it, doesn’t mean they can make things fit by changing words. He encouraged the Commissioners to tell them no. Sally Hiserman, 4458 N. Big Springs Loop Rd., Island Park, Idaho. Ms. Hiserman is an attorney and knows how to read code as part of her job. Our county code is very clear that this complex would not be allowed in the rural base zone. It would be allowed in a commercial zone. The wildlife situation in that area is also an issue there. We have several varieties of birds that live and breed in that area. If we allow 1 hotel to build there, it will create a snowball effect and developers will want to come in and build their hotels or other developments there leaving us in a situation where we can’t get that open space back for our wildlife. Matthew Hively, 801 Main Street, Ashton, Idaho. Mr. Hively works with the Henry’s Fork Foundation. Their mission is to conserve the world class trout fishing in the Henry’s Fork and in the watershed. They do engage in land use matters if development may threaten the water supply. On behalf of the Henry’s Fork Foundation he encourages the Commissioners to also deny the application because hotels and guest lodges are not the same, should not be treated the same, and allowing them to be treated the same within a rural base zone could potentially threaten the watershed and water quality in the area. Nelson Ishiyama, 2790 S Pinehaven Drive, Island Park, Idaho. Mr. Ishiyama owns a fishing lodge in Island Park. He has also been president of a company that owned 300+ room hotels in Australia and New Zealand, so he knows the difference between a lodge and a hotel. The development code is very clear that a hotel/motel isn’t allowed in a rural base zone. Rural Base is the most restrictive of the commercial zones and only allows bed and breakfasts, cabin rentals, and guest lodges. The Rural Conservation Zone again only allows bed and breakfasts, cabin rentals and guest lodges, as does the Rural Living Zone. A hotel/motel is only allowed in the 4th most restrictive zone, which is The Rural Urban Transition Zone. There is no choice but to deny this appeal and affirm the decision made by P&Z because Ensign’s case hinges on calling their development a guest lodge rather than a hotel. Justin Barnard, 4050 Flat Rock Club Road, Island Park, Idaho. Mr. Barnard discussed the difference between a resort, hotel, and a guest lodge. Resorts are very large, while guest lodges are much smaller. Just putting a resort in a scenic location doesn’t give a developer the right to call it a guest lodge. The term guest lodge is being blatantly misused simply to fit within zoning uses, but this project is a guest resort. This is not a mistake, it is a deliberate misrepresentation. Approving this would undermine our zoning ordinances within the comprehensive plan, and urged the Commissioners to call this development what it really is, a resort, and hold it to the correct standards it deserves. Brandy Lehman, 425 Juniper View Ave., St. Anthony, Idaho. Ms. Lehman feels everyone in the county who travels to and from Island Park knows that highway is dangerous. There have been measures taken to try to make the highway safer, but she has concerns that if this resort is built, traffic would increase and the danger would continue to increase on the highway. She discussed concerns about the impacts such a large development would have on the landfills and sewer system, as well as our law enforcement, ems, fire department, and our search and rescue. Our school facilities are already not adequate. None of our facilities are adequate. There is employee housing is available at Mack’s Inn. It is very small. Ensign is here from Utah and they want to create adventure for people from out of town, but it will strain our resources. Suzanne Hoberecht, 5425 Nez Perce Dr., Island Park, Idaho. Ms. Hoberecht stated Henry’s Lake Flats is unique and special. She doesn’t feel that Ensign’s attorney argued very well that their plan fits into our county code. She doesn’t see any benefit to having this development, to the community or to the county as a whole. She worries about the impact that this kind of development would put on our emergency services, which is already strained. She asked the Commissioners to please vote no. Karey Hanks, 463 N. 1800 E., St. Anthony, Idaho. Ms. Hanks agreed with the previous speaker about the beauty of Island Park. She expressed concerns about approving such a large-scale development without a zone change. It would be improper, and would undermine the comprehensive plan. It would set a bad precedent for the future. The reasons for our zoning should not be ignored. A petition of over 7500 people signed against this development. She requests the Commissioners support P&Z in their denial of this application. Cindy Williams, 4126 S. Big Springs Rd., Island Park, Idaho. Ms. Williams wonders how many guest lodges are already in Island Park. She feels there is already a large number that exist and have established what a guest lodge is. There is no reason to redefine it. She asks that the application be denied. Barry Phillips, 5420 Howard Creek Rd, Island Park, Idaho. Mr. Phillips served on the IP City P&Z for 5.5 years. Ensign Hospitality and the previous owner of the property originally submitted this to the Island Park P&Z to have the land annexed into Island Park, and then requested a rezoning, which tells him they know this project wouldn’t work without the property being properly rezoned. IP P&Z said no, so they are trying again with the county, but not rezoning, and instead changed the name of the development to a guest lodge in order to make it fit into the allowed zone use. A hotel and a lodge are not the same thing. They are trying to circumvent the process. He urged the Commissioners to deny the application. Dede Draper, 3618 Hwy 32, Ashton, Idaho. Ms. Draper stated most of what she wanted to say has been said. She helped work on the rewrite of the Code and Development Plan in 2008-2009 and attended many meetings about these issues. A hotel and a guest lodge are not the same thing. She is frustrated for P&Z and the Commissioners, that they have had to read through so many pages of this application that should never have been submitted as it is written, because it’s not what they claim it is supposed to be. Springhill Suites is 111 rooms. This development is 19% larger than that with their 132 rooms, plus meeting rooms, spa, bar, restaurant, and basically 2 subdivisions for housing. It is a hotel/motel. It is not the same as a guest lodge. She encourages the Commissioners to stand by P&Z and uphold their decision. Mr. Hall recessed the meeting for a 10 minute break. Mr. Hall reconvened the meeting. Tony Gerhards, 4233 Grand View Rd., Island Park, Idaho. Mr. Gerhards stated this is a large-scale commercial development trying to be shoehorned into a rural base zone in which it doesn’t fit. Ensign can call it whatever they want, but calling it a lodge doesn’t make it a lodge. The parking lot alone appears to be about 6 acres. The building is hard to scale because of its irregular shape but it appears to be between 200,000 and 250,000 square feet and is 3 stories tall. This is not a lodge. Plus, they will have their employee housing and extra homes. At least 200 vehicles would be using this facility per day during the busy season. He urges the commissioners to deny the project and uphold P&Z’s decision. It is a hotel, it does not fit the definition of a lodge. All of Ensign’s advertising for all of their other properties identifies them as hotel resorts. Every other lodge in Island Park has 20 rooms or less. Bruce Raskin, 2866 E. Pinehaven Dr., Island Park, Idaho. Mr. Raskin stated the rural base zone is established to provide for the continued use of agricultural lands, range lands and wildlife management areas within the county, not intended to accommodate non-rural development. It doesn’t allow for a large hotel resort. He discussed the differences of the allowable uses within the 4 rural zones, and feels it is clear that those who developed the code believed there was a difference between a hotel/motel and a guest lodge, because a guest lodge is allowed in all 4 zones, but a hotel/motel is only allowed in the Rural Urban Transition Zone. What Ensign is planning is well beyond a guest lodge. He urged the Commissioners to deny Ensign’s request. Michelle Staker, 3935 Wise Owl Way, Island Park, Idaho. Ms. Staker stated she is not an expert in anything, but she is a long time resident of Island Park. She stated that we have been instructed by the attorney to determine the plain meaning of the County Code, and she feels the plain meaning is that the Flats are intended for agriculture, recreation, and wildlife preservation. She pleaded with the Commissioners to deny the application. Larry Staker, 3935 Wise Owl Way, Island Park, Idaho. Mr. Staker stated he would like to represent the disenfranchised citizens of Fremont county; they can’t vote in the city because they are outside of Island Park city limits, and they can’t vote in Fremont County because they don’t have proper representation. He agrees with everything that has been said today. There have been 4 meetings previous to this one, with very small representation at the meeting held a year ago with 500 disenfranchised IP citizens that came to voice their opinions on this matter. There has never been anyone in support of any of these projects come to any of these meetings. He asked the Commissioners to please listen to the citizens. He shamed Ensign for their criticism of our P&Z committee. The flats are supposed to protect wildlife. He feels like it should protect all life as a whole and asked the Commissioners to protect the community and deny this application. Josh Thomas, 2243 E 200 N, St. Anthony, Idaho. Mr. Thomas stated our EMS and Fire Departments are made up of volunteers. Search and Rescue is also made up of volunteers. He is a member of the fire department, as well as search and rescue, and they are stretched thin. The more we bring into the county, the more stretched they get. He encouraged P&Z as well as the Commissioners to update the Code as well as the comprehensive plan. Mr. Hall closed the hearing for public comment. Mr. Hall allowed the final 12 minutes for rebuttal to Ensign. Mr. Nelson commented on the scope of this appeal. He emphasizes the proposed development is a permitted and lawful use within the zone. If it was public land, he would understand the public outcry, but this is private land, and it is a private landowner’s desire to use this land in this manner. Many comments have been made about public resources; public resources expand as the tax base expands. Island Park will continue to grow with or without Ensign Hospitality, and the resources will continue to expand and be used. They haven’t tried to deny or hide that this development is a hotel. He acknowledges a hotel and a guest lodge are different, but something can be 2 things at once and they have been transparent about this. It is a hotel, but it is also a guest lodge, which he defines as a structure that is designed to blend in with the rustic surroundings of the area. The burden placed on the development is the open space requirement, which they have met in their designs. 60% of the property will be open space, in accordance with our code and the comp plan. Many comments have been made about concerns to wildlife. Ensign has been in contact with the State Fish and Game Department about migration patterns, and they don’t have concerns about migration patterns through the lot. Should there be any concerns from the Commissioners or otherwise, they are willing to cooperate, but it isn’t a basis to deny the application. Ensign is willing to take any suggestions from the Commissioners and make any modifications they may feel are necessary, but he feels the basis of the appeal is to overturn the decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He feels they have made a point that this development is a guest lodge and is permitted within the rural base zone. He feels they have addressed the water concerns with the state, and it shouldn’t be a concern because they fully intend to follow state code when it comes to water. This is a permitted use within the zone. Ensign isn’t seeking to change the uses within the zone. They are willing to bare the burdens the rural base zone requires them to bare. They aren’t requesting to do anything outside of what is permitted within the zone. Mr. Hall stated at this time this public hearing is completed. On behalf of the Commissioners, himself, and the staff, he thanked everyone for their decorum, and for allowing the hearing to run so smoothly. The Commissioners will take this matter under advisement and have 60 days to make a decision. With no more business to come before the Board, the hearing was closed at 8:25 pm. ________________________________ Blair Dance, Chairman Fremont County Commission Attest: _____________________________ Abbie Mace, Clerk HISTORY Recorded by Min. 609556 Public Hearing 08-13-2025 on 9/2/2025