Fremont County | minutes | meeting 2026-04-29 | BOCC Apr 29 2026 Public Hearing source: https://fremont.municipalcodeonline.com/book/content?type=minutes&name=BOCC_Apr_29_2026_Public_Hearing BOCC Apr 29 2026 Public Hearing FREMONT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING Sandbox RV Appeal Hearing Fremont County Annex – Large Meeting Room Wednesday, April 29, 2026 6:00 PM Present for the meeting were: Commissioners Blair Dance, Rick Hill, and Mark Chandler Also attended by: Clerk Meredith Mattingly, Deputy Clerk Kim Fletcher, Civil Attorney Blake Hall, Planning and Zoning Administrator Tom Cluff, Planning and Zoning Planner Sara Bowersox, and Planning and Building Planner Dusty Rigby Mr. Blake Hall will be serving as the hearing officer for this meeting. Mr. Hall called the hearing to order and welcomed those in attendance. He also introduced county employees in attendance. Mr. Hall explained that tonight’s hearing is for 2 appeals, one filed by Mitch Mendenhall, and one filed by Brandon Zaugg, Jessica and Nicholas Cogar, and Brenda and Nicky Cogar. Both appeals are challenging the Planning and Zoning Commission’s approval of a Class II permit to allow additional accessory uses to the Sandbox RV Park, north of Parker. These 2 appeal applications have been consolidated into 1 proceeding for efficiency and fairness. Commissioner Dance asked Clerk Meredith Mattingly if the hearing had been properly noticed. Clerk Mattingly stated that it has. Mr. Hall asked if any of the Commissioners have a conflict of interest for this hearing, if they have had any ex-parte communication with anyone in involved in tonight’s hearing, or if they have visited the site. Commissioners said no to all. Commissioner Dance turned the time over to Planning and Zoning Administrator Tom Cluff to discuss the Sandbox RV Park Appeal. Planning and Zoning Administrator Tom Cluff, 125 N Bridge Street, St. Anthony, ID. Mr. Cluff presented the staff report. He stated that in June of 2025, P&Z approved a Class II permit to add some accessory uses at the Sandbox RV Park. The park is located north of Parker. The staff report has a table of contents which lists the outline of the staff report as well as the attachments and key documents in the package. The portion of the package labled “Background” explains how we got to this hearing. In January of 2023, P&Z approved the Sandbox RV Park. In 2024, Sandbox applied to add a drag strip as a use to their RV Park, and that application was denied. In March of 2025, Sandbox applied to add a few more accessory uses to the RV Park. On June 16, 2025, P&Z approved those accessory uses. This is the decision that is being appealed. The details of the appellants arguments can be found in their submittals as attachments “A” and “B” in the binders, and they are summarized on pages 5 to 16 of the staff report. The appeals attempt to argue that P&Z’s approval of the accessory amenities was incorrect, and they also seek to argue that the original approval was incorrect. The staff report explains the original approval is not appealable. That window passed without an appeal being filed in 2023. Even though many of these arguments are improper, because they have to do with the original approval of the RV Park, the staff report doesn’t ignore them. Some of the points raised, beginning with the Mendenhall report: Sandbox RV Park doesn’t meet the FCDC open space requirements, the dirt bike track was really a race track, and there are things they are doing that violate the original permit such as hosting events and letting people camp before opening. Each of these is addressed in the staff report. Both appeals allege the original permit expired. They cite 3.22 of the Development Code, and interpret it to mean that the original permit expired 2 years after it was issued, so there is no original permit. This is a perverse interpretation of the Code and creates an unjust outcome. It ignores the reality that sometimes permits have requirements that take longer to complete. Every permit is unique and should be dealt with according to its own circumstances. The automatic 2 year expiration for a Class II permit is not the intent of the FCDC, and we know this because the language of 3.22 tells us what has to happen to revoke a permit; the Board of Fremont County Commissioners has to direct the Administrator to revoke a permit, it is not something that can just be done. Furthermore, other sections treat expiration differently, with different time frames, or allowing work to continue if it is continuous. The bottom line is the County’s long standing practice is to work with permittee’s who are making a good faith effort to complete their permit requirements, and not to expire permits in those cases. On page 8, the Zaugg/Congar appeal, like the Mendenhall appeal, uses P&Z’s approval of the additional accessory uses as an excuse to attack the original permit, using the same arguments as well as others. One claim is that Sandbox RV Park is not really an RV Park, but is a large scale commercial operation. Calling it commercial doesn’t demonstrate that it violates the FCDC. Commercial uses are allowed throughout the Rural Zones because they are multiple use zones. Since the appeal is only for a few accessory uses, it can’t be in violation of any large scale development rules. Both appeals make an issue of event hosting, but the decision P&Z made in June 2025 specifically did not approve event hosting, they are not allowed. They complain about events that were hosted at Sandbox RV Park in 2023 and 2024 but those were violations. Denying a permit application because of previous violations is improper. When someone is in violation because they don’t have a permit, the solution is to get a permit. The County doesn’t have an adopted process for special events. Events like UTV Invasion have been held many times over the years. A local farmer used to host the event and it didn’t seem to be an issue at the time. An outsider comes in and hosts the event and now it’s a terrible thing he was doing without a permit. We don’t let them do it at all after receiving so many complaints about these events; the owner of Sandbox RV and the Organizer of UTV Invasion were spoken to in 2025 and were told they couldn’t hold events, and both complied. There are complaints about posts the owners of the RV park have made on Facebook that violate the County Code. We can’t and don’t regulate the things people say online. We can only correct those things they are actually doing that violate the code. The appellants refer to some of the Rural Base Zone’s purpose statements and claim the RV Park doesn’t support them. This is a misunderstanding of what purpose statements are and how they work in the Development Code. Many of the written comments we received encourage the Commissioners to protect the dunes. The FCDC lists RV Parks as a Class II permitted use because recreational uses are appropriate in Rural zones, and are especially appropriate in areas like the dunes because they have significant recreational value. Rural Land Management calls this area a “special recreation management area” and allows for motorized recreation. Therefore, recreation of the dunes, along with the kinds of development that support it are in harmony with the County’s policies. These appeals boil down to the fact that some people in the area just don’t like the RV park. Whether or not the neighbors like it is not a standard in our Code. When P&Z approved the permit for these additional uses, they reviewed it according to the standards for approval, and voted to approve it. Mitch Mendenhall, 749 N 2000 E, St. Anthony, ID. Mr. Mendenhall feels he isn’t being allowed the separate appeal he applied and paid for, but he is willing to move forward under protest. His appeal is based on compliance with the FCDC open space requirements. Page 46 of the Development Code states that there is no protection by this ordinance for structures, buildings, and uses in violation of the rules and regulations that were in place at the time of construction. The passage of time does not make these situations legal, compliant, or permitted, either as conforming, or non-conforming. These situations are by definition illegal, non-conforming uses and must be remedied according to the provisions of this ordinance. He asked why open space requirements for the RV Park are not being upheld for the Rural Base Zone. General requirements state that every permit application in Fremont County is required to conform to the standards of the ordinance, including the open space requirements of the respective zones and all of the development standards. Open space differentiates the zones. The more rural an area is, the more open space is required. Open space is a constraint intended to limit development and density. It is intended to create the desired look and feel of the zone. It is required to ensure compatibility, and prevents the appearance of large, independent free-standing communities. The Rural Base Zone requires at least 65% open space. Rural Conservation Zone requires at least 60% open space. Rural Living Zone requires at least 50% open space. The Recreation Resort District Overlay requires a minimum of 160 acres, as well as a minimum 80% open space. When interpreting and applying the regulations of our ordinance, the regulations should be considered to be minimum requirements unless stated otherwise. Proposed uses should comply with all applicable regulations and standards unless specifically exempt somewhere else in the ordinance. Appendix N says 25% open space for an RV Park. The FCDC requires 65%. Which is it? Page 47 of the Code states that in the Rural Base Zone at least 65% of the gross acreage of the property shall be established as open space. Page 44: Conflicting Regulations states that in case of conflict between the text and the maps, the maps shall prevail; Appendix N says 25%, the Development Code requires 65%. Page 8 states that should any of the provisions within the ordinance conflict, the most restrictive standard applies, unless otherwise stipulated; 65% is more restrictive. Page 118 lists approved uses of open space, which includes active non-commercial recreation uses such as playing fields, playgrounds, courts, and bike paths. Sandbox RV Park was approved on the premise that RV Parks count as open space. The applicant was told it counts as open space simply because they don’t have a concrete pad. They were also told the 25% isn’t really applicable because an RV Park is considered open space. Appendix N dictates they can have no more than 8 RV spaces per acre, but they should also be told that they are also required to have 65% of open space. He demonstrated the issue by showing an areal video of Idaho Dunes RV Park, located just west of Sandbox. Idaho Dunes RV was approved with the same requirements but has the same issues. It is located in the Rural Base Zone, and is required to have 65% open space. It was approved for 75 RV sites; their open space is being exploited and used for more RV parking, so instead of 75 sites, there are hundreds. If the open space regulation isn’t enforced, it has a huge impact on density and capacity. He has shown this video to neighboring counties who all feel this is insane. It isn’t recreation anymore, it’s commercial. It’s to a point where they are asking to use neighboring properties to put their backup septic locations; they want as much space as they can to park RVs. Neighbors have complained about this issue for many years. Neighboring counties consider a site 1 RV. Fremont County allows up to 14,000 square feet for 1 site, which can fit 6 RVs and all of their equipment. Sandbox RV’s original application was for 109 sites, but they were allowed to have 315 RVs on the property. When does it require additional standards for large-scale applications? When does it become high density? Because open space requirements are not being enforced, RV parks are becoming large, independent, free-standing communities. This type of development does not blend in with the countryside, and is not compatible for neighbors, and it makes it easier for developers to push for zoning changes. The race track is very convenient for the 500-600 people in Sandbox RV Park, and there are no restrictions for its use. There is a lot for a home that borders the track. If you lived in that house, would you want to listen to people race up and down that track all day, every day? In the early days of development they called it a race track, then they started referring to it as a simple trail. Event hosting: Sandbox laid low last year after they were told they couldn’t host events. UTV Invasion has advertisements posted for 2026 that will be hosted at Sandbox. St. Anthony Dune Trails Jamboree is advertising they will be hosting events this summer at Sandbox. Sandbox Side-by-Side Outlet in July. Some of these events are advertising for live entertainment which may mean concerts but he isn’t sure. The mechanic shop: he doesn’t feel their permit should be done because it expired; he feels they were issued the incorrect permit from the start. They were approved as a standard RV Park. The original permit approved an office, vendors, and the race track, with a mention they might like to do some other things with the property in the future. The second meeting denied the drag strip. Then they added the general store. Now they’ve added the mechanics shop, which he doesn’t believe has ever been approved in any meeting. The land has been left unplatted for nearly 2 years, he isn’t sure why. They filed for a utility permit to put their backup septic location on a different property. He asked why the property has been left unplatted and at who’s request. He also asked why this wasn’t taken care of before the original permit was issued. They have advertised so many different things they plan to do with the property, but no one knows what they are really planning. This is not a standard RV Park. Many of the things they are doing are commercial. They may not be advertising that they are hosting events, but everyone else is advertising that their events are being hosted at Sandbox. The Findings of Facts state they were “denied event hosting on an ongoing basis,” not, “denied event hosting” at all. He isn’t sure if the wording provided a loophole for them to host events in the future or not. There is a loophole in the FCDC that says that for the purpose of commercial campground, you can have people on your property for 2 days before and after holidays. Memorial Day, 4th of July, and Labor Day. This means the loophole allows for the Saturday and Sunday before the holiday, and the Tuesday and Wednesday after. UTV Invasion was held Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday before Labor Day, and they had people showing up with RVs on Tuesday. It was a week-long event. The loophole should not apply to commercial businesses for a huge financial windfall. The loophole defense doesn’t absolve them from violating the Code. It doesn’t absolve the farmer or anyone else who was hosting the event before them. There are also no limits set for the number of vendors they are allowed to have. Their vendors are a staging area for a commercial business. This is not a standard RV Park. It is not how it was approved. It is not a conditional use permit. There are a lot of commercial elements, and they should comply. Mr. Mendenhall’s presentation was entered as part of the record as Exhibit 2. Attorney Ryan Poole, w/ Smith Knowles PLLC, 343 E 4th N Ste 105, Rexburg, ID. Mr. Poole is representing the appellants; the Cogars and the Zauggs. They are property owners in the Parker Reef Subdivision just north of the RV Park. They are affected by the park, they are taxpayers, and they want their property rights protected by the Code as they should be. He has participated in land disputes before in other states, this isn’t his first time. Fremont County is unique. He isn’t sure why a property owner would need to hire an attorney; the County seems to be doing the work for them. It took 8 months to receive a report from P&Z and it was 20 pages that essentially insult county taxpayers. He finds this interesting because the County should be neutral. He hopes the Commissioners will see this and pull the reigns in on what is happening under the watch of P&Z. As he drove here from Idaho Falls, he took the route through Egin and he saw a duck. It looked like a duck, walked like a duck, he’s sure if he stopped to listen, it would sound like a duck. What we have here in the guise of an RV Park is not really an RV Park even though it is being emphasized as one. You can’t find an RV Park in Fremont County other than the objectionable, violating, unlawful RV Park that was shown by Mr. Mendenhall. This process is unfolding in a way that is not consistent with the Code. He presumes we will open the meeting for public comment, and unless ears are plugged or the room is left, it will be interesting if the comments are taken in or disregarded, because this is an appeal and not a re-review. The inclusion of the public comment is unlawful. It appears the County is going to do it, receive it, and walk the line where it isn’t considered, and that is going to be impossible which makes this process unlawful, so they object to this process. The standards under the Code require that the County protect all citizens, not just certain citizens, or those that county employees advocate for. The Staff report repeatedly takes shots at his clients’ rights to protect their property. He doesn’t care because we have the Judiciary, which isn’t the County, and will give them an independent review if necessary. The Class II permit for the RV Park expired. The logic being used by Staff doesn’t make sense. He used a drivers license as an example; if the government wants to take your drivers license, they have to do some things to do that. But, if your drivers license expires and you don’t renew it, the government doesn’t have to do anything. You’ve lost the privilege that license provides because it expired. The Code makes it clear that the expiration for the permit is 2 years. Revocation is a different topic. He encouraged the Commissioners to review the statute and possibly get legal advice about its interpretation. You can’t amend an expired permit. There is also other language in the Code regarding ‘vested rights.’ Those rights expire with the permit. The only way to extend that period is with an improvement agreement. Under our Code, it shouldn’t be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare. He isn’t sure if the Commissioners have been to this location and seen the road that is going to be used by thousands of vehicles to get in and out of the RV Park, but the way it has been set up is inherently a public health, safety, and welfare problem. You have standards outlined in the code that say you can’t create undue adverse impacts on surrounding properties. If this isn’t creating undue adverse impact on surrounding properties, none of us are conceiving the real world right now. Just by the volume of sound and amount of particulate matter that is going to be cast into the air. The P&Z Commission ignored all of that. The purpose matters. Applicability matters. The Rural Base Zone is not intended to accommodate non-agricultural development. Why have the objective to “encourage the protection of open lands” if it is going to be ignored in our Code. The Code also states the RV Park has to comply with all standards, not just most of them. The RV Park is a Trojan Horse. RV Parks should comply with Appendix N, which aren’t being complied with in this case. Appendix N also limits incidental uses. This whole project is about incidental uses. There is also an effort to say that enforcement doesn’t matter, and that the things they are telling you don’t matter. If they tell you they’re not a duck, believe them. There is a narrative that says the permit was delayed because of septic. Mr. Mendenhall discussed the open space issues. The nuisance is also an issue. His clients have homes in the subdivision and are dealing with noise and particulate matter. But this isn’t like seasonal harvest noise and dust. This is constant. Mr. Poole’s presentation was made part of the record as Exhibit 3. Attorney Kipp Manwaring, w/ Manwaring Law Office, 2677 E. 17th Street Ste 600, Idaho Falls, ID. Mr. Manwaring is representing the Sandbox RV Park. Mr. Manwaring stated these hearings are always conflicting because we are dealing with people’s property rights. The neighbors have property rights that need to be respected. Sandbox is a property owner with property rights that should also be respected. The balance that counties use in seeing what the friction sometimes is between property owners are planning and zoning standards. In this county, those standards have been set out and everyone has referenced them. If the Planning and Zoning Commission looks at the standards that are applicable to a permit application, their decision on whether or not to grant that permit isn’t based on popularity or who they believe is right; it is based on the standards of the County Code. Those standards have to be followed in order to properly determine what people’s property rights should be. In this case, the Planning and Zoning Commission, a long time ago, approved the Sandbox use. That approval cannot be dragged into this hearing; it is done. Tonight’s issue is about another permit. If there are issues about that permit and its enforcement, those issues are not before this Board. This Board is sitting as an appellate to review of the Planning and Zoning Commission. The standards of the County Code also dictate how this Board must approach this review, and to base their decision the same way, not based on popularity or who has the best lawyers. It is about how the Commission properly applied the Fremont County ordinance to the permit at issue. For Mr. Mendenhall’s appeal, our staff properly identified his seeking review of a prior permit. His appeal doesn’t identify from the ordinances what the current permit violates, nor does he point to the record to say where the P&Z Commission made an error. He appreciates Mr. Mendenhall’s feelings, but it doesn’t produce any basis for overturning P&Z’s decision. The appeal for the Zauggs and Cogars has what lawyers like to refer to as ‘making a shotgun approach’; blast the pattern onto the appeal and see if anything holds. They have a number of appeal issues. Contrary to the representation made earlier, he doesn’t find anything in the staff report for this appeal that belittles any of the appellants, or disregards any of their arguments. Objectively, the staff report meticulously addresses all of their complaints according to the Fremont County Code. He believes the Board should feel at ease knowing our Staff is approaching this with a determined effort to be so methodical. There is nothing unfair in the report, and characterizing it that way is undermining the integrity of the County. The Commissioners will need to look at the question before them; has anything in the appeal shown that Planning and Zoning made an error in applying the County’s ordinances. Have they shown that the facts presented before the P&Z Commission don’t support their decision. Have they shown that the P&Z Commission made a decision that was arbitrarily based or pulled out of thin air, apparently based on the reason that they ‘like the applicant’. He doesn’t see how that applies here. This report thoroughly examines every issue raised on appeal, which he doesn’t always see from P&Z Staff. Not only did it address every issue, it addressed every issue with particularity in respect to the applicable ordinances and standards we apply according to the Code. We have competing interests here. Thank goodness we live in America, where those competing interests are given voice and the opportunity to be heard. We have the opportunity to approach elected officials and speak our opinions. It does not change the process the Commissioners apply as a Board to make a determination on this appeal of whether or not the Planning and Zoning Commission made an error. They have heard the voices, and the arguments. Our staff has done a commendable job analyzing those arguments meticulously. There has been nothing presented in the written appeals or in the verbal arguments today, that is anything other than emotion, that shows any error by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Because they have not shown any error, this Board must uphold the decision made by the P&Z Commission. Mr. Hall recessed the meeting for 10 minutes. Mr. Hall reconvened the meeting for the Public Comment portion of the hearing. Mr. Hall explained the Public Comment portion of the hearing. Each person that has signed up to comment will be allotted 5 minutes to comment. At the beginning of their time, they will need to announce their full name and address for the record. Comments need to be directed to the County Commissioners and must pertain to this hearing. He asked that commenters remain civil or their time may be taken. Time will not be allowed to be given up and donated to other commenters. There will be no more public comment after this hearing. Mr. Hall opened the meeting for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Leanne Yancey, 753 N 3100 E, Chester, ID. Ms. Yancey stated she has several points she would like to bring up. She addressed a point of error Mr. Manwaring brought up as to what has happened with this application and why the public is only allowed to bring up the amendment to the application in this hearing. In the appellants regard, when you have an application and a final approval is given for that application, P&Z has to produce a Findings of Fact that will be signed and dated, and then anyone who wants to file an appeal has 10 days to do so from that point. In the evidentiary file, there are 2 Findings of Fact on this application for #22-123, but it was never approved or signed in a P&Z meeting, therefore the applicants appealing tonight were never given an opportunity to appeal the first application. That was either a mistake of the Commission, or a mistake of the Staff. Due to the delays of receiving the report from Staff, the appellants were under the belief they were filing about the original permit. Due to the County’s error, they didn’t have a window to appeal file #22-123 because the County didn’t finish approving that application and didn’t produce a Findings of Fact for that application, so the only Findings of Fact the Commissioners can use as a record and the applicants can go from is the one signed by Loy Schroeder dated 7-25-2025. According to that Finding of Fact, they were waiting for a Finding of Fact that never happened, and their appeal comments reflect that. She discussed large scale development that seems to be a trend in this county; large scale developments are given simple Class II permits and she feels this is incorrect. This RV Park has had 7 different sketches, but the one you find with the building permit indicates they have 38 acres with 2 acres of dry camping. All 38 acres is developed as an RV Park. Mr. Mendenhall brought up the open space issues. This is a large scale development and it’s in the County Code that if its over 15,000 acres of a contiguous piece; they have water, power to every site, and dedicated space for the race track. The application was ran incorrectly from the beginning because there are standards in the Code that would have required more than a Class II permit and our Planning Staff knew that. She stated she would like to challenge 3 things she believes are missing in the staff report; there should be an official letter from the BLM granting the RV Park access to the BLM road. The County stated in a letter to the Davis’s that they had never seen a letter from the BLM, but it is referenced in the evidentiary file. Ms. Yancey’s time expired before she could address her other 2 challenges., however her documents were submitted to the record as Exhibit 4. Deborah Empey, 5184 Henry’s Lake Rd, Island Park, ID. Ms. Empey is a member of the Board of Directors with the Wildlife Alliance. They have some concerns which have already been addressed, but their main concern is the UTV Invasion’s online presence promoting their gatherings at Sandbox RV and the St. Anthony Sand Dunes. Their unsanctioned plans for Labor Day this year direct their followers to contact Sandbox RV for reservations, and only use the RV Park’s local and physical address on their ads, and they are the only ones listed on their page. She found on one of the websites for UTV Invasion that they are currently working with the BLM to try to establish an event coordination. The Wildlife Alliance feels like Sandbox RV indicated event hosting would be pursued in the future, but rather than seeking approval through the Development Code, they engaged in defacto event hosting through their association with UTV Invasion, and are sneaking through the back door where they would not be responsible for ‘no event hosting.’ Sandy Spitzer, 1920 Parker Reef Loop, St. Anthony, ID. Ms. Spitzer owns property in the Parker Reef Subdivision that directly borders Sandbox RV Park. She is here in support of Sandbox. She has no objection to the pickle ball court, the horseshoe pits, the minigolf, the playground, or the outdoor theater, and she feels it would be a wonderful place for families to come and make memories together. Loy Schroeder, 3945 Wise Owl Way, Island Park, ID. Ms. Schroeder stated she was on the Fremont County P&Z Commission for 4.5 years, was the Chair for 3 of those years, and she was involved in a large part of this. She shared the original handout presented by the Davis’s for Sandbox RV Park at their first meeting. It was presented as a nice Family RV Park. The original plans had a main office, 2 RV dump site, an enclosed dog park, online reservation capabilities, RV power and water, and motorized vehicle access. There would be 27 project numbered approved sites of double occupancy (70’x80’), Single RV Sites would be 84 (45’x50’), 10 acres of dry camping area with the proposed capacity of 150 RVs, and a projected opening date of Spring of 2023. The original proposal included trees and berms to help protect the neighbors and provide a sound barrier. The back portion and acreage for cows. All of their plans have changed and it has become a mess. It was so confusing you couldn’t keep track of the changes they were making. She could find no Findings of Fact for the original proposal. There was an area proposed for the kids to use their dirt bikes; this was not approved. Family RV Parks typically have lots of trees, grass, berms, no lights and no noise after 8:00pm. The UTV events have already proved that wrong in this case. They have not done most of the things they promised. The public hearing they held in June 2025 didn’t match the meeting that was announced to the public, and at the last minute, the Commission was given an additional 35 pages that had nothing to do with the meeting. That is against the open meeting law. The original application was good for 2 years. She wonders where the document is requesting an extension for that application. She doesn’t believe that was a good faith effort on our Staff’s part. 2023 UTV Invasion held races and had several vendors at the RV Park, which made it commercial, and people from outside the park were using those vendors. She brought this up with Mr. Cluff during that time and was told it would be taken care of, but she isn’t sure whether or not it was. She has seen more advertisements over the last 2 years for UTV Invasion events, but nothing has been done about it. It is against our Comp Plan. Policy 9 states it is our duty to protect the property rights and not adversely impact the property values of the citizens of Fremont County. Policy 4 states that duties of the Planning Committee include ensuring land use policies, restrictions, conditions, and fees not adversely impact land values. She doesn’t believe anyone living next to Sandbox can say it doesn’t adversely affect their property values. She would like to see any of it sell during one of those UTV events. Ms. Schroeder’s documentation was added to the record as Exhibit 5. Glade Mason, 218 Fort Henry Loop, Rexburg, ID. Mr. Mason doesn’t feel we should be here tonight. If we had followed the rules and regulations in the Comprehensive Plan to begin with, there wouldn’t have been an issue. The permit would have either been approved or denied, and, to him, it should have been denied. He is versed in legal language, and contractual language, and he knows how legalese works. If you sit down and look at what has happened, or what should have happened, the cart was put before the horses. He feels decisions were made and we tried to get the rules to fit. He would look at how the decisions were made in granting permits and find out whether the letter of the law and the Comprehensive Plan were followed. Cathy Koon, 43 E 3rd S, St. Anthony, ID. Ms. Koon stated she was on the Planning and Zoning Commission during the 3 years the Davis’s were developing their property. She is now a reporter, but tonight she is here as a citizen of Fremont County. She stated that every time the Davis’s came to Planning and Zoning, they changed their story, requests, and side plans, and each time they swore they were sticking to their original plans. In 2023, before they had any permit to do business, they hosted a UTV Invasion on their property. They’ve planned and advertised an Invasion every year since then, even after they were told the conditions in their permit forbid them from doing so. Some of those events were cancelled, but not all of them. As for the June 2025 meeting, the agenda still included their request to host events, even though the request had already been denied by Planning and Zoning. After the meeting started, it was announced they wouldn’t be asking to host events. Under Idaho Open Meeting Law, because of that last minute change to the agenda, the meeting shouldn’t have been allowed to proceed. From the beginning, information that was presented to the Commission was manipulated. Mr. Cluff represented the Davis’s seeking an access from the BLM before they moved to Idaho or purchased their property. Having a BLM access was a condition of their permit from the beginning; they still don’t have a designated BLM access, at least not according to the Fremont County record. They have violated every condition of their conditional use permit, which was to allow them to operate a small, family-oriented RV Park. What they have developed is a large scale commercial enterprise in the middle of a residential subdivision, in the middle of prime wildlife corridors, to the detriment of neighboring property owners. Nine months after the appellants paid $750 for each appeal, they were told they could only appeal the amenities. If that’s the case, why did it take 9 months to get here? Those amenities were to be restricted to those who stay in the RV Park, and not for the general public. Their website invites everyone to take advantage of their general store, food court, vendors, parts and repair shop, which was never approved as part of their permit. P&Z would have denied every part of the Davis’s development as being incompatible with the land use of the property if they hadn’t been told at every stage that they didn’t have grounds for denial. She has a copy of the hearing notice for this meeting, which states this is an appeal for their Class II permit, and states nowhere that it is only for the amenities. She feels this is also a violation of Open Meeting Law. She discussed the P&Z meeting that was held on 3-17-2025. During that meeting, the Board questioned whether or not the RV Park was a large scale development, and at the time, felt it wasn’t. Mr. Cluff stated that it wasn’t. Every time they came to a meeting their story changed, and they have the proof. Her documentation was submitted into the record as Exhibit 6. Tim Swearingen, 758 N 2000th E, St. Anthony, ID. Mr. Swearingen is a habitat biologist for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. He also manages the Sandcreek Wildlife Management area. Fish and Game provided their formal comments over the written comment submission period, so they are included with that documentation and illustrate what they perceive as being wildlife impact, so he doesn’t have anything further to comment about that tonight. However, they have documented the trespass on their state lands, as well as the dirt work and destruction that is being done on property owned by the State of Idaho. They consulted with a surveyor, and that survey information has been recorded with the County and is in the hands of their legal council. Todd Layman, 1900 Parker Reef Loop, St. Anthony, ID. Mr. Layman stated he is a direct neighbor to the RV Park; his back fenceline is on the dirty mess that is their access road. He started out neutral to the park. He did not receive notice of the initial application, so if he did have the right to appeal, he was denied that right because he didn’t know it had happened. He may not have been completely opposed to the park initially, but he would have encouraged P&Z to at least put some conditions on them to make them abide by the rules of their permit and help protect the neighbors and surrounding land owners. He believes everyone has a right to realize their dreams, but that shouldn’t come at a cost of everyone else having to give up their rights. He has had a dream of having property right next to the sand dunes for 30 years. Since he and his family achieved that, it’s turned into nightmares. They have been forced off their property by dust. His daughter has severe asthma, and had she been here, likely would have had to have been rushed to the hospital more than once. They have had rude people trespass on the property (rude gestures and language) because they chose to ignore the private property signs and were told to get off, their property has been used as a thoroughfare or a turnaround. The Davis’s, in their original plans, proposed his property as their access point for the RV Park; they wanted to use the eastern side of the road. The road falls off abruptly, 30’ from the centerline of the road is the bottom of the dropoff, and the only way to get up over Parker Reef Loop is to drive over his property. He’s never talked to the Davis’s face to face. He has had a phone conversation with Ms. Davis about the dust from UTV Invasion and how dangerous it was because you couldn’t see through it even with their lights on; someone was going to get hurt. Her answer was that it wasn’t their event. He told her its her property so they are responsible. He tried to get hold of UTV Invasion and was told it was their first time and they would try to do better next time. They’ve been holding this event for years, this was just the first year at the Davis’s property. One of the biggest issues they have is the traffic counts. Sandhills (Resort) is more than a mile away from the nearest residence. They have sand dunes and vegetation that help mitigate the impact on residents from Sandhills. Idaho Dunes is the closest comparison; line of site from the closest resident is 1250 feet. There is 3 homes within 2000 feet. His home is 40 feet from every vehicle that enters or leaves Sandbox RV Park; RV’s, motorcycles, cars, trucks, everything. There are 5 homes under 150 feet from that road, 6 under 700 feet. There is no mitigation. They can say they are going to water, but what happens when the have a full park for an event and the water levels are down? Conservatively, with 125 RV Spots, you have 125 UTVs; the point of the dunes is to enjoy them. Those 125 UTVs are in an out on that road at least 3 times a day, every day. They could see thousands of vehicles on that road on a normal weekend. The amenities bring in more people and it just compounds the problem. He doesn’t see how anything can be mitigated. It affects everyone nearby. He has tried to do something about it but the Davis’s ignore him and won’t address anyone’s concerns. Mr. Hall thanked everyone for their comments and attendance. The public comment portion of the hearing was closed and the floor was opened for rebuttal. Mr. Manwaring recognizes there are a lot of feelings involved when it comes to development and its impact, but those feelings are not tantamount to the standards that must be applied in making a determination about whether or not the Planning and Zoning Commission properly granted this permit. If there are issues relating to the enforcement of the County’s ordinances, that is not before this Commission at this point. This County has the resources to take on those issues as they come up. Fremont County has long been dealing with the growing pains of recreationists coming into the county, mainly from out of state. The sand dunes have long been a source of enjoyment for many, but also frustration for others. Island Park is the same. The Commissioners have an obligation to determine whether the Planning and Zoning Commission properly applied the Fremont County ordinances in granting the permit to Sandbox. The public comments that have been raised do not identify anything that shows the Committee made some error. As a result, this Board’s responsibility for this appeal is to uphold Planning and Zoning’s decision because there are no grounds to tell them they erred. Mr. Poole stated the issue isn’t about emotion. What is emotional is when his favorite cow passed away. One of the things you couldn’t do with the cow after she died is milk her. You can’t add amenities or amend a permit that has expired, because it is over. The most arbitrary thing you can do is what P&Z did, which is amend an expired permit. It’s an objective standard which was ignored. What he didn’t see on his drive here was a duck-billed platypus. The descriptions to a duck would be fairly similar; both have bills, webbed feet and like water. The platypus is actually venomous. This project is a duck-billed platypus. It creates incessant noise, and dust. The store, the retail space, the mechanic and upgrade shop, none of which are described as part of an RV Park, and specific to what the Commission’s decision was, is the store with no regulations to who uses it. We know the site numbers are off. We know the septic issues that crosses the boundary line of the property which is unlawful, and we can also see that there are only 133 potential septic sites. We can estimate and talk about the back and forth trips for the UTV’s and other vehicles, which is ultimately setting up a liability issue for the county roadways. There was a claim that septic was delayed, which was untrue; they were able to get septic very quickly, when they wanted it. This isn’t about emotion. It’s about objective standards that were ignored. Commissioners should deny the amendments that were made to this permit. The hearing was closed at 7:52 p.m. by Mr. Hall. He stated the Commissioners will take the information they have gathered in this hearing, as well as the comments that have been given, under advisement. They are allowed 60 days to make a decision on this matter. The hearing was adjourned. ________________________________ Blair Dance, Chairman Fremont County Commission Attest: _____________________________ Meredith Mattingly, Clerk HISTORY Recorded by Min. 613024 Public Hearing 04-29-2026 on 5/26/2026