Fremont County | minutes | meeting 2026-06-22 | BOCC Jun 22 2026 Public Hearing source: https://fremont.municipalcodeonline.com/book/content?type=minutes&name=BOCC_Jun_22_2026_Public_Hearing BOCC Jun 22 2026 Public Hearing FREMONT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING MINUTES June 22, 2026 Present for the meeting were: Commissioners Rick Hill, and Mark Chandler. Commissioner Dance was excused from the meeting. Also attended by: Clerk Meredith Mattingly, Deputy Clerk Kim Fletcher, and Civil Attorney Blake Hall Commissioner Hill called the meeting to order and welcomed those in attendance. Commissioners RE: Budget Meeting w/ EMS Director Bert Mecham Commissioners discussed Mr. Mecham’s budget requests for his FY2027 budget. Public Hearing RE: Eck Zone Change Hearing – action item FREMONT COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PUBLIC HEARING Eck Zone Change Hearing Fremont County Courthouse/Commissioners Room June 22, 2026, 10:50 AM Present for the meeting was: Commissioners Rick Hill, and Mark Chandler. Commissioner Dance was excused from the hearing. Also attended by: Clerk Meredith Mattingly, Civil Attorney Blake Hall, Planning and Zoning Administrator Tom Cluff, Planning and Zoning Planner Sara Bowersox Civil Attorney Blake Hall will be acting as the hearing officer for this hearing. Mr. Hall called the hearing to order and welcomed those in attendance. He also introduced county employees in attendance. Mr. Hall asked Clerk Meredith Mattingly if the hearing had been properly noticed. Clerk Mattingly stated that it had. Mr. Hall explained the purpose of the hearing and asked if any of the Commissioners have a conflict of interest for this hearing. Commissioners have no conflict. Mr. Hall turned the time over to Planning and Building Planner Sara Bowersox to discuss the Eck Zone Change request. Ms. Bowersox presented the staff report to the Commissioners. Last week she sent them a copy of the file for this case, as well as all of the written comments we have received. She explained that a zone change is an amendment to our official zoning map for the County. When someone requests a zone change, it is brought before the Planning and Zoning Board, and they make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, and the Commissioners hear the application for the amendment to the official zoning map because it requires passing an Ordinance to change the map. This applicant would like to change the zone because they would like to operate a campground with a doggie daycare on the property. This is not allowed in the Commercial Limited Office Zone, but it is allowed with a conditional use permit in a Commercial Neighborhood (C1) Zone. If the zone change is approved, the applicant can come back at a later date with an application for the conditional use permit; it would be a separate public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board. The rules around amending the official zoning map are that it needs to be consistent with the preferred land use map of the Comp Plan. The entire area of this part of Last Chance is Commercial, and is not delineated any further than that according to our land use map. Since meeting with P&Z a month ago, Mr. Cluff found that back in 2011 when that P&Z Board was reviewing and developing the current Comp Plan, they established that large portions of potential commercial area would be zoned as Commercial Limited Office (LO) as a place-holder. When those property holders actually wanted to do something, they would request a zone change to be in line with what they wanted to do. So, the entire area is preferred land use Commercial and is currently zoned Commercial; they would like to take one step up to Commercial Limited Office in order to operate the business they would eventually like to do there. Last year, they applied for a zone change to go from Limited Office to Commercial Regional (C3), but P&Z felt that was too much of a jump and opened up the potential for too many bigger uses. They suggested the applicant reapply with a request for a (C1) zone change which seemed more appropriate. There are people not in favor of this and those comments have been provided, however, P&Z unanimously voted to recommend approval of this zone change. They believe the list of uses in the C1 zone make more sense in the Last Chance area than the uses in Limited Office, and the one step change from Limited Office to C1 would be consistent with the with our land use map of the Comp Plan, and this doesn’t just allow the applicant to do whatever they want. Sara Eck, 3783 Blue Haron Lane, Island Park, ID, and Carol Lenz, 337 Idaho Street, Ashton, ID. Ms. Eck stated they are here requesting a C1 zone change. They did come in before to request a C3 change but realized it was too big of a jump. She presented some of the public comments from that hearing also recommended and encouraged applying for a C1 zone change. So, they have taken those comments into consideration and changed their application. 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. Mr. Hall opened the meeting for public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT: Attorney Rob Harris, Holden and Kidwell, 1000 Riverwalk Dr. Suite 200, Idaho Falls, ID. Mr. Harris is representing Last Chance Playgrounds LLC that owns property east of this property. They are opposed to this rezone. Their view of the P&Z recommendation was that the Commission felt many of the issues raised in opposition to this rezone could be addressed in the CUP stage or at some other future date rather than at the rezone stage, but they disagree; the zoning stage is immediate, specific, and is the critical first step to cause a change to the character of a property and those issues should be addressed now. The Development Code puts the burden of proof on the applicant. They feel the applicant hasn’t satisfied their burden in their documentation. A rezone application is a Class II application and require a preliminary plan, as well as an existing resources and site analysis plan, but the site analysis plan isn’t present in their application. The type of commercial use sought for this rezone is different use than what is provided in the (LO) zone. They don’t believe the character of the property lends itself to those uses. A (C1) zone must be located in areas with direct access to roads that are capable of carrying the traffic generated by the uses permitted in this zone. Blue Heron Lane is only a 13-foot wide, unimproved road. It isn’t meant to carry the kind of traffic their business would generate. It’s historic use has been access for residential purposes. P&Z didn’t address the intended doggie daycare component of this project, it’s not anywhere in their plan. Designated open space has also not been addressed. Their filing is incomplete. They hope the Commissioners deny the application. Schuyler Judd, 3790 Blue Heron Lane, Island Park, ID. Ms. Judd stated the zone change to (C1) isn’t appropriate for this property. One of the things she sees is a problem; they have plans for what they want to do now, but those plans could change. The biggest problem is that Blue Heron Lane is a private narrow road. Their property does not abut the highway. According to Fremont County Code, they need to have a 60-foot wide, 2-lane road for people to access their business. It currently barely works for emergency services. She would have to have permission from the owners of the highway to widen Blue Heron, and she doesn’t have that permission yet. She feels it would make sense to have the issue with the road solved before the zone change. Scott Harkins, 3789 Blue Heron Lane, Island Park, ID. Mr. Harkins and his wife oppose the zone change. Their property is directly impacted by this proposal because the private road serving their property runs through this proposed development area, and is subject to several collective easements for neighboring property owners. If this projects succeeds as proposed, he and his neighbors would have to drive through an RV park to get to their homes. This creates concerns about safety, privacy, traffic congestion, and noise. The applicant’s property is not adjacent to Hwy 20, so the road can only be widened within their right-of-way. They cannot widen the private road from Hwy 20 to their property, so it will be impossible for someone to ingress the private road from Hwy 20 with someone trying to egress the property with a large RV; this includes emergency vehicles. The issue is the road. There are so many additional requirements to be met, it doesn’t make sense to grant the zone change without confirmation this operation gets off the ground. While the applicant may enjoy a financial benefit from their RV park, neighboring properties will suffer because of traffic congestion because of the inevitable bottleneck at Hwy 20. This is not a fair outcome for all parties. The proposed commercial use is fundamentally incompatible with the existing residential and rural character of the surrounding area. The current (LO) zoning was intended to preserve low density and residential uses, and changing the zone to (C1) would introduce an intensive commercial operation into an area that is not appropriate for such use. He is not sure why Blue Heron became Limited Office Commercial to begin with; there is not a single business on the road. It is only houses and residences. Given the impacts on the neighboring homeowners, and the incompatibility of this proposal with the existing zoning, he respectfully asks the Commissioners to deny the zone change and associated developmental requests. Ms. Eck stated everything that has been brought up was supposed to have been brought up at the CUP hearing. She doesn’t feel it’s unfair to say no based on speculation. Commissioner Hill has questions about the road. Does the road need to be widened before they can start their business. Ms. Bowersox said yes, they would need to widen the road, that is part of their application. We have nothing to do with easements, but there is a portion of Blue Heron Lane that doesn’t have an owner, and part of their next application would include widening and improving the road. Mr. Hall thanked everyone for the comments and their attendance. He stated that the Commissioners will take this matter under advisement and issue a decision within 60 days. The hearing was adjourned at 11:19 a.m. Miscellaneous Commissioner Chandler made a motion to approve the claims for June 22, 2026 as presented. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. The motion passed by majority vote. Commissioner Hill made a motion to approve the minutes from June 15, 2026 as amended, and the minutes from the June 16th and June 17th 2026 Budget Meetings as presented. Commissioner Chandler seconded the motion. The motion passed by majority vote. Commissioner Chandler made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 11:21 a.m. Commissioner Hill seconded the motion. A full voice vote was heard with all commissioners voting in favor. There being no further business to come before the board the meeting was adjourned. _________________________________ Rick Hill, Vice-Chairman Fremont County Commissioner Attest: _____________________________ Meredith Mattingly, Clerk HISTORY Recorded by Min. 613498 Public Hearing 06-22-2026 on 7/6/2026