Fremont County | minutes | meeting 2026-05-20 | BOCC May 20 2026 Public Hearing source: https://fremont.municipalcodeonline.com/book/content?type=minutes&name=BOCC_May_20_2026_Public_Hearing BOCC May 20 2026 Public Hearing FREMONT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING Caldera Flats Appeal Hearing Fremont County Courthouse - Courtroom Wednesday, May 20, 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, Planning and Building Planner Dusty Rigby, Treasurer Lori Beard, and Bailiff Chuck Kunsaitis 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 to hear an appeal filed by Doug Button, challenging P&Z’s denial of a subdivision he has proposed a parcel known as the Henry’s Lake Flats. Mr. Hall asked Clerk Meredith Mattingly if the hearing has 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, or if they have had any ex-parte communication about this hearing. Commissioners have no conflict of interest, and have not had any ex-parte communication about this hearing. Mr. Hall turned the time over to Planning and Zoning Administrator Tom Cluff to give the Staff Report for the Caldera Flats Appeal. Mr. Cluff presented the Staff report that was given to the Commissioners in 2 binders. This was also posted on the County Website for the public to view. This property is 430 acres on the east side of Highway 20; the proposed subdivision is the north portion of that on 160 acres. He showed a copy of the proposed preliminary plat. He explained the table of contents for the binders; there is a key documents reference section that identifies the tabs. Attachment B contains the Findings of Facts which explains the Planning and Zoning Commission’s decision, as well as the staff report that was presented to them at their public hearing. The second binder contains all of the application related materials the Commissioners may need to refer to during their deliberation. Page 3 has a summary of issues on appeal, which are the appellants arguments. The Discussion and Analysis section on page 4, part A, lists the reasons P&Z gave for their denial. Part B addresses a few factual issues they identified with the appeal; overall the appeal document filed by the appellant is straight forward and extensive, but rather than evaluating every single point, they noted these few places they felt the appellant made incorrect facts, but it remains to the Commissioners to evaluate their other arguments evidence they have presented and determine if it is sufficient or not to overturn P&Z’s decision. Page 7 and 8 is Section C for Other Analysis, which talks about wetlands. It talks about some basics about how the County’s rules for wetlands work. More information for the wetlands can be found in the staff report for the P&Z hearing in Attachment B, as well as the Development Code which defines wetlands as “areas that are saturated or inundated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration to support, and under normal circumstances do support, the prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Wetlands shall be as defined in the current Federal manual for identifying and delineating jurisdictional wetlands.” (Chapter 10, FCDC). More information can be found in the Aquatic Resources Study Report for the preliminary plat application. Pages 1 and 2 of the report give a definition of wetlands that is similar to our Code definition. That same report applies the definition to the data they found and goes through all of the testing they did on the site, identifying places they determined are wetlands and are not. After today’s hearing, after the Commissioners have heard today’s testimony and had time to review and deliberate over the facts and evidence of this appeal, they’ll need to make a decision on this appeal. They’ll direct Staff to prepare a Findings of Facts, Conclusions of Law and Decision for their decision. In the event they decide to overturn P&Z’s decision, the staff report for P&Z’s hearing has some recommended conditions for approval the Commissioners might want to review. If they uphold the decision and deny the appeal, they don’t need to worry about those conditions. Commissioner Dance asked if there are building envelopes identified on the plat for this property. Mr. Cluff stated there are. The light spaces on the plat are the building envelopes. Attorney Chase Hendricks, Rigby Andrus and Rigby Law, 25 N 2nd E, Rexburg, ID. Mr. Hendricks stated the appellants appreciate the amount of time our Staff has worked on this issue, and the interest the public has in it. Their argument is fairly simple. The appeal is narrower than the public controversy of building on the Henry’s Lake Flats. The question for the County Commissioners is not whether they prefer private property to remain undeveloped, but if this plan meets the requirements of the Fremont County Development Code, and the appellant thinks it does. The project is 32 lots on a little more than 162 acres. They are not asking for a zone change. It provides about 69% open space while the Code only requires 65%. They identify wetlands through professional delineation and Corps review, maps wetland setbacks and buffers, and provided the required preliminary plan documents. They are asking the Commissioners to approve the preliminary plan because their application is compliant with our Code. Planning and Zoning written denial rests on 2 propositions. The first conclusion was that the density allowed within a Rural Base district does not adequately protect agriculture, wetlands, or wildlife on the property, and the second conclusion was that the plat was not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Neither reason identifies a failed Class II permit requirement that wasn’t sufficient according to this plat. The denial doesn’t say Caldera Flats exceeded the density, or that the open space was below 65%, or that the required plat materials were missing, or that this was a rezone or some kind of variance or conditional use. The denial reflects disagreement of the policy choice already embedded in the Rural Base zone. The Code allows this density, and plans for it, and at one point identified this area as an appropriate place for development. There is some conflation about what the Comprehensive Plan is and what the Development Code is. The Comprehensive Plan is important; it is a guiding principle that helps develop the Development Code for Fremont County, and there was a lot of work and thought put into that plan. It identifies the important things to Fremont County, and then helps develop our Code which specifies how we can meet those principles that are important to the County. Some of the items that were identified as concerns by P&Z were drawn from the Comprehensive Plan, and were objectively not against the Development Code. The denial reflected disagreement with the policy choice already embedded within the Rural Base zone. The Code allows this density. It allows a for a subdivision within this zone. There has been a lot of discussion, not just in this county, but throughout the country, about what the Comprehensive Plan is versus what the Development Code is. Idaho Code states approvals and denials of permits must be done citing ordinances within the Code, and not using the Comprehensive Plan. P&Z did agree that BK Lands have done everything in accordance with our Code, but the project was still denied because it has been turned into something that it isn’t, and they are using the Comprehensive Plan for that denial. The Rural Base Zone allows for a subdivision in this zone; some people don’t feel it is appropriate in this location but it isn’t really for them to decide. If their concern is that areas like the Flats can’t handle this density, Planning and Zoning should conclude it’s a challenge for the zone itself and should go back and modify the Code rather than taking it out on an individual development who has done everything appropriately. There was some discussion in Staff reports about required application documents, open space was over and above what the application requires. The applicant has worked hard to keep open space as open space and keep building envelopes specific. The applicant is willing to fulfill requirements for all necessary agencies and public services. Concerning the wetlands issue, he turned the remainder of his time to wetlands specialists, Ray and Susan Kagel. Ray and Susan Kagel, 3881 E 200 N, Rigby, ID. They own Kagel Environmental in Rigby and are professional wetlands scientists. He worked for the Army Corp of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Fish and Wildlife, and has several degrees. He’s done close to 4000 wetland delineations. She has been doing wetland delineations for many years for the Army Corp of Engineers and serves as a court expert when needed. Mr. Kagel stated it seems the primary concerns with the wetlands delineation report that has been provided had to do with jurisdictional determinations. There seems to be a lot of confusion about an AJD (Approved Jurisdictional Determination) and a PJD (Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination). The main difference is that a PJD, which the appellant applied for, doesn’t expire, and is used for determining the limits of wetlands. It is a misunderstanding by some organizations that the PJD is just advisory in nature. This is incorrect; it is an official determination. These same organizations state in their public written comments that the appellant would be prudent to seek an AJD from the Army Corp of Engineers to determine what really is jurisdictional waters and wetlands. This is also a misunderstanding. He apologizes on behalf of the appellant that they weren’t able to make this clarification sooner. In the interest of time, they asked for a PJD and does not expire. An AJD takes longer to approve because the EPA is involved, and it expires in 5 years. There were also several comments stating that the National Wetlands Inventory shows a vast area of the proposed development is wetlands. The Inventory was developed by the Fish and Wildlife Services, and they only use 1 parameter, which is vegetation, and is often inaccurate. Mr. Hall explained the Public Comment portion of the hearing. Each person that has signed up to comment will be allotted 4 minutes to comment. Before their time starts, 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: Cathy Koon, 43 E. 3rd S., St. Anthony, ID. Ms. Koon was a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission when they denied Mr. Button’s application to build a private airport and residences on the Flat, and throughout the process regarding Caldera Flats. He specifically mentioned her, though not by name, as a Commission member who brought in information obtained from the internet and made a decision based on information not contained in the public records. Throughout 3 decades as a reporter in Fremont County, she’s covered water and wetlands issues throughout the area. She has learned about wetlands from several experts, including Ray Kagel, and went online to government agency websites to determine if her knowledge and experience were credible, and if laws and policies had changed. She presented what she had learned to the Commission at the public hearing in Island Park. Her comments are part of the public record. Mr. Button’s appeal questions the legality of the July 28 P&Z meeting because of a designated work session. It was not closed to the public and is part of the public record. His appeal also criticizes the Commission for asking for more time to make a decision. On the Friday prior to the first hearing, Commissioners received hundreds of pages of information, including over 300 pages from Mr. Button himself, and hundreds more pages in public comments. 4 days isn’t enough time to receive and digest that much data. The Planning and Zoning Commission is also accused of being opposed to any development on the Flats, in what was termed an unofficial moratorium. From the start, they questioned whether his, or any development, belonged on the Flat based on provisions in the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Code. She asked the Board of Commissioners please pay attention to the letter submitted by the Nature Conservancy. Mr. Button’s appeal is based on 6 primary categories which failed, but he has since filed a new plan in which he addressed those failures. She feels it is too little, too late. His appeal should be denied based on the facts of the case. Ms. Koon’s documents were added to the record as Exhibit 3. Loy Schroeder, 3945 Wise Owl Way, Island Park, ID. Ms. Schroeder is a former Chair for the Planning and Zoning Commission. She asked why people come to Island Park on vacation. They come to see the beautiful views, woods, and animals. The Fremont County Comprehensive Plan states “it shall be the policy of Fremont County to enhance it’s special visual qualities of the character of the county by directing development away from sensitive areas and adopting design standards for residential and commercial areas and signs.” Visual sensitivity maps were developed to support implementation of this strategy in the Development Code. Residential developments in visually sensitive should be required to meet design guidelines established by the Development Code, and it does, if it is followed. Structures should be placed against tree lines and hillsides if possible; not along ridges or on open spaces next to Highway 20. This is one of the same reasons Ensign Marriot was denied. Our Comprehensive Plan states we are to maximize open space in natural areas. Mr. Button lived in Two Top Estates where all 13+ acres was contiguous for wildlife migration. No private lots had open space on them. The HOA was responsible for maintaining the open space. P&Z and the Fish and Game were opposed to Mr. Button’s open space plan. He claims he’s never seen wildlife on all 432 acres of his property on the flats. A neighboring rancher has lost several head of cattle to grizzlies less than a half mile from the property. Yesterday, there were 30 head of antelope across Button’s 432 acres, 4 pair of sandhill cranes by the cemetery, along with several other varieties of wildlife. There were several cars stopped along the highway to see all of the wildlife. This is a wildlife habitat area. Homes, dogs, children, and garbage will bring more predatory animals into the property. This was discussed in the hearings. Water drainage will be a problem. The Henry’s Fork is less than ¼ mile away and can easily be contaminated by herbicides and other chemicals from a subdivision. The water running through this property may also affect the bordering property’s ability to manage their 112 year old water rights for irrigation; future litigation could be possible. The Button’s will not be there to manage the property; they have already moved out of the state, so who will ensure the water is draining properly and that fences are not built that block migratory corridors and that dogs are not destroying nests or chasing the neighbors cattle? The previous P&Z board did an excellent job with an incomplete application and a limited time to review hundreds of pages of documentation. Please uphold their decision. Respect their knowledge of the Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan and protect the Flats and other visually valuable properties in Fremont County so tourists have other places to come besides Yellowstone Park. Kim Ragotzkie, 580 Maple Leaf Drive, Ashton, ID. Ms. Ragotzkie stated the role of the Planning and Zoning Commission is to uphold and apply the Development Code regarding specific parcels of land and development proposals. They are to weigh the facts and determine if those proposals are consistent with the Development Code. If the review were simply a checklist, like the appellant seems to think it is, project proposals could simply be reviewed by Staff. If that were the case for all proposals, no P&Z Commission would be needed, however it is required by law for every county to have a Commission. Our Commission was justified to deny the Caldera Flats proposal. They gave 2 reasons. The first reason was that a subdivision on the flats doesn’t adequately protect the wildlife or wetlands on this particular property. They didn’t say “no subdivisions allowed anywhere in the Rural Base Zone,” only on this property. They have approved many subdivisions in the Rural Base Zone. The second reason they gave is that the proposed subdivision is not consistent with several policies within the Comprehensive Plan. Looking at the Findings of Fact from August 2025 as they made their decision, point number 14 specifically states that P&Z can use the Comp Plan to guide their decision. The appeal rambles through 50 pages of legalese; she has an issue with one particular portion where the appellant states the issues with the wildlife must be ok because Idaho Fish and Game didn’t oppose the project outright. Fish and Game doesn’t outright support or oppose any private land development. They simply offer their concerns, suggestions, and recommendations. The County, not Fish and Game, determines how private land is developed. She urged the Commissioners to affirm the P&Z decision to deny the preliminary plat for the Caldera Flats Subdivision. Terre Short, 3508 N Pinehaven Dr., Island Park, ID. Ms. Short attended all previous review sessions and work sessions held by the P&Z about this issue. She trusts all the testimony given by the professionals who have spoken or have provided scientific evidence. The Idaho State Fish and Game, Henry’s Fork Wildlife Alliance, Nature Conservancy, Army Corp of Engineers, Henry’s Fork Foundation. She appreciates the extensive review P&Z gave to this proposal, and how they upheld the Comprehensive Plan and Development Code. She still opposes this development based on all that has been reviewed and asked the Commissioners to uphold P&Z’s decision. Issac Magana, 8354 Hwy 87, Island Park, ID. Mr. Magana is against the proposed development. He enjoys the wildlife they want to push out. Mark Giacoletto, summer residence is 4500 Orme Ranch RD, Island Park, ID. Mr. Giacoletto is the operations manager for the Orme Ranch east of this property. His wife and her 2 sisters own the property. Running through the east side of their property is an irrigation ditch running north to south, as well as an irrigation reservoir near the boundary on the north. The wettest portion of the ground is that area to the north, which is in the inventory as wetlands. It is a wet piece of ground with a high water table. It has been noted the appellant has submitted all of the proper documentation; he feels we need to dive deeper into the specific content of some of the products he put in it. His main contention is the stormwater protection relative to some of the ordinances in place; he doesn’t believe the proposal doesn’t meet our Code. In his proposal, phase 2 drains into the irrigation ditch on Orme Ranch. One of their concerns is that once this project is fully developed, the water from the subdivision will be pushed into their irrigation ditch, which will increase flow and cause problems downstream. They already have issues on high water years. The Code states that no applicant is permitted to adversely affect the operation of irrigation systems, and all applications shall comply. No application shall channel stormwater or snow melt runoff into neighboring properties, public roadways, or irrigation works. Lynda Bruington, 4495 JM Loop E., Island Park, ID. Ms. Bruington feels the Commissioners need to trust their own P&Z board. They did their research and looked into every possible way this could pass, and it was denied for a reason. You don’t need an engineering degree to look over this property and see it is a wetland. Mr. Button stated that the canals would continue to flow, but he also stated he would reroute them, which would alter the wetlands. No matter what he does out there, it will change the look of these wetlands. Mr. Button was offered $2M over his purchase price. This isn’t about money. This is about him wanting the Commission to cave and change the community. Don’t let him bully the County. Uphold the decision of the P&Z Commission and deny it. Kaye Orme, summer residence is 4500 Orme Ranch RD, Island Park, ID. Ms. Orme stated this proposal doesn’t meet the Development Code or the Comprehensive Plan. The most important issue is that the application isn’t complete or viable. The stormwater application is incomplete. There is no wastewater system design. The County has said that once the Caldera Flats sewer system comes into the County system, they would take responsibility for it, but the system that is on Caldera Flats would be the sole owner of the property, including operation and maintenance. Wastewater flow would be permitted on the property based on written approval from DEQ, but DEQ has not been allowed to comment on this issue. The water studies began on this property in 2022, and it was a wet year. She called Doug Button to tell him they needed to release some water, and he told her no because they had a study going on and there was already too much water on the property so she would need to figure something else out. They had a conversation about the flow of the ditch as well as the water rights. Part of the issue is that if homes are allowed on that property, the ground is wet. The homes in Island Park Village to the south have sump pumps in their basements to get the water out, some of them year round. Water quality and quantity is a concern because it is part of our way of life. The water drains through their ditch system, into the Henry’s Lake Outlet, and into the Henry’s Fork River. There are no water rights associated with the Button property. The draft HOA and the Island Park Fire Chiefs suggest a 10,000 gallon underground storage water tank for the subdivision, but where is that water going to come from, and how is it going to fill. Neither Doug nor Kevin Button live in Fremont County. They purchased the property with the knowledge that it was not zoned for development. The Development Code shows the property is Rural Base, which is zoned for agricultural use, rangeland, and wildlife management. Appeal indicates compliance, but doesn’t show how. If we have a Comprehensive Plan and a Development Code, we should adhere to it. Ms. Orme’s documents were submitted to the record as Exhibit 5. Mark Harbaugh, 3618 Hwy 32, Ashton, ID. Mr. Harbaugh stated he attended the meetings concerning this issue. He was able to see how the P&Z Committee was buried in paper. They had a lot of documentation to go through. They have done an incredible job; it is a volunteer position. They did their research and due diligence when they made their decision. He appealed to the Commissioners to respect and support P&Z’s decision JB Miller 4770 N Hwy 20, Island Park, ID. Mr. Miller manages the Nature Conservancy’s Flat Ranch Preserve just north of this property. They have owned and managed the Ranch to help preserve the unique ecology present on Henry’s Lake Flat, and to demonstrate that a working cattle ranch can be managed in a ways that can sustain the natural beauty and function of the landscape. He appreciates the opportunity to express their concerns about this proposal. It is not supported by our Comprehensive Plan. The proposal suffered several procedural deficiencies, and the P&Z Commission rightly denied it. In multiple respects, the proposal didn’t comply with the County Code requirements for a complete application. The Commission did not rely on information outside of the official record, and there is no defacto moratorium for development on the Flats. However, there is a clear process to develop and evaluate proposals to meet the County’s Comprehensive Plan and other requirements. This proposal simply failed to meet those standards. The Nature Conservancy supports Planning and Zoning’s denial of this proposal, and urge the Commissioners to deny this appeal. Nelson Ishiyama, 2790 S Pinehaven Dr., Island Park, ID. Mr. Ishiyama stated there were at least 3 independent grounds for denying this appeal. #1. It fails to provide practical open space. Wild animals don’t play hopscotch when they migrate. Their migration patterns are well established across the Flats. The Code states that if any proposed application fails to comply with any part of the ordinance, or does not meet the open space requirements of the applicable zone, it shall be disapproved. #2. This violates the purposes of the Rural Base designation, which is designed to encourage ag use, and discourage non-ag use. #3. This Development violates various policies of the Comprehensive Plan as devised by committees of Fremont County and adopted by the County Commissioners at that time, and re-emphasized explicitly By Resolution No. 2019-15 which states that all land use and development in Fremont County shall comply with the Fremont County Comprehensive Plan. This subdivision is precisely the type of development the citizens of the county rejected through the citizens committee, through the Comp Plan, through the Board of County Commissioners, and accepted and approved into the County Code and chose to require future Commissions to follow that policy. This proposed subdivision is the wrong type of development in the wrong place and will do irreversible damage to the community and its residents. Dede Draper, 3618 Hwy 32, Ashton, ID. Ms. Draper asked the Commissioners to please uphold the denial of this project. She worked as a volunteer when the Development Code and Comprehensive Plan were put through in 2008. She attended dozens of community meetings, talking about the land and land uses. These lands were designated as agricultural areas for all of the reasons that have already been stated in previous comments and letters that are on file. The P&Z Commission had 3 separate thorough and thoughtful work sessions to go through all of their information. This plan doesn’t fit the Code for reasons that have already been stated. There are no water rights. It simply fails to comply. Please uphold the P&Z Commission’s work because they did an incredible job on this one and it was not easy. Don Winegar, summer address is 3636 S Bills Island Loop Rd, Island Park, ID. Mr. Winegar is lifetime summer resident for 65 years. He has sat in on every meeting that has taken place concerning this project. He is currently in the process of trying to develop 82 acres down in Utah, with 2 acres that are potential wetland; they have spent 3 years waiting for the Army Corp of Engineers to make a decision and just received notice today that it won’t be done this year because of how dry this winter was. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get it done, and it takes time. At each one of these meetings that took place in Island Park, the minimum amount of work that could be done to make and present this proposal, was done. There was always something else that should have been done, they’ll have it done for us next time. There were always things the applicant knew they had to do that they purposely didn’t do, or didn’t know they needed to do. In the end, the proposal that was submitted wasn’t complete or correct to the rules that were in place at the time. The Planning and Zoning Commission made the correct decision, and he asks the Commissioners to uphold their decision and carefully go through the material in support of overturning the decision because he believes they will find factual inaccuracies. Justin Brown, 3505 Buffalo Ln., Island Park, ID. Mr. Brown is here representing himself, his family, and the Henry’s Fork Wildlife Alliance. Under the FCDC, the burden of proof lies with the applicant. After multiple hearings, technical reviews, and public testimony, P&Z concluded the applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with code requirements intended to protect wetlands, aquatic resources, and wildlife habitat on the Henry’s Lake Flat. The central concern was the adequacy of the wetland and aquatic water source analysis. P&Z Commission members discussed survey timing, but also inconsistencies in the applicant’s assessment. 2 aquatic features, Sawtelle Creek and Bootjack Creek, appear in county GIS mapping and arial imagery, but were not included in the background information. Neither of these creeks were used in their sampling protocol. In their consultant’s final reports, Sawtelle Creek was largely not identified despite evidence it flows from Sawtelle Mountain into the Henry’s Lake Flats. The portion of the creek that was identified was labeled as a non-jurisdictional irrigation ditch, but you can clearly see that both creeks stream from Sawtelle Mountain. Although the feature later showed in the preliminary jurisdictional determination documentation, the concern remains about whether or not the wetlands on the property were fully identified and accurately mapped. Those concerns are amplified by the site’s history of grazing and irrigation. Even the soil identified on the property is a wetland type soil. Commission members also raised concerns about wildlife impacts. The Flats support important habitat and wildlife activity, but none of this was adequately addressed in the applicant’s materials. Development at this scale risks threatening habitat and migration corridors. Despite the appellant’s claims that P&Z made a decision based on assumptions or gut feelings, the record shows otherwise. Evidence from the many meetings held shows that Commission members reviewed and examined the submitted materials and made their decision based on the Development Code. Their decision was reasonable, evidence based, and consistent with the County’s obligation to protect the wetlands, wildlife habitat, and public resources. He respectfully urges the Commissioners to uphold their decision. Jean Bjerke, 3563 Aspen Dr., Island Park, ID. Ms. Bjerke is the Board President of the Henry’s Fork Wildlife Alliance. She attended all of the meetings and hearings concerning this matter; their most recent written comment was submitted earlier this month and can be found with the documentation for this hearing. She finds it interesting that in the 84 written comments we received for this hearing, not one asks the Commissioners to overturn P&Z’s decision. The organization’s concerns are about wetlands, water, aquatic resources of the area, the handling of stormwater, or the possible degradation of the river that could come with building a housing development on the wetlands. A second concern they have is the open spaces, but she believes Ms. Schroeder addressed this very well. Wildlife resources are paramount in this case, though they haven’t gotten as much attention as the open space or wetland issues. There are migration corridors of several big game species across this area, and many other species use it as well. It is a very special place. Once a place like that is developed, you can’t get it back, which is why the Code provisions about the value of preserving open space. They don’t believe the Button’s appeal has met the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan. She asks the Commissioners to uphold the decision to deny the appeal. Joseph Sella, 4437 Stone Run, Island Park, ID. Mr. Sella is the Fire Commissioner for the Island Park Fire District, as well as a volunteer for the Island Park Fire Department. He is opposed to any changes to, or any attempt to overrule the decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the application for the Caldera Flats development on the Henry’s Lake Flats. The Island Park Fire Department is small and dedicated to serving the community, but it is responsible for a very large area from the Ashton Hill to the Montana State line. The objective of the FCCP is to “promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the people of Fremont County.” The construction of this subdivision would put additional strain on their small department and would violate the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The department is adequate for their current development. The homes in this subdivision would not be small cabins, but mansions. The location is especially troublesome because of the winds and snow on the flats. If a structure fire happened in this subdivision, it would spread rapidly. The flats as no trees, but a lot of fuel exposed to winds that would move any fires very quickly to the east towards the mountains. The closest ladder truck is in West Yellowstone, 23 miles away. The costs for a new truck and other additional equipment would be extraordinary and would fall on the constituents, not on the developer. It would also require an additional 5 crew to operate, who would need to be housed and trained. Water supply is also a concern. The community of Island Park only has a few firefighters, located in Pinehaven and Harriman State Park. The water they carry on their trucks is their water supply for fighting fires. The closest location to refill the water is Mack’s Inn, or they can draft water from Henry’s Lake, but this isn’t possible in the winter. Mr. Sella was unable to finish his comment within the time limit, so his documents were submitted to the record as Exhibit 4. Kevin Button, 75 W. Fairchild St., Afton, WY. Mr. Button stated that everything we have heard tonight is based on opinion. His application was submitted with no substantial evidence stating he neglected to do something. The wetlands were studied by the Army Corp of Engineers, and they ruled this wetlands study is applicable to this property; the rules are the rules, he’s not making anything up. There have been many comments about this property being agricultural. He admits he asked for a variance and a zone change for the air park, but he isn’t requesting a zone change for the subdivision. The subdivision is applicable to the zone. He believes this is the most complete preliminary plat that has ever been submitted in Fremont County. He didn’t buy the land so people could look at it. He left as much open space as he can; 27 contiguous acres of it is left as open space. They put a lot of thought into developing the plat. It’s not fair for other private property owners to try to dictate what he can do with his own property. It’s his private property, and he also has property rights. He bought the property for this reason, and he’s going to do it, because it’s completely legal. He’s on a state highway with a truck stop, a storage unit, next to a cemetery and an RV park. He’s not allowed to do anything with this land, ever? If they wanted to see it remain as green space, they should have purchased it; it was for sale for 6 months before he bought it. It was also a lie that he was offered multiple millions more than his purchase price for the property. If someone wants the property, meet him after the meeting and write him a check. It is business. He owns the land and has a right to divide it, and he has been compliant with the rules of our Development Code with more than 65% open space and 20 lots per 100 acres. Mr. Hall thanked everyone for the comments and their attendance, and the public comment portion of the hearing was closed. The hearing was closed at 7:38 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. 613185 Public Hearing 05-20-2026 on 6/8/2026