Bannock County | agenda | meeting 2026-09-08 | Information Packet source: https://www.bannockcounty.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/20260908-BOCC-Business-Meeting-Information-Packet.pdf BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ – BUSINESS MEETING The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) is comprised of the three elected County Commissioners: Ernie Moser (District 1), Jeff Hough (District 2, Chair), and Ken Bullock (District 3). The BOCC generally meets twice weekly: Tuesdays & Thursdays at 9:00 a.m. Unless otherwise noted, meetings are generally held in the Commissioner's Chambers at 624 E Center, Room 119, Pocatello, Idaho. During these public meetings, the BOCC may approve contracts, expend funds, hear testimony, make decisions on land use cases, and take care of other County matters. Times are subject to change within 15 minutes of the stated time. Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:00 AM Business Meeting (action items) Agenda: • Indigent Business may require an Executive Session pursuant to Idaho Code §74- 206(1)(d) to consider records exempt from public disclosure (action item) • Kevin Sonico, Idaho Transportation Department, requesting, on behalf of the Idaho State Historical Society, to install a historical marker about Pocatello’s Triangle District as part of Idaho’s historical Highway Marker Program near The Village Youth and Community Center (requested 10 minutes) (action item) • Chad Brown, Franson Civil Engineers, providing an update pertaining to the Portneuf Marsh Valley Watershed Plan EA and requesting a signature on the McCammon Ditch Company’s Landowner Concurrence Form for an NRCS grant application (requested 10 minutes) (action item) • Tristan Bourquin, Planning and Development, On-the-Record Review of Planning and Development Council’s decision to deny a variance request (requested 15 minutes) (action item) • Dan Kendall, Facilities, requesting approval to have Booth Architecture begin designing the new floor plan for the old YDC (requested 10 minutes) (action item) • Matthew K. Phillips, Human Resources/Risk Management, regarding a request for signature on a Career Path Internship Agreement – Off-Site Work (requested 5 minutes) (action item) 1 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 • Kristi Klauser, Auditing, requesting (1) signature on the Tyler Asset Management Quote, and (2) to open the FY26 budget for health insurance (requested 5 minutes) (action items) RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES (action items): Resolution No. 2026-60 Approving August 2026 Salaries Resolution No. 2026-61 Approving August 2026 Alcohol Licenses Resolution No. 2026-62 Establishing Milage Allowance Rates and Jury and Witness Per Diem Rates LETTERS AND NOTICES (action items): Public Hearing Notice – Reopen Budget for Unanticipated Revenue SIGNATURE ONLY (action items): Commissioners’ Proceedings – August 2026 • Manual Checks • Alcohol Licenses and Catering Permits • Certificate of Residency Approval • Personnel Actions with potential Executive Session under Idaho Code §§74-206(1)(a), (b)&(d) for personnel actions or personnel records exempt from disclosure with potential action following adjournment of Executive Session • Mileage and Travel Approvals • Minutes: Approval of and signature on certification for meeting minutes for August 27, September 1, and 3, 2026 Memo - Leave without pay CONSENT AGENDA (action items): 2 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 11:00 AM Quarterly Jail Inspection per Idaho Code §20-622 (potential action items) NOTE: This meeting will be held at 5800 S. 5th Ave., Pocatello, Idaho BANNOCK County COMMISSIONERS gb Phone: ( BOARD OF BA ISSIONERS' - MEETING Erniz Moser Jerr Houcu Commissioner Commissions Pocatello, [ID &ga0ot - Ist District 2nd District o ® Fax: (208 CONCERNS/ISSUES REQUEST FORM Once you have filled out this form, you can email the completed form to commission@bannockcounty.us; fax it to 208-236-7363; or send it by mail to: Bannock County Commissioners, 624 E. Center St., Room 101, Pocatello, ID 83201. Please be sure to include any supporting documents. If you have any questions, feel free to call 208-236-7210. Name: Phone/Email: Kevin Sonico kevin.sonico@itd.idaho.gov Concern/issue/question: Circle one: Discussion/Direction/Action-Decision The Idaho State Historical Society (ISHS) would like to install a new historical marker about Pocatello’s Triangle District as part of Idaho’s Historical Highway Marker (HHM) program. This new marker is part of a multi-year effort to refresh and update the markers statewide. Tha attarhad nhntn nravidac an avamnla HHI wshich tha naw Triannla Nietrict Suggested solution? Please include the motion you would like the Board to make. ITD and the ISHS request permission to place the new Pocatello Triangle District Historical Marker at the requested location near the Village Youth and Community Center, located along US-91/5th Ave in Pocatello. Please include any supporting documents with your Concerns/Issues Request Form. Commission Office Only: Date: 8 LG Department: SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 KEN BULLOCK tr Srd District BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 Confidentiality Disclaimer: if you are not the person to whom this message is addre ssed, be « aware that any use, reproduction, or distribution of this message Is strictly prohibited. If you received message in error, please contact the sender ari immediately delete this email and any attachments From: Kevin Sonico Sent: Wednesday, September 2, 2026 9:53 AM To: Kristi Davenport Cc: Nikolaus Sterbentz Subject: RE: Triangle District Historical Marker Hi Kristi, | was wondering if this was placed on the Commissioner’s agenda, or if they requested additional information? Thank you, Kevin Sonico, PE | Traffic Engineer Idaho Transportation Department | District 5 Email: Kevin. Sonico@itd.idaho.gov | itd.idaho.gov Enhancing quality of life through transportation From: Kevin Sonico Sent: Friday, August 28, 2026 11:44 AM To: 'dav@bannockcounty.gov' Subject: Triangle District Historical Marker Hi Kristi, Thank you for taking my phone call this morning. The Idaho State Historical Society (ISHS) would like to install a new historical marker about Pocatello’s Triangle District as part of Idaho’s Historical Highway Marker (HHM) program. This new marker is part of a multi-year effort to refresh and update the markers statewide. The attached photo provides an example HHM, which the new Triangle District marker will match in style. My understanding is that placing the marker near The Village Youth and Community Center would place the marker within the boundaries of the historical Triangle District as well as near one of the few remaining Triangle District buildings. Our proposed location would be just beyond the Center’s parking lot in a park strip behind the sidewalk, adjacent to US-91/I-15B within Bannock County right-of-way (| believe | told you in the phone call that we would be placing it in State right-of-way, but | confirmed that it would be within the County’s property). At this time, the wording of the sign is not available because ISHS is waiting for the location to be confirmed. Some of the text may depend on the sign’s location. 5 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 Kristi Davenport Gi From: Kevin Sonico Sent; - Thursday, September 3, 2026 2:09 PM To: Kristi Davenport Cc: Nikolaus Sterbentz Subject: RE: Triangle District Historical Marker Hi Kristi, | have one more exhibit to add. | received this from one of our staff who has done a lot of research on the history of Idaho and the Pocatello area. The proposed sign location would be on the west corner of Fremont and 5". 6 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 HISTORIC TRIANGLE NEIGHBORHOOD Wistarie Wamate Metunbcetm es aaa OO prerey HISTORIC TRIANGLE NEIGHBORHOOD 1959 — Historic Whine Rel on net hed ‘Lb 8 BOARD OF BANN' SSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 exesmm _ - oo —— ee BaANNock County COMMISSIONERS Erni Moser Jerr HoucH — Ken BULLOCK fiay Ke. Center, Pocatello, ID 8y20n Commissioner Commissioner Comn Monier Phone: (208) 236-7210 © Fax: ( Ist District 2ud District Srd District = ny CONCERNS/ISSUES REQUEST FORM Once you have filled out this form, you can email the completed form to commission@bannockcounty.us; fax it to 208-236-7363; or send it by mail to: Bannock County Commissioners, 624 E. Center St., Room 101, Pocatello, ID 83201. Please be sure to include any supporting documents. If you have any questions, feel free to call 208-236-7210. Name: Phone/Email: Chad Brown, Franson Civil Engineers Po Concern/issue/question: Circle one: Discussion/Direction/Action-Decision We want to update the county on the progress for the Portneuf Marsh Valley Watershed Plan EA and present ideas of how the project could benefit the county and understand the county's willingness to participate. We also seek a landowner concurrent signature for an NRCS grant application we are doing for McCammon Ditch Company. Suggested solution? Please include the motion you would like the Board to make. We are requesting one motion. One to sign the McCammon Ditch Company's landowner concurrence form for an NRCS grant application. This form shows that the landowner is willing to work with the owner on the project. It is not legally binding. No motion is necessary regarding the Watershed Plan EA. Please include any supporting documents with your Concerns/Issues Request Form. Commission Office Only: Date: | id de Department: 9 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 NRCS-CPA-1257 U.S. Department of Agriculture June 2023 Natural Resources Conservation Service Clear Form Landowner Concurrence Form to Install Structural or Vegetative Activities This form is used for the applicant to obtain written documentation of landowner concurrence for the purpose of installing structural or vegetative conservation activities on land they lease. Structural and vegetative conservation activities are those activities with a lifespan greater than one year. Applicant Name: viccammon Ditch Company Landowner Name: Bannock County Date Prepared: 8/30/2026 Application No. Farm Name (opt): Bannock County Parcel: RPR4225006600 Conservation Activity: Farm No. & Tract No. Field Nos. 1, Irrigation Pipeline (NRCS Practice Code: 430) Farm: NA Tract: NA Field: NA 2. structure for Water Control (NRCS Practice Code: 587) Farm: NA Tract: NA Field: NA 3. Pumping Plant (NRCS Practice Code: 533) Farm: NA Tract: NA Field: NA Landowner Concurrence . By signing this form, |, the landowner, hereby agree that the above-named applicant, if awarded a contract with the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has permission to install and maintain conservation activities on the land identified. | understand that | am not a party to any contract between NRCS and the applicant to install or maintain the above listed activities. Landowner Signature: Print Name; Bannock County Date ‘Sept. 6, 2O2q v Non- Discrimination Statement In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights 1400 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 al Pee Highway30) a iil & a ii = —_ hw ereen 26" Pee McCammon Ditch Company EQIP Project Landownership Map Ben Rowe - 36" Pipe 1,000 Feet Current McCammon System Ht ) — —_t—_ t—_+—_ + SH [J Land Parcels 11 BOARD OF BA SIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 BANNOCK County COMMISSIONERS Gay F, Genter, Pocatello, ID 8y201 Ernie Moser Jere HoucH — Ken BuLiocKk Commissions Coniston]! Commissioner Ist Dustriet 2ud District 3rd District Phone: (208) 246-7210 © Fax: (208) 252-7565 AGENDA REQUEST FORM The Board of Bannock County Commissioners business meetings are generally held on Tuesday at 9:00 AM in the Commissioners’ Chambers in the Bannock County Courthouse, 624 E. Center, Room 119 Pocatello, Idaho, or as noticed 48 hours prior to the meeting at https://www.bannockcounty.gov/commissioners. Agenda times are subject to change within 15 minutes of scheduled time. Any person(s) needing special meeting accommodations should contact the Commissioner ’s Office at 208-236-7210, five working days before the meeting. E-mail this completed form and any supporting documents to agendarequest@bannockcounty.gov Meeting Date Requested: 09/08/2026 Requestor Name: Tristan Bourquin Department: Planning and Developmen Item to be considered/background: Appeal of the Planning and Development Council's decision to deny a variance request. Action Requested: Decision Amount of Time Requested: 15 Minutes Financial Impact (Total Cost/Funding Source): None Does this item involve a contract, agreement, external funding application, or award acceptance? Has the item been submitted to/reviewed by Legal? Has the item been No] . “ze INo | Has the item been reviewed by Risk Management? reviewed by Auditing? Are all supporting documents included? List of additional attendees: Hal Jensen, Annie Hughes Please include any supporting documents with your Agenda Session Request Form. Commissioner Office Only: Date: alg Ee Time: BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 Variance — Right-of-Way Access Easement Alan & Susan Peck Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 190 of 210 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5500 S 5' Ave | Pocatello, Idaho 83204 | 208.236.7230 | www.bannockcounty.gov VARIANCE PERMIT PUBLIC HEARING: JULY 15, 2026 STAFF REPORT FILE #: VAR-26-6 LOCATION: RPRRCV1000901 and is currently unaddressed APPLICANT/OWNER: Alan & Susan Peck 9504 N. Nottingham Lane Pocatello, ID 83202 REQUEST & BACKGROUND: Alan and Susan Peck request a variance to allow the required right-of-way access easement to be established through Lot 9 rather than Lot 8 and a variance from the subdivision open space requirement. The affected property is labeled as parcel RPRRCV1000901 and is currently unaddressed. RECOMMENDATION: Bannock County Planning and Development recommends the following: e Denial SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND ZONING: ZONING: Residential Suburban PROPERTY SIZE: ~ 18.86 acres VIEWS: Property is visible from N. Nottingham Lane EXISTING STRUCTURES: Residential Accessory Structure AREA OF CITY IMPACT: None SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING NORTH: Residential and bare ground; Residential Suburban and BLM EAST: Residential and bare ground; Residential Suburban SOUTH: Residential; Residential Suburban WEST: Bare ground; Residential Suburban APPLICABLE LAWS AND PLANS: 1. Idaho Code §67-6516, Variance — Definition — Application — Notice — Hearing 2. Bannock County Comprehensive Plan, 2025-27 3. Bannock County Zoning Ordinance, 1998-1, specifically: a. §330 RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN DISTRICT STAFF REPORT VARIANCE - PECK Page 1 of 6 Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 191 of 210 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 b. §337 BUILDING BULK AND PLACEMENT STANDARDS c. §540 VARIANCES STANDARDS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE (ZONING ORDINANCE 540.4) The Planning and Development Council may grant a variance if it makes affirmative findings on each of the following standards: A. The applicant has shown that there is no reasonable alternative. Staff Findings of Fact The applicant states that no reasonable alternative exists to provide legal access without the requested variance. According to the applicant, locating the access easement through Lot 8 is impractical because the existing topography contains steep slopes that cannot be developed to meet Bannock County road grade requirements without extensive grading and significant expense. The applicant asserts that Lot 9 provides the only practical location for the access easement, offering a direct alignment that can be constructed in compliance with County standards while minimizing impacts to surrounding properties. Staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that there is no reasonable alternative. The approved subdivision plat and associated Record of Survey establish access to the subject property through Lots 8 and 9 via Nottingham Lane. The existence of an approved access route demonstrates that reasonable access already exists. The applicant's request is based upon a preference to relocate the access to avoid traveling past an adjacent residence rather than the absence of legal or physical access. Additionally, any modification to the approved subdivision layout or access configuration must occur through the applicable plat amendment or replat process. A variance is not the appropriate mechanism to alter subdivision design standards or dedicated open space restrictions. B. The variance is not in conflict with the public interest. Staff Findings of Fact The applicant states that the requested variance is not in conflict with the public interest because the proposed access easement and roadway would be located entirely on private property and would serve only the affected private landowners. According to the applicant, the easement does not alter public roads, public utilities, or public access rights, nor does it create additional demands on public infrastructure. The applicant further states that routing the private access easement through Lot 9 rather than Lot 8 will not adversely affect neighboring properties or the surrounding community, and the STAFF REPORT VARIANCE - PECK Page 2 of 6 Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 192 of 210 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 variance is limited in scope to the private access arrangement between the involved property owners. Staff finds that granting the requested variance would conflict with the public interest by allowing development inconsistent with the approved subdivision plat and the requirements of ordinance. Lot 9 was platted as required subdivision open space. Open space lots are intended to remain free from development except as specifically authorized by the ordinances. Authorizing a new private access easement for residential driveway purposes through an open space lot would undermine the purpose of the subdivision's open space requirement and establish a precedent for using variances to circumvent substantive subdivision regulations. Furthermore, the ordinance defines a variance as relief from dimensional requirements affecting the size, shape, or placement of structures and lots. The requested relief seeks to modify subdivision design requirements rather than dimensional standards and therefore exceeds the scope of a variance. The variance will not adversely affect adjacent property. Staff Findings of Fact — The applicant states that the requested variance will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The proposed access easement will be located on undeveloped land that contains no existing structures or improvements. Construction of the private access road will provide access to the four proposed lots without interfering with neighboring properties or existing land uses. According to the applicant, the variance will not negatively affect adjacent property owners' use and enjoyment of their properties, nor is it expected to adversely impact surrounding property values. Staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed variance would avoid adverse impacts to adjacent property. Relocating the access easement through Lot 9 would introduce residential driveway traffic across a platted open space lot that was not intended for that purpose. The existing subdivision design and the Record of Survey contemplated access through Lots 8 and 9 as approved during the subdivision process. Altering that approved configuration to accommodate a private driveway through protected open space may affect the character and intended function of the subdivision and could impact neighboring property owners who relied upon the approved plat. STAFF REPORT VARIANCE - PECK Page 3 of 6 Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 193 of 210 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 If the variance is not granted, the applicant will suffer undue hardship caused by the physical characteristics of the site. Staff Findings of Fact The applicant states that denial of the requested variance would result in undue hardship due to the physical characteristics of the site. According to the applicant, the steep topography of Lot 8 makes it impractical to construct an access road that complies with Bannock County road grade requirements without extensive grading and significant expense. The applicant asserts that these conditions are the result of the site's natural terrain and are not self-created. Without the requested variance, the applicant states there would be no practical, code-compliant means of providing legal access to the subject property. Staff finds that the applicant has not demonstrated an undue hardship resulting from the physical characteristics of the property. The hardship identified is not created by the land's topography, shape, size, or other physical characteristics but rather by the property owners’ inability to obtain permission to utilize the preferred access route through Lot 8. The approved subdivision documents already establish legal access to the property through Nottingham Lane consistent with the approved plat. The applicant's desire to relocate the access to avoid passing an adjacent residence constitutes a personal preference and private property dispute rather than an unnecessary hardship created by the physical characteristics of the site. Such circumstances do not satisfy the standard for granting a variance. AGENCY COMMENTS: 1. None at time of report PUBLIC COMMENTS: 2. None at time of report REPORT BY: Annie Hughes Williams, Zoning Planner annieh@bannockcounty.gov 208-236-7230 REPORTED DATE: July 8, 2026 * Staff comments in this report are based solely upon evidence available at the time of the report. Additional information may be brought to light at or before the hearing. STAFF REPORT VARIANCE - PECK Page 4 of 6 Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 194 of 210 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING EXHIBITS: PWR Application and Site Plan Applicable Laws (on file with Staff) Evidence of Notices (on file with Staff) Agency/Public Comments (if any) REFERENCE MAPS SITE MAP SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 195 of 210 STAFF REPORT VARIANCE - PECK Page 5 of 6 18 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING CONTOUR MAP Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 196 of 210 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 STAFF REPORT VARIANCE - PECK Page 6 of 6 19 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING EXHIBIT 1 Application & Site Plan Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 197 of 210 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 20 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 Variance Application Applicant Primary Location fi, Alan & Susan Peck 0 NO STREET VAR-26-6 00000 Submitted On: May 29, 2026 Parcel & Variance Information Parcel Number My property is zoned: RPRRCV1000901 Residential Suburban What variance are you requesting? Please select all that apply: ear yard setbacks Side yard setbacks Riparian area setbacks Right-of-way setbacks Lot size Other true Please describe your variance request in detail: Variance Request — Right-of-Way Access & Open Space Compliance The applicant respectfully requests a variance to allow the required right-of-way access easement to be established through Lot 9 rather than Lot 8 as currently required. The current subdivision collectively satisfies the applicable open space requirement. The combined open space across the seven (7) lots, at approximately 34 acre per lot, together with Lot 9, provides sufficient acreage to meet or exceed the minimum open space threshold established under the Bannock County Zoning Ordinance. Granting this variance does not reduce the subdivision’s open space compliance, However, routing the required access easement through Lot 8 would impose undue hardship on both the current property owner of Lot 8 and the owner of the properties requiring the easement for access. The physical and financial burden of constructing a road through Lot 8 is disproportionate given that Lot 9 presents a substantially more practical, cost- effective, and less intrusive alignment for the right-of-way, Requiring access through Lot 8 would unnecessarily encumber that lot and result in significant cost and disruption that is not warranted when a clearly superior alternative exists. Routing the easement through Lot 9 achieves the same access objective while preserving both landowners’ interests, maintaining open space compliance subdivision-wide, and imposing the least possible burden on all parties, The variance requested is the minimum necessary to achieve lawful, practical access to the subject property. Bannock County Planning & Development Council duly 15, 2026 Page 198 of 210 21 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 Application for Variance Narrative addressing how your application meets criterion 1: The applicant has shown there is no reasonable alternative. The applicant has demonstrated that no reasonable alternative exists to achieve lawful access to the subject property without the requested variance. Lot 8 presents significant physical and financial obstacles that render it an impractical access point, including excessive slope that fails to meet Bannock County road grade ordinance requirements. Lot 9 provides a direct, cost-effective, and minimally intrusive alignment that accomplishes the same purpose while conforming to applicable road standards. No other configuration has been identified that would provide adequate access while avoiding undue hardship to the affected property owners. The routing through Lot 9 is therefore the only feasible alternative available Narrative addressing how your application meets criterion 2: The variance is not in conflict with the public interest. The proposed variance does not adversely affect the public interest. The land encompassed by the requested easement and proposed road is entirely private property with no existing or anticipated public use, access, or benefit associated with either Lot 8 or Lot 9. The variance affects only the two private landowners involved and has no bearing on public roads, public utilities, or public access rights. The surrounding community and general public are neither burdened nor impacted by the routing of this private access easement through Lot 9. Narrative addressing how your application meets criterion 3: The variance will not adversely affect adjacent property. The proposed variance will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The area encompassed by the requested easement and proposed access road currently consists of undeveloped land with no existing improvements. Construction of a private access road serving the four lots will have no material impact on surrounding properties, as the land is presently vacant and unimproved. No neighboring structures, uses, or property values are diminished by the requested variance. Narrative addressing how your application meets criterion 4: If the variance is not granted, the applicant will suffer undue hardship caused by the physical characteristics of the site. if the variance is not granted, the applicant will suffer undue hardship caused by the physical characteristics of the site. The excessive slope of Lot 8 renders it physically unsuitable for road construction under Bannock County road grade ordinance requirements, leaving the applicant with no code-compliant means of access to the subject property. This hardship is not self- imposed but rather arises directly from the natural topography of the land. Without the variance, the applicant is effectively denied reasonable and lawful access to the property through no fault of their own. Certification Electronic Signature [Typed name of applicant] l agree that my electronic signature above is equivalent to a Susan Peck handwritten signature and is binding for all purposes related to this transaction true Date 05/29/2026 Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 199 of 210 22 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 200 of 210 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 23 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING EXHIBIT 2 Castle View Estates Division Plat Bannock County Planning & Development Council July 15, 2026 Page 201 of 210 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 2:\0658 - Castle View Estates\dwo\PLAT-072606.dwg 7/27/2006 65150 AM MST dy, CETAIL “A” 24 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' CASTLE VIEW ESTATES DIVISION NO. 1 A PART’ OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 16, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 35 EAST, 8M, BANNOCK COUNTY, IDAHO SW CORNER FOUND B.LM. B.C.M, DATED 1961 CP&F $29024236 SW CORNER FOUND BANNOCK CQ. 6’ WALKING B.c.M. oateD 1927 UNPLATTED souestrun BASIS OF BEARING — RECORD OF SURVEY INSTRUMENT NUMBER 20020104 UNPLATTED N ora" 07" W 2648.47" (2648.60") LOT 9 OPEN SPACE 19.07 acres 00°02’10" W (N 00°01'28" £) LOT 10 (R 0.168 2) DEED LINE Yeon nn en emer eenen CENTER OF SECTION 16 CALCULATED FROM FOUND MONUMENTS PER R.O.S. 20020104 SURVEYOR’S CERTIFICA TE é Glen Whitson, a registered professional survey thet the survay of this subdivision, designated as S 1/4 CORNER FOUND BANNOCK CO. &.C.M. in tha Qwaer’s Dedication. Bary te Barry Glen Whitson, PLS. Ute: O7L 23/06 NOTES: geer . 1~7, BLOCK 1 HAVE A 187,75’ REAR YARD SETBACK FOR JHE OWNERS 3/4 ACRES - a Lors b- as PER Lor OPEN SPACE TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY INDIVIDUAL LOT 01 2. LOTS 10-11, BLOCK t AND LOT 3, BLOCK 2 ARE NON-BUILDABLE Lots AND ARE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SLOPE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS wae an 3. THE CASTLE VIEW ESTATES HOMEOWNERS/LANDOWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE STORM WATER RUNOFF AND EROSION CONTROL SYSTEM INCLUDING THE STORM WATER DETENTION BASINS LOCATED ON LOT 1, LOTS 3&4, AND LOTS 5&6, SEE CASTLE VIEW ESTATES CONBITIONS AND RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, BANNOCK COUNTY Will HOT MANTAIN DRAINAGE STRUCTURES LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PLATTED ROAD RIGHT—OF— GRAPHIC SCALE 4. NO LANDOWNER/HOMEOWNER SHALL PLACE ANY STRUCTURES, LANDSCAPING OR OTHER ‘0 MATERIALS WITHIN THE PLATTED ROAD RIGHT=OF=WAYS OR PERFORM ANY SITE GRADING WHICH EFFECT ROADWAY DRAINAGE WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF BANNOCK COUNTY. 5. LOT 9 BLOCK 1 IS RESERVED AS OPEN SPACE TO SE PRIVATELY OWNED AND MAINTAINED, THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF SAID LOT iS RESTRICTED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BANNOCK COUNTY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. NOT TO SCALE { DN FEET ) = 200 Bannock County Planaing & Dd pent coun wy 15, 2028 - MEETING in the State of idaho do ISTLE VEW ESTATES OFASION NO, 1 was made oy me or under my direction, and that said subdivision is truly ond comectly staked os provided by law and in accordance with the eccampanying plat ae described SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION toe” $W1/4 of Section 16 Township 6 South. Range 35 Eost. 8.M. Bannock County. jah. Commencing at the SW camer of said sectlon and running thence N 00°04'07" W 2648.47 feet along the section lina ta the 1/4 comer of said section 16; thence N 89°56'02" E 666.34 feet; thence § 00°02'15" W 1276.8 fast; thence S 89°57'S0” E 58.17 feet; thence S O'02"10" W 181.33 feet; thence N 89°527"50" W 28.17 feat; thence S 00°02'10" W 858.16 feet; thence S 89°57'50" E 626.39 feet: thence S O0°07’02" W 63,84 feet to a point of non=tangent curve on the northerly right of woy of Pocatello Craak Rd; thence along said curva to tho left 409.03 feet Curve Bata Radius= 869.70 feet Delta= 26°58'50" chord beara S 48°58'02" W 405.27 feet to tha south line of sald goctlons thence along sold south line N 894814" W 1006.26 fest to the point of ginning. Parcal Contains 44.83 Acres NW CORNER FOUND BLM. 8.C.M. DATED 1961 CPR UNE TABLE BEARING en | 2 | 26.17*_|_N a¢57'so* w_| 191,33" | [us 56.17" s SrSTSO"E = assets Lé 82,972 NOT 19° a7 a ee [te sese [rover 107 yuo | 2h as | ON 8 rss e ie ee Li2 0 ~——- 7 DETAIL “SB” NOT SCALE LEGEND wea Section contro! comers t = : iy Commission Expires 2-1V OO SHEET 2 OF 2 HARPER-LEAVITT ENGINEERING, INC. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 98S H. CAPITAL AVE, P.O. BOX 50691, 10AHO FALLS, IDAHO 83405 (208) 524-0212 26 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PUBLIC HEARING SIGN-UP SHEET If you plan to testify, or submit written comments, you must fill out this form. Agenda Item & Applicant: AGENDA tTem HG. Alan + Susan feck Full Address In Favor / Neutral / Against Do You Wish To Testify? a ? In Favor / Neutral Against Cc Yes —> No a a a, Set los fi, d ine pee pjuabs) Bow é oe a os In Favor / Neutral / Against ay rn a = In Favor / Neutral / Against 27 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 Instrument H 22605607 Bannock County agugorhelio. te Idah ho Recorded fer: we NOK COUNTY Os OAING Be S EvELOPMENT Jason G. Dixon $0.08 Deputy: alaayit BANNOCK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FINDINGS AND ORDER VARIANCE PERMIT- ALAN & SUSAN PECK PUBLIC HEARING: JULY 15, 2026 FILE #: VAR-26-6 LOCATION: RPRRCV1000901 and is currently unaddressed APPLICANT/OWNER: Alan & Susan Peck 9504.N, Nottingham Lane Pocatello, ID 83204 REQUEST & BACKGROUND: Alan and Susan Peck request a variance to allow the required right-of-way access easement to be established through Lot 9 rather than Lot 8 and a variance from the subdivision apen space requirement. The affected property is labeled as parcel RPRRCV1000901 and is currently unaddressed. FINDINGS: JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DECISION/CRITERIA, STANDARDS AND FACTS RELIED UPON SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND ZONING: ZONING: Residential Suburban PROPERTY SIZE: ~ 18.86 acres VIEWS: Property is visible from N. Nottingham Lane EXISTING STRUCTURES: Residential Accessory Structure AREA OF CITY IMPACT: None NOTICE AND TESTIMONY REQUIREMENTS: Notice of the public hearing was completed according to statutory requirements. Public comment was taken according to statutory requirements. BANNOCK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FINDINGS AND ORDER; PERMIT VAR-26-6 Page 1 28 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR VARIANCE PERMIT, §540 4. The applicant has shown there is a reasonable alternative. This is based on: Any modification to the approved subdivision layout or access configuration must occur through the applicable plat amendment or replat process. A variance is not the appropriate mechanism to alter subdivision design standards or dedicated open space restrictions. 2. The variance is in conflict with the public interest. This is based on: An approval would be in conflict with the approved plat and the council's scope, Authorizing a new private access easement for residential driveway purposes through an open space lot would undermine the purpose of the subdivision's open space requirement and establish a precedent for - using variances to circumvent substantive subdivision regulations. 3. The variance will adversely affect adjacent property. This is based on: Altering that approved configuration to accommodate a private driveway through protected open space may affect the character and intended function of the subdivision and could impact neighboring property owners who relied upon the approved plat. 4. If the variance is not granted, the applicant will suffer undue hardship caused by the physical characteristics of the site. This is based on: The applicant's desire to relocate the access to avoid passing an adjacent residence constitutes a personal preference and private property dispute rather than an unnecessary hardship created by the physical characteristics of the site. Such circumstances do not satisfy the standard for granting a variance. Conditions: None BANNOCK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FINDINGS AND ORDER: PERMIT VAR-26-6 Page 2 29 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 ORDER: CONCLUSION AND DECISION The Planning and Development Council, pursuant to the aforementioned, finds that the request by Alan and Susan Peck for a variance to allow the required right-of-way access easement to be established through Lot 9 rather than Lot 8 and a variance from the subdivision open space requirement, as described in the application, shall be denied, Motion by __ Edward Ulrich __, seconded by __ Chad Selleneit to adopt the foregoing Findings and Order. ROLL CALL: Councilperson Dimick Voted Yes Councilperson Madsen Voted Yes Councilperson Selleneit Voted Yes Councilperson Ulrich Voted Yes Councilperson Ward Voted Yes Motion carried bya__5_to__9 ___ vote. Dated this 15" day of July, 2026. Signed b (Chairperson) Dice Chair) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CERTIFICATE State of Idaho) 5.5. County of Bannock) On this 15th day of July, in the year of 2026, before me Marjorie Williams, a notary public, personally appeared Stewart Ward as chairjvice-chair on behalf of the Bannock County Planning and Development Council, personally known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. Notary Publi My Commission Expires on ____ 5/33. 2024 yaVblberig, wQiORIé ir a pa % Wo Tap, 4, te, 2, 3 “BL IG F ~ ean gio 45, OF ry pvO ws” CANS ->mn 'Sg “Sececce Xs 4 swt} Cetera porr ret an, atttlitz,, ai a BANNOCK COUNTY PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL FINDINGS AND ORDER: PERMIT VAR-26-6 Page 8 30 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 260421_0042 AudioClerk Transcription 00:56:47 Chairperson Ward: Agenda item number nine is a variance from Section 337, building bulk and placement standards, Alan and Susan Peck request a variance to allow the required driveway access easement to be established through lot nine rather than lot eight, and a variance from the subdivision open-space requirement. The affected property is labeled RPRRCV1000 — I think I got all the zeros — 901. It's currently unaddressed. And that's it. Okay. Sorry. Do you have my timer? Applicant. Susan Peck: Susan Peck, 9504 Nottingham Lane. The reason I'm here is we had sold some property to Kevin and Jennifer Skinner many years ago behind lot nine, 75 acres. They are landlocked. He no longer — she passed away a few years ago, unfortunately, He no longer lives here. He wants to sell the land. He needs an easement. And that's why I am here, because he couldn't apply because it needs to go through lot nine, which we own. So that's why I'm here, is to try to figure out what we can do to give him an easement so he can sell his property. Feasibly, it cannot go through my lot where my home is because there's not enough room at all. So years ago we had a bunch more land behind there that wrapped all the way around Pocatello Creek, and there was a concept plan, which thank goodness never went forward with, because I don't want a bunch of houses back there. But the road is — that is proposed, that he is proposing was similar to what was done 20 years ago. Molly Dimick: Is the parcel that you own the one that's outlined in blue right now? Susan Peck: Lot eight and lot nine. Which is open space. Chairperson Ward: Yeah. I think they own both. Susan Peck: I just dumped that out of my stuff that I had. I don't know if you can see where the cul-de-sac is and stuff, and where the road was going to tie back and, like I said, back to all the other land that wrapped to Pocatello Creek. But we never — we had partners. We never went through with that. The partners didn't work out, so — but — Edward Ulrich: So the lot that they're trying to get access to is obviously that little one on the north. Susan Peck: It is at the back there. Edward Ulrich: Yeah, at the very back. Susan Peck: Yeah. 31 260421_0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 AudioClerk Transcription Edward Ulrich: Male: Chairperson Ward: Krystal Madsen: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Molly Dimick: Edward Ulrich: Male: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Edward Ulrich: Susan Peck: Edward Ulrich: Susan Peck: Edward Ulrich: It's off of the — You can't even see it — It's this piece back here. Oh, so it's not the one with the home on it. No, that — No, that’s ours. They own this and this. This is lot eight. That's lot nine. Yeah, They also own this piece, and then what the ~ Yes. We have the 4.45 acres or whatever that we kept back there. And then they're trying to get access up here. Which has a survey on it that split it. It's over the other way. Back that way. There you go. So that's all his that's in that spot back there. Yeah. That U shape? Plus the two plots. Plus it goes past. Yeah. And then back there. Yeah. So that's what Kevin owns. Okay. So right now to access it, they would go right by your — Right next to our house. You don't like dust? No. Just kidding. Sorry. The thing is when we sold it to him years ago, it was him and Jennifer were just going to build a house back there. And they're friends of ours, and it's like no big deal. We didn't have to worry about all this. But now he — like I said, she's no longer with us, and he — He didn't want anything to do with it. 32 260421_0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 AudioClerk Transcription Susan Peck: Chad Selleneit: Susan Peck: Chad Selleneit: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Molly Dimick: Susan Peck: Edward Ulrich: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Chad Selleneit: Susan Peck: Edward Ulrich: Chad Selleneit: He lives a long ways away now, so he wants to sell it. So how do we get him an easement so that he can sell his property and go on with his life? But us and all the neighbors don't want tons of houses back there, but we need to give him access so he's not landlocked because that's what the law says. So how do we do this? I'm not picking on him, but he's really not landlocked. He's just driving by your house. Correct? Yes, but there's enough room for a car. But he's really not landlocked, just to clarify. Okay, thank you. Well, if I understand correctly, there's currently not an easement through her property — There is no easement through my property. To access his property. Oh, I was just going to ask if we have a measurement of the current — okay. No, there is no — So this is just the legality to make sure that this is - There is no easement. That's the way I understood the application and what you said is — Yes. Currently the only easements that exist are these on this plat. Yep. And which don't access this property up here. They go through lot eight. Correct. So how do we give him an easement? That's the — that's why I am here, is to figure out how to give him an easement so he can sell his land. Right of way access easement. Okay. Stewart, I'm going to lean on you because this is [inaudible 01:03:06] — Yeah, same. It’s you, Stewart. 33 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 260421_0042 AudioClerk Transcription Chairperson Ward: Oh, man, Edward Ulrich: So is it just we're labeling an easement that legally is recorded on the deed? Is that what we're doing? Or are we — Tristan Bourquin: Are you wanting my staff report before — Chairperson Ward: Well — okay. Edward Ulrich: Yeah. We got ahead of ourselves. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Chairperson Ward: Yeah. Do we have any other questions specifically for the applicant? Edward Ulrich: No. Chad Seileneit: No. No, I don't. Chairperson Ward: Okay. Thank you. Susan Peck: Yep. Edward Ulrich: We might have you come back up. | Susan Peck: That's fine. Chairperson Ward: Yeah. Okay. Now we're ready for the staff report. Thank you. Edward Ulrich: Yeah. This is new to us. Tristan Bourquin: Tristan Bourquin, assistant planning director. So you've had the staff report for a week. I don't know if you've noticed or reviewed. Typically, on a variance, we have a recommendation from Planning and Development that is either denial or approval. This one does not have an approval option. It is a denial. That is because the definition of a variance does not allow a variance from open space, which is what they are requesting. So the definition of a variance is for lots, size of lots, lot coverage, setbacks, all to do with the zoning ordinance. Open space is required by the subdivision ordinance. Lot nine was a platted open space lot to create that development at the density that it is currently at. At the time that council did the plat for this development, they determined that there were — there would be lots that would be landlocked without an easement through open space. So typically you would not even be allowed an easement, or a road, or any type of development in that open space lot at all. The only development that is currently permitted in lot nine is where the driveway is existing now. So this does not qualify for a variance, and would have to go through a replat process to change lot nine in order — and if it 34 260421_0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING AudioClerk Transcription Krystal Madsen: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Molly Dimick: Chairperson Ward: Tristan Bourquin: Chairperson Ward: Tristan Bourquin: Chairperson Ward: Tristan Bourquin: Chairperson Ward: Molly Dimick: could meet current standards to do that, that would be the path to move forward. The parcels to the north that need access have also gone through a minor land division process. On that minor land division, there is actually a note stating that their access will be granted by Castle View Investments, the owners of lot eight and nine, going through lots eight and nine. So really, an easement is a completely separate issue and cannot be granted through a variance process. And that was my question, so I had read that and I was like, "I don't understand.” Thank you. So what do we do? So we don't have a — Authority to do it. A copy — Jurisdiction. We don't have a copy of that minor land division in our packet? No, I can pull it up though if you want to — I'm just curious to look at the verbiage of that note specifically. Just so that I fully understand. So note number four states: “Access to this property will be via Nottingham Lane, and Kevin Skinner is working with Castle View Investments, LLC to acquire an easement through lot eight and nine of Castle View Estates, division number one, instrument number 20616775 in conjunction with the surface of the surveyed property shown on this recorded survey. No access easement has been recorded at this time.” Okay. So I would agree that in order to do this, a reconfiguration of the platted easements, a replat would be required. However, with that being said, I don't know that it would comply with today's rules either — That is correct. — is the concern. But I also see based on — Because of open space? SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 35 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 260421_0042 AudioCterk Transcription Chairperson Ward: Because of the open space requirements, yeah. But I do also see that there's also already kind of a non-conforming use into open space with their driveway. Tristan Bourquin: | That was permitted as part of the plat. The easement that was going for — Chairperson Ward: No, this part up here that wiggles out. That is not shown on the plat. Tristan Bourquin: Yeah. Correct. Chairperson Ward: And so there's already a non-conforming encumbrance or encroachment into open space. So that's where I'm a little hung up, I guess, personally. Molly Dimick: And when do we need to do public comments? Chairperson Ward: Yeah, I'll get to that. I just wanted to — I just, I had to — Krystal Madsen: Staff first? Chairperson Ward: _ I had ~ yeah, I had — I wanted to work through that with staff first because that's kind of the way I see it. There's two things going on here a little bit. But - okay. Let's work through public testimony and then have more discussion about this. Does that work? Krystal Madsen: Mm-hmm [to indicate yes]. Edward Ulrich: Mm-hmm [to indicate yes]. Chairperson Ward: Okay. Let's see. Kevin — we'll start with Kevin Skinner. Kevin Skinner: Kevin Skinner, 378 West Collins Road, Blackfoot, Idaho, 83221. So the document that you have there talks about it, and I know that the open space requirements is not something that | think is really an issue because the way the original plan was set up, each of the seven additional lots in the Castle View Estates has an open space of three- quarters of an acre that's slated to the back of that, and the proposed road impact is only about .66 acres, which with the addition or the seven lots that are there, plus the 18 acres that are just still part of plot nine, we still exceed the required amount of open space for that subdivision. So we're — the open space that's already there would be just fine even with the impact of the road that's going through it. And then the — going through lot eight is — or goes against some of the standards that the County has for putting roads in there, as well as negatively impacts Susan and Alan on that. And so the proposed position of the access is about as unintrusive and still maintains the BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 260421_0042 AudioClerk Transcription open space requirement. As far as we can tell. Any questions that you have for me? Edward Ulrich: Just makes more questions for staff. Chairperson Ward: I don't think so. Thank you. Okay. Let's see. Susan, you already spoke, so you're technically the applicant, so you didn't need to necessarily sign this, but that's okay. We'll go to the next one. Conrad Wagner. Conrad Wagner: Should I put the other people ahead of me? They're part of the subdivision, and I'm actually just the lot owner to the right that has the easement, Chairperson Ward: Okay. Conrad Wagner: I'm just the lot owner that has that easement through the open space to get to my property. Chairperson Ward: Sure. Conrad Wagner: I'm not part of the — was never part of the whole [inaudible 01:11:57] estates. I] mean, | bought a lot, but it was never — that easement was granted way — Chairperson Ward: But you want them to go first? Conrad Wagner: Yeah. Chairperson Ward: Okay. That's fine. I don't really care what order. We'll just get — we'll get through everybody eventually. Tracy Casselman. Tracy Casselman: | Good evening. My name is Tracy Casselman. | reside at 9125 Nottingham Lane, which is lot number 4 of Castle View Estates. We purchased that property in 2009 from the Pecks. It was with the understanding there was about 20 acres of open space. That was a significant decision point for us to decide to buy a home there. We've used that area extensively. I probably use that area more than anyone up there. Our kids have used it. We walk dogs, we travel. We've done that for years. In the last few years, the roads have grown, they've gotten bigger, more impact to the open space. Property's been cleared, encumbrances have come onto the property, and it's far less than it was, This road which is proposed, is going to put in — going to cut up about two — about another three-quarters of an acre, give or take. We're looking at 1,600 feet times 20 feet if the road only stays 20 feet. And I don't see it as necessary. Yeah, there's going to be some 37 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING 260421_0042 AudioClerk Transcription Chairperson Ward: Steve Klauser: Chairperson Ward: Female: Steve Klauser: Chairperson Ward: Steve Klauser: Chairperson Ward: Steve K lauser: Susan Peck: Steve Klauser: hardship putting a road in, but it's open space. When I —- my perception is, yeah, you've got a draw right here that's got a lot of steepness in it, okay? But you've got an existing road, okay? Part of which comes into the open space and goes. All right? The building here, the castle was built after that property was sold and the path was put there. Okay? You could continue to go up through there, and it could be a whole lot of fun, and it can be fun for the Pecks there. Or you come off here where it's closest and you save a few hundred feet. Come off here. There are options. I don't think we need to put in a secondary road. All the dust, the impact, that place is for open space, for the purpose of open space, It's already highly fragmented. We're talking about fragmenting and chewing up another — J don't even know how you do the calculations, .68, .34 or .74 acres. I would just ask that you deny the request for the variance and work with Mr. Skinner and the Pecks and figure something else out that doesn't impact the open space. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Steve Klauser. Did I say that right? No, but it works, How close was I? You were good. Well, it's pronounced Klauser. Klauser. Some people say Klauser. I was close. You were right there. Steve Klauser, 9053 Nottingham Lane. I’m lot two. I am one of the owners of the original that ever bought up there. And, again, to just reiterate a little bit on what Tracy said, the whole plan that was presented to us when we were looking to buy this land was that that was open space. And Susan and Alan Peck were horse people. Still are? Yeah. This was really meant to be a horse property, and places for us to be able to ride our horses and do things like that, to utilize open space as open space was meant for. And I really wasn't going to talk too much on this, but a comment was made about still having adequate open space. Can you blow that up just a little bit more? Okay, right SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 38 260421_0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 AudioClerk Transcription Molly Dimick: Steve Klauser: Chairperson Ward: Steve Klauser: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Conrad Wagner: there. You pointed this out a little bit, where the open space, all of the natural habitat has been completely stripped off, and that is now used as a parking lot. That is a clear violation of open space. You cannot do that. If you look over to the right, out where the arrow is there, all stripped of natural habitat. Once again, these are violations of open space. You can see where the road varied back out into open space and went back in. I don't know when that came apart, because we were never made aware that they were going to impact open space to bring the road out and back and around, but it did. So when we sit here and we talk about, there's still adequate open space," I'm going to argue that. You can see the width of the road, the one road there, going off to the right. Originally, if | remember correctly from looking at the plot plans, that was only a 20-foot easement. That's 40 feet wide now and stripped of natural habitat. We continue to come — this is our second time being in here going over the open space. Now, I'm not trying to make it so Mr. Skinner can't sell his property or provide something in there. So I'm going to also reiterate, one, there's already existing road going back there. Yes, it does go by Susan and Alan Peck's place. A shipping container has been moved back there. There are building forms that have been moved back there. I believe, and | could be wrong, correct me if I am wrong, please, even a well-drilling truck went through there to go back there and drill a well. So it's not a — it is purely a matter of inconvenience, It's not a matter of financial because — That’s your time. Okay. There we go, Thank you. Boy, too many years in sales. I could talk {inaudible 01:18:27]. Can I say something else? Almost. Almost. Almost. Okay, Conrad, you're up. Okay. Conrad Wagner, 9220 Nottingham Lane. I own the lot there where the road takes off to the right that goes to that physical house there, which was never part of the subdivision. It was a lot that had easements, right-of-ways before. As far as the road going up to my lot, if you look at the plat thing, that is a 60-foot-wide easement. If you've got — anyway, it says — states on there that it's 60-foot wide. 39 260421_0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 AudioClerk Transcription Molly Dimick: Chairperson Ward: Conrad Wagner: Chairperson Ward: And that mowed area in my lot, in my road there, is 60-foot wide. You can see where the sagebrush has been mowed on both sides of the road. The road is approximately 20 feet wide, and from sagebrush to sagebrushes that I mowed that back 60 feet. More for fire protection and that because there's — we're out there in the middle of the sagebrush, That's the only reason I — if ] made a mistake on that, I did that, and that's my fault for not realizing the zoning on open space. And the first part is, yeah, I'm sure you guys got this map there. My easement does come from the county road up to that corner, and then turns right to the easement, and then there is another easement that goes up to Alan Peck's property. But that's where the easements stop. There's basically those lots up there. There's four lots up there. They are landlocked basically, and this kind of gives him an easement right-of-way, but he still has to pay for that right-of-way, and the purchase price or whatever of property. As far as the lots, they're both owned by Alan Peck. Number eight and nine are owned by the same people. Even the open space is still owned by him. So I've asked him for permission to do what I did, but like I say, it was my fault if I did anything wrong. As far as the road going up through there, I'm not sure, but he's proposing to go right off of here to this point here, and that's the property line right there. Well, with the 60-foot road easement and that road there, the two roads would actually be touching each other. If not, they would be 10 feet apart, and the extra ground that that consumes up of open space, I don't see that feasible. And then from that point there, to, say, this area in here, if you did continue to go up this road, and then the way they have this drawn in here is very deceiving. Because this point here is probably at least 30 feet higher in elevation than this part right here where they're down over the bank, When you get up here in this draw, then the average slope on the — it's a deep slope. It goes from a one-to-one slope to one-to-two and most of it is a one-to-two degree slope. There's some one-to-three, but where they had this road going, it's basically pretty much a one-to-two degree slope. That's your time. That's your time. That's time? It goes fast. 10 40 260421_0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 AudioClerk Transcription Conrad Wagner: Chairperson Ward: Conrad Wagner: Chairperson Ward: Conrad Wagner: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Male: Susan Peck: Krystal Madsen: Male: Susan Peck: Tristan Bourquin: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Krystal Madsen: Can you just, can you give me five more minutes? No, I just have a — yes, please, | asked for it. I'm the last guy. There's only two here, and [ recognize everybody who's here. Okay, there's four lots out there. Just real quick and then I'm going to cut you off. Okay. There are four lots up there. As far as people going up there and fire protection, there's going to be at least a national average of lots per people. There's going to be 10 trips a day per lot. That's 60 people per day basically going up that road. I pay the maintenance on the road going up to that part. Somebody's got to figure out who's going to pay me back for — I spent $8,000 just improving that road for gravel. Plus the fire protection, it's got to be a road that is to specs, county specs. And also — I'm going to have to cut you off right there. I'm going to have to cut you off right there, okay? Okay. Oh yeah, I [inaudible 01:22:35]. I can do that. All right. Thank you. Okay, now it's back to you for rebuttal. So come back up here. I will need your name and address again. And then you have six minutes. Okay. Susan Peck, 9504 Nottingham Lane. So as far as Conrad already said, the wider part of the road there that goes to his place, that's what he did. It had nothing to do with me. And yes, I do have my trailer. I have some of my trailers parked there. But that other part over below the shop is my septic field, so that's what that is. What part, Susan? I'm sorry. Below the shop there, that’s all my septic field. Right there? So that's actually in lot eight though. That's my septic field. That’s in lot nine. They approved it for me, for us, but — Address the council, not — So if you'll just — yeah, if you'll just direct stuff to us. Yeah, sorry. But yeah, so that's our septic field. That's what that is. In lot nine. In the open space. 11 41 260421 _0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 AudioClerk Transcription Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Susan Peck: Chairperson Ward: Chad Selleneit: Chairperson Ward: Chad Selleneit: Edward Ulrich: Chad Selleneit: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Krystal Madsen: Edward Ulrich: Chad Selleneit: Chairperson Ward: Chad Selleneit: Molly Dimick: And then as far as the container going past and the house and going back there, that was long before we finished doing our patio on our house now. We have barely enough room for one vehicle to go alongside our house. That was prior to that when Kevin had all that stuff back there with the well driller and everything else. There's no way anybody could go past there like that now. Not a chance. They'd go straight down, go off the mountain, the side there. But that's all | wanted to say. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yep. All right. Questions? More questions? No. Well, just a comment. Discussion? Discussion, I appreciate everybody for coming and being part of it. That being said, I'm back to the council here. Staff has pretty much already told us this is not the avenue. This does not meet the definitions. Regardless of intent or whatever, this isn't our job to grant an easement. It needs to go through the proper channels. And so it's kind of, to me, a shut door. It’s a legal issue. That's — you know, at least as far as this avenue is, to come to us as a council, That's where I'm at. That's all. I would tend to agree with you, yes. This is a legal issue that I don't think we need to get into, So we move to findings and denial. If there comes a agreement legally between the neighbors to figure out easement and they have to replat something, then it comes back to us. But right now, this is not — Not for a variance. Not for a hardship variance or whatnot. This isn't a replat, this is for a variance. Right. And it doesn't — it's not in our scope right now. So it would need to come to us as a subdivision replat? 12 42 260421 0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING AudioClerk Transcription Chad Selleneit: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Tristan Bourquin: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Tristan Bourquin: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Chad Selleneit: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Chad Selleneit: Krystal Madsen: Edward Ulrich: Chad Selleneit: Edward Ulrich: Tristan Bourquin: Chairperson Ward: Tristan Bourquin: Or a replat, yeah. Yeah. And if, again, this isn't our place right now, but if the open space requirement is still met by shrinking the open space for a replat, then obviously that's something to be discussed at that point in time. Correct. Okay. Okay. So do we still have to go through findings? Mm-hmm [to indicate yes]. Okay. Okay. Ready to go through findings then? Or is there more discussion? No? Okay. No. We’re good. Okay. How do we go through findings in this case? Yeah, that's a good question. Let's just stay focused on the variance that they're asking. We can't grant that, so — The applicant has not demonstrated that there's no reasonable alternative. No, because we're not here to hear that. We're here to hear about a variance that we can't really legally give. We can just put that in there. We can just say, "The applicant has shown there is not a reasonable alternative, but based on this is not our —" Yeah, so page 192 of the packet. Look at the last sentence of that. It says, “The applicant's request is based on preference to relocate the access rather than the absence of legal or physical access. Any modification must occur through the applicable plat amendment or 13 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 43 260421 0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 AudioClerk Transcription Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Chad Selleneit: Edward Ulrich: Krystal Madsen: Tristan Bourquin: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Molly Dimick: Edward Ulrich: Krystal Madsen: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Chad Selleneit: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Chad Selleneit: Edward Ulrich: Molly Dimick: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: replat process. A variance is not the appropriate mechanism to alter subdivision design standards or dedicated open space restrictions." So can we just repeat that on all of these? Maybe not all of them, but — Number one anyways, right? Number one, Well, it is in conflict, right? Page 192, page 2 of the staff report. I think the last one, two, three, four sentences of that, "Any modification to the approved subdivision layout or access configuration must occur through that applicable plat amendment or replat process," and then the sentence right after that. I think we just use those two. Where is it at, Stewart, again? It's the last couple sentences of the — of A on the staff report. 192, A modification? Oh, and this one, it could conflict. It is in conflict, Yeah. Did you get that one? Has not, correct? No, is — wait, we're number one, right? Yeah, number one. The applicant has shown there — the applicant has not shown there is a reasonable alternative. Is not. Yeah, is not. The second one should be easy, right? Yeah, staff finds that granting the request would conflict. Yeah. Yeah. The variance is in conflict with the public interest. 14 44 260421_0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING AudioClerk Transcription Edward Ulrich: Tristan Bourquin: Edward Ulrich: Tristan Bourquin: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Tristan Bourquin: Chairperson Ward: Krystal Madsen: Edward Ulrich: Tristan Bourquin: Edward Ulrich: Tristan Bourquin: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Edward Ulrich: Chairperson Ward: Tristan Bourquin: Yep. And approval would be in conflict with our — With the approved subdivision plat. Yeah, with the — And requirements of the ordinance, And our scope. Correct? And it becomes the scope. But | think part of that is right in the middle of that paragraph in the staff report. It says, "Authorizing new private access easement for residential driveway purposes through an open space lot would undermine the purpose of the subdivision's open space requirement and establish a precedent for using variances to circumvent substantive," I think that's how you say that word, "subdivision regulations." Did I say it right? You did. Oh, man. I'm struggling. Good job. All the way to where? Just that sentence. That sentence. Authorizing to furthermore — talk before furthermore. Any regulation. And then number three. The variance will adversely affect adjacent property. Just say it — And the last sentence in the staff report: “Altering that approved configuration to accommodate a private driveway through protected open space may affect the character and intended function of the subdivision and could impact neighboring property owners who relied upon the approved plat.” That's in which one? D? C. The very last sentence in C, C. The last sentence. 15 SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 260421_0042 AudioClerk Transcription Edward Ulrich: Yeah, the last two sentences actually, yeah. Because when the commissioners review this, then at least they know we do acknowledge that there's a need for it, but it's not our place to do anything. Marj Williams: So will? Edward Ulrich: Yeah. If you guys are okay with that. Chairperson Ward: Yeah, I'm okay with that. Edward Ulrich: You want me to give the motion? Chairperson Ward: Sure. Edward Ulrich: Okay. So having reviewed the application, staff report, and all the testimony presented tonight as part of the record, and based on the criteria for a variance, and having found that those criteria of approval are not satisfied, | move to deny Alan and Susan Peck's variance request as described in the application and the staff report. I find that the petition fails to comply with — Tristan Bourquin: With the definition of a variance. Edward Ulrich: With the definition of a variance, Okay. Chairperson Ward: Okay. So we got a motion for denial. Chad Selleneit: Second. Chairperson Ward: Okay. Roll call, please. Marj Williams: Edward Ulrich. Edward Ulrich: Yes. Marj Williams: Krystal Madsen. Krystal] Madsen: Yes. Marj Williams: Stewart Ward. Chairperson Ward: Yes. Marj Williams: Molly Dimick. Molly Dimick: Yes. Marj Williams: Chad Selleneit. Chad Selleneit: Yes. 17 46 260421 _0042 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 AudioClerk Transcription Chairperson Ward: [01:35:12] Okay. Motion to deny carries with a five to zero vote. Okay, that's it. 18 Bannock County, ID August 27, 2026 Record No: APC- 26-2 Appeal of Council Decision Status: Active Submitted On: 7/24/2026 Primary Location No location Owner No owner information Applicant Jared Fluckiger 208-232-6101 jared@mmlawid.com 201 E. Center St Pocatello, ID 83201 Decision on Appeal Decision being appealed* VAR 26-6 re: Alan & Susan Peck Date of decision* 07/15/2026 Below give a brief explanation of why the Council's decision is being appealed. 47 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 Appeal Narrative* 1. The County's "no development whatsoever" interpretation appears inconsistent with the Open Space Ordinance 16.28.010. The County staff and the hearing body asserted that land shown as "open space" on a recorded plat is essentially unusable and cannot be developed. That interpretation is difficult to reconcile with ordinance language since the Open Space Subdivision Ordinance specifically permits: agricultural uses, agricultural structures, agricultural driveways, trails, driveways, utility facilities, and easements, or similar limited improvements. If an ordinance expressly authorizes driveways and agricultural uses and structures within open-space areas, then the County cannot reasonably interpret the ordinance as imposing a complete prohibition on all development in open space. Any such interpretation would render those provisions meaningless.   The ordinance recognizes that open space is not synonymous with untouched wilderness. Rather, Bannock County adopted a conservation-based development model in which a minimum amount of acreage remains open while certain limited and compatible uses are allowed within that acreage. That distinction is important.   The issue is not whether the land remains open space. The issue is whether an access driveway is a permitted or variably approvable use within open space.   The ordinance specifically states: "Driveways of any length serving two or more structures ... shall be built to county standards." 16.28.010(C)(7). This includes driveways for non-agricultural uses. That language assumes such driveways can exist and are in fact outright permitted. The focus is on construction standards, not prohibition.   Additionally, the ordinance allows design deviations in open-space developments through the county's variance process.   Ord. 1998-1 defines “open space subdivision” as a division of land which produces individual lots and reserves a specified amount of the original area in perpetually undeveloped or unchanged condition. The specified amount in this zoning is 50%. The code requires a minimum of 50% of the subdivision acreage to remain as open space. It does not require a lot that is primarily open space to have no development of any kind. That requirement is still satisfied by the proposed driveway. That definition does not prohibit development in open space.   16.28.010(C)(3)(b) Separate Lot. This concepts treats the remainder of the site as a separate lot which can be retained by the developer who may elect to keep or sell it. The lot will be deed-restricted against further development but it can be farmed or timbered, etc., as specified and approved by the council. 48 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 This language contemplates that the developer may use the property as approved by the council. As explained later, "restricted" does not mean "prohbited."   16.28.010(C)(7) Driveways of any length serving two or more structures or two or more nonagricultural uses shall be built to county standards.   The code specifically permits driveways serving residential structures in open space subdivisions. It is a misinterpretation of the code and an abuse of discretion for P&Z to say that no driveways are permitted simply because it is designed as “open space.” There is no support for that interpretation in Bannock County code.   2. The subdivision remains compliant with the 50% open-space requirement Numbers: Total subdivision acreage: 44.83 acres Minimum required open space (50%): 22.415 acres Existing open space: 24.32 acres Proposed driveway disturbance: 0.70 acres Remaining open space after construction: 24.32 - 0.70 = 23.62 acres 23.62 acres exceeds the required 22.415 acres by approximately: 23.62 - 22.415 = 1.205 acres Thus, even assuming the entire driveway area must be removed from the open- space calculation: The subdivision would still exceed the minimum open-space requirement established by the ordinance. 3. Lot 9 is privately owned property, not common area Another significant point is that Lot 9 is: a platted lot, privately owned, not dedicated to the public, not designated as homeowners' common area.   The plat note #5 states that lot 9 is reserved as open space to be privately owned and maintained. The use and development of said lot is restricted per the requirements of the Bannock county subdivision ordinance.   The plat map contemplates that additional development of lot 9 may occur, within the restrictions of Bannock County code.   The plat note is a deed restriction as stated in the code, but a restriction is different than a prohibition. Just because something is restricted does not mean it is prohibited. A restriction and a prohibition both limit conduct, but they differ in degree: Restriction = an activity is allowed, but only under certain conditions, limits, or circumstances. Prohibition = an activity is completely forbidden. Examples Restriction "Buildings may not exceed 35 feet in height." Building is allowed, but height is limited. "Parking is permitted only between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m." 49 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 Parking allowed, but during limited times. Prohibition "No buildings may be constructed in the floodway." Building is not allowed at all. "No parking." Parking is prohibited regardless of time.   Since the plat itself does not contain an express prohibition, but only a restriction that development must comply with Bannock code, the county must identify the specific ordinance provision prohibiting the driveway.   The findings and order from P&Z do not identify the exact section of the subdivision ordinance, zoning ordinance, development agreement, plat note, or condition of approval that expressly prohibits construction of a driveway within a privately-owned open-space lot.   If there is no such provision, then the denial appears to be based on policy preference rather than ordinance language. Local government decisions become vulnerable when they rely on generalized concerns rather than a specific ordinance requirements. The open space ordinance does not give P&Z discretion to impose policy preferences not required by the code explicitly.   Lot 9 already contains driveways. That creates a substantial consistency issue. If open-space lots are categorically prohibited from containing improvements, why do driveways already exist on Lot 9? These were platted in the open space lot from the beginning. Either: driveways are allowed within open space, or prior approvals recognized that limited access improvements are compatible with open-space designation. In either case, the County's current interpretation appears inconsistent with its historical treatment of the property.   In response to the required findings section of the P&Z findings and order: 1. The proposed driveway does not require an amended plat, because the proposed driveway is permitted in the open space subdivision ordinance and maintains compliance with the open space restrictions. 2. There is no conflict with the public interest because the public has no interest in lot 9. And the open space subdivision requirements and purpose are still satisfied and not undermined in any way because the proposal is permitted by its own language and the open space requirement is maintained. 3. There is no adverse affect to adjacent property. P&Z called this “protected open space” but again, the ordinance imposes restrictions, not prohibition on this kind of development. The character and intent of the function of the subdivision are not violated. The plat is not required to be changed, and any reliance adjacent lot owners may have had is unaffected. The entirety of lot 9 is private property, not just the proposed driveway. This parcel could already 50 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 be closed to public access and use by the Pecks if they wanted. There is no requirement in the plat that lot 9 remain accessible and available to the public or the other lot owners in Castle View Estates. Nothing in the plat offers that to the other lots. It is not dedicated common space. It is private property. 4. The route that P&Z suggests through lot 8 is not feasible. There is no practical way to construct a code compliant access next to the Peck’s residence. It is approximately 10-feet wide between their house and the edge of the gully. If the Peck’s had known the county would require this, they may have developed lot 8 differently, but they acted in reliance on discussions with P&Z and existing county code at the time they developed Castle View Estates. It was always their intent and plan to access to the north for division 2 of Castle View to be in the route now proposed. P&Z at that time indicated that would be fine. P&Z now has failed to show any legal requirement for the Peck’s to create access through lot 8 rather than their lot 9 as originally planned.   P&Z concedes that the northern property already has legal access through lot 8. This is stated multiple times in their findings and order. However, they state no basis for that opinion. They have not shown an easement, deed, plat, or other document that provides legal access to the northern property over lot 8.   The suggested adverse impact to the other lot owners considered by P&Z is already permitted through lot 8 according to P&Z and would be no different for those lot owners if the travel was through lot 9 rather than on lot 8. P&Z states that the lot owners relied on the approved plat when they bought their lots. The approved plat does not prohibit development on lot 9 or future development of the northern property. There is nothing in the existing plat that provides any assurance to the lot owners that there can be no further development. The plat note itself says that there can be development according to Bannock code.   3. Hardship exists Idaho variance law generally requires a showing of practical difficulty or undue hardship arising from the property's unique circumstances. Here, the hardship is not self-created in the ordinary sense. The Pecks own: Both lot 8 and lot 9. At the time of development the Pecks owned the adjacent property to the north of Castle View Estates as well. You will notice that this plat is Division 1, and future divisions were anticipated. The Pecks ended up selling the property to the north and did not develop it. However, the anticipated access to that future area was always along the route proposed by the Pecks. The development of Lot 8 was never undertaken with the intent of accommodating future access to the north through lot 8. Access through Lot 9 is the only feasible route. The preliminary platting and survey work incident to Castle View Estate division 1 51 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 demonstrates that clearly. This is not an afterthought by the Pecks. It has been their plan all along, which P&Z was aware of from the beginning, and is now attempting to pull the rug out from under the Pecks so to speak.   Denial prevents a reasonable access solution despite: continued compliance with the open-space percentage requirement, no substantial impairment of neighboring properties, no elimination of the open-space character of the subdivision.   The ordinance is being applied in a manner that effectively deprives Lot 9 and the property to the north of any reasonable beneficial use beyond passive existence, despite the ordinance itself recognizing compatible uses within open-space areas. This is not the intent of the open space subdivision ordinance.   The physical characteristics of lot 8 and lot 9, make it impractical to develop a code compliant access through lot 8. The access would have to be too close to the existing structure, and it is a cliff on the opposite side of the driveway. This is not a private property dispute as characterized by P&Z. The Pecks relied on the county when they developed Castle View. The Pecks were not ready at the time to create that road so they did not include it, but understood that they would be able to in the future since they retained ownership of lot 9. Based on what they were told by the county, they relayed that information to the buyer as well.   It would not be practical or safe to construct a road on lot 8 that would comply with code and could support access for equipment and vehicles necessary to do any development on the property to the north. There would be no safe way to get a concrete truck or excavator past the Peck’s house. It would require significantly more work, expense, and engineering to make that safe, than to create the entire road in the proposed location. This is not just personal preference as stated by P&Z. It is simply the reality of the topography and physical characteristics of the property. Not a situation created by the Pecks, and it would absolutely be an undue hardship.   4. Idaho Code § 67-6516 supports a broad reading of variance authority Idaho Code § 67-6516 authorizes local governments to grant variances and includes language concerning ordinances affecting the placement of structures. The variance request concerns application of an ordinance affecting where improvements may be placed on the property. Idaho courts typically interpret zoning and land use regulations according to their practical effect. A driveway is a permanent, constructed site improvement involving grading, surfacing, drainage, and access design. Therefore, a reasonable argument exists that: the ordinance affects placement of site improvements, the variance process is the proper mechanism for relief, commissioners possess authority to approve the request where strict application creates hardship and the purposes of the ordinance remain satisfied.   Even if a driveway is not itself a structure, the variance statute demonstrates legislative intent that local governments possess flexibility when applying land- use regulations that control the placement and use of improvements on private property.   52 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 5. Conclusion The record does not establish that Bannock County's ordinances impose an absolute prohibition on driveways within privately-owned open-space lots. To the contrary, the ordinance recognizes limited development within open-space areas including specifically driveways for agricultural and non-agricultural uses. The proposed 0.70-acre driveway would leave approximately 23.62 acres of open space, exceeding the required 22.415 acres (50%). Lot 9 would remain open space, the subdivision would remain compliant, and the purposes of the open- space subdivision regulations would continue to be achieved. Because denial creates an unnecessary hardship while approval would preserve the ordinance's intent, the variance should be granted or the matter remanded with instructions to apply the ordinance consistent with its plain language.   Bannock County's ordinance expressly contemplates private driveways in open spaces, establishes standards for them, emphasizes provision of lawful access and use of private property and therefore the county should approve the driveway. If the county denies this request, it must identify a specific ordinance provision, deed restriction, or other legal authority that the proposed access cannot satisfy. P&Z has failed to provide any legal authority that would dictate the outcome they have stated in their findings and order. There is no citation to any subdivision ordincance provision that would prohibit the proposed driveway, and only a general mention of the variance section itself. It is not clear what legal basis exists in state law or applicable county code and relied upon by P&Z. According to I.C. 67-6516, denial of a variance permit or approval of a variance permit with conditions unacceptable to the landowner may be subject to the regulatory taking analysis provided for by section 67-8003, Idaho Code, consistent with the requirements established thereby. A denial in this instance has a significant detrimental effect to the Peck's property on lots 8 and 9, as well as the property to the north, which would also be an aggrieved party by P&Z decision. Acknowledgement I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the information herein and attached hereto is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. I acknowledge that transcript fees must be paid before the end of the 10-day appeal window or within 48 hours of notice to pay, or this appeal will be considered abandoned and closed. I hereby authorize the filing of this application and consent to staff review and correction of minor discrepancies on my behalf, if found on this application. 53 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 54 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 Electronic Signature [Typed Name of Applicant]* | agree that my electronic signature above is Jared Flucki equivalent to a handwritten signature and is are uckiger binding for all purposes related to this transaction* Date* 07/24/2026 Attachments Nottingham-5.jpg Nottingham-5.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:21 PM Nottingham-6. jpg Nottingham-6.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:21 PM Nottingham-7.jpg Nottingham-7.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:21 PM . Nottingham-8.jpg s Nottingham-8.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:21 PM Nottingham-9.jpg _ Nottingham-9.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:21 PM Nottingham-10.jpg Nottingham-10.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:22 PM Nottingham-11.jpg Nottingham-11.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:22 PM BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS’ - MEETING Nottingham-12.jpg 55 Nottingham-12.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:22 PM Nottingham-13.jpg Nottingham-13.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:22 PM Nottingham-14. jpg ~ = Nottingham-14.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:23 PM Nottingham-15.jpg | Nottingham-15.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:23 PM Nottingham-4.jpg Nottingham-4.jpg Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:23 PM 20260724 Point-of-Sale Payments.pdf E; 20260724 Point-of-Sale Payments.pdf Uploaded by Jared Fluckiger on Jul 24, 2026 at 4:32 PM SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 BOARD OF BANNOCK-GOUNT Y COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING Noe eee At beng 5 * a I ! iP oa SEPTEMBER'S, 2026" a __.. SERBTEMBER 8, 2026 61 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 62 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING ; SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 2 - BOARD.OF BANNOGEC OUNTE COMMISSIONERS MEETING 5) 6) * =x oe S|. ee Big entonagiec Sie aia ‘ “SEPTEMBER '$; 2026 a < . 64 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 65 Ses Se “=e , : TST aA se C : < ; ; BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 66 BOARD OF BANNOCK COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' - MEETING SEPTEMBER 8, 2026 te