Last week, the county Planning and Zoning Commission held two public hearings regarding rezoning applications for two properties near the St. John area.  The county has been in the process of developing, modifying, and implementing its new development code for a number of months, and this set of hearings represents the first major indicators of how that code will affect development moving forward in the county.   Previous to the new code, all areas of the county were considered multi-use, and required specific approval of the types of development that would occur on them.  Under the new code, several populated areas (Malad City, Samaria, Holbrook, the Summit, Pleasantview) have been designated residential, and some areas south of town have been designated Industrial.  The remainder of the county is presumed to be Agricultural be default.  Agriculturally zoned land has a density requirement of one home per 40 acres.  A new designation, Rural Residential, allows for the development of plots as small as 5 acres.

In the first public hearing, Ben Naylor’s request for a Rural Residential rezone for a piece of property to allow for the construction of a home on 5 acres, as well as a church building on 9 acres.  The purpose of the hearing was to discuss the rezone itself, and not a building permit for the either the home or the church.

The second public hearing concerned a request for rezoning by Allen Nielson, who wishes to construct a subdivision on what is currently Agriculturally zoned land.  Once again, the purpose of the hearing was not the approval of the subdivision itself, but rather the rezoning of the land to allow for the eventual proposal of the subdivision for future construction.

Development has been a hot-button issue in the county over the last several years.  The increasing number of housing units being constructed in both the city and the county, while not numerically large relative to other counties in Idaho seeing large growth (Ada and Bonneville counties, for instance), does represent a significant change in Oneida county, which has seen relatively static population numbers for decades.  Many of those moving into the county are seeking “a rural lifestyle” outside of Utah or states further to the West, which has resulted in a certain amount of tension between those desires and the desires of many who currently live in the county to retain the current rural aesthetic as it has had for generations.

While the hearings themselves were focused on the rezoning petitions, rather than the direct implications on longterm growth and planning, it was clear that many in attendance felt that this set of decisions was likely to carry the weight of setting a precedent for future decisions to come from the county with regard to the types of developments that might be sought in the future.

Because both petitions were essentially tied to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God church, the commissioners were careful to explain that the Planning and Zoning decisions were connected to issues of development, and not to any attitudes about the religious affiliations of the groups connected to the rezone requests.  Nonetheless, issues of religion still found their way into the discussion in a number of ways throughout the long night.  

The hearings began at 6:00 p.m. and finally wrapped up a little before midnight.  Due to the nature of public hearings and the large amount of interest from all sides in the topic, those who wanted to make their voices heard were allowed to do so.  Presentations from the petitioners, as well as question and answer periods also added to the volume of material discussed over the course of the night.

Both hearings were divided into segments during which those in favor of the requests were heard from, followed by those with neutral comments, and then those opposed to the rezoning.  Of the over 125 people in attendance, the majority of them chose to speak, with a large number of both supporters and opponents.

Although the two requests were not for the same property or type of development, many of the concerns were shared by both sides between the two hearings.  Those in the audience in favor of the rezone spoke a number of times about how the addition of a church building would be a boon to their community, as the closest church house for their faith is over two hours away.  Many also expressed a desire to use the church building as an activity center for their youth.

Petitioner Ben Naylor made the case that the land on which the residence and church would be built was not prime agricultural land, and this would allow the land to be improved and beautified beyond what it currently is.  The church would provide a central location for members of his faith, and serve a number of community functions.  According to Naylor, the residence would be out of the way, and not create a serious drain on water or other infrastructure.

Those who identified themselves as neutral parties primarily spoke about the need to honor land rights, and allow those with a desire to develop their land as they see fit to do so.  Speakers from this perspective stressed that both religious freedom and property rights should be paramount in making this decision.

Those who spoke against the rezone raised a number of issues, beginning with the potential for future expansion into other agricultural land.  The issue of how increased traffic in the area to the church would affect the area was also raised.  Several speakers noted that the construction of the stake center in St. John had demonstrated that a church had the potential to radically change the dynamics of a once rural area into something else.  Traffic on Sundays has been reported to be heavy in the area, and to occasionally lead to dangerous situations as a result.

It was noted by several speakers that one of the express purposes of the development code was to preserve agricultural land and shield it from development when possible.  Many of those speakers made the case that this rezone would do the opposite.  

The first hearing ended at roughly 8:14, and after a short break, the second hearing was initiated.

To begin the second hearing, Planning and Zoning Administrator Rhonda Neal presented an overview of the request from Allen Nielson of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Kingdom of God to rezone 120 acres at 3950 N. 3900 West from Agricultural to Rural Residential in order to facilitate the eventual application for the development of 20 5-acre lots in a horseshoe shaped subdivision on the property.  Once again, the hearing was exclusively linked to the rezoning request.  A tentative plan for the development was submitted, but its approval was not within the scope of the hearing.  Before the subdivision can be approved the rezone would need to be approved, and a number of steps, including further water studies, would have to be completed.

The Nielsons asked the commission members to proclaim that they were approaching the zoning issue without any religious bias, which they did.  They then overviewed the development project, and how it would fit into the surrounding area and the community.  

Allen Nielson explained that he had had a water study conducted by Full Circle GeoScience which seemed to indicate that the water table in the area was sufficient to support a twenty home development.  He also stated that a neighborhood meeting of those with property within 600 feet of the borders of the development (required for a subdivision) had determined that light pollution was one of the concerns of the neighbors.  He explained his plan to minimize light pollution, and the Nielsons read from a proposed code of ethics which would be signed by those who purchased homes in the development.

It is noted here that throughout the public hearing, several members of the side opposed to the development disagreed with Nielsen’s characterization of the neighborhood meeting.

Those is favor of the development spoke again about their desire to find a home in the community and be centrally located near a church building.  Additionally, many supporters mentioned that they were interested in securing land and housing for their younger generations, who were not in a position to build elsewhere or preferred the rural environment of Oneida County.

Three primary areas of concern were raised by those in opposition to the development: water resources, the potential for the development to open a precedent within the county for development of agricultural land, and the exclusivity of the lot sales.  

As has been the case with almost every new development in the county over the last few years, water concerns dominated the discussion.  Anecdotally, many speakers recounted how their wells near the area had either been significantly drawn down in recent years or required redrilling to reach water.  The results of the water study conducted on behalf of Nielsen by Full Circle were considered unlikely to be accurate by many who spoke.  

Nielson argued that culinary water wells would take less water than agricultural pivots, though those in opposition argued both that ag pivots do not run on a yearlong basis and could not be dug in any case given the current moratorium on agricultural wells.  The Nielsons suggested that they would install water meters and devise a system for monitoring them, though those specifics were not part of the present hearing.

A number of supporters suggested that they were planning to conduct small scale homestead style farms on the properties, which would contribute to the rural aesthetic.  Those in opposition claimed that culinary water would be insufficient to do so.

Other than the scarcity of water, the refrain of those opposed to the development was essentially that regardless of who was developing the area it would signal to other developers that the county was open to increased residential development, or, as many directly stated “it would be opening the floodgates.”  The idea, reiterated many times, was that allowing for the rezoning to a development would make it difficult to deny the next petitioner a similar request.  As this would inevitably transform agricultural land to residential land, it would slowly erode the rural aesthetic and the available ag land in the county in a way that many rural counties have been affected over the past several decades.  Many speakers had anecdotal accounts of having moved from small towns and rural areas which had undergone such expansion in the past in order to escape it, and they were fearful of having that history repeat itself here.

Another item that became a sticking point was the intention of the Nielsons to offer the lots to their own church members first, and then if necessary open them up to the public at the same price.  No timeframe was given for how long this exclusivity would be in place, though 5-10 years for everything to be put into place was mentioned as a possible window.  Many speakers in opposition interpreted this to mean that the lots would be held until they were filled by church members, though Nielson indicated that if the lots were not sold by a certain point they would need to be offered publicly to recoup development costs.  The question of whether children would be entering the school district was raised, though it seemed that many of the potential residents would pursue homeschooling.  Home school is still within the district for tax and record-keeping purposes.

The question of whether the development would represent a tax-exempt entity was also raised.  As a development, once the lots are sold there is no tax exemption which can be applied to it, and normal property taxes are collected.

A plan to donate roads related to the development to the county was discussed, though those specifics again fell outside the purview of the discussion.

The Nielsons and Ben Naylor expressed gratitude to the community for attending the meeting and engaging with the process, and reiterated that they believe this was a good example of how the process of public policy-making should be undertaken in America.  Many people representing both sides of the question stayed in the building until after midnight, engaging in what appeared to be cordial conversation.

The Planning and Zoning Commission tabled the decisions about the two rezoning requests until July 19, during which time they will study the public comments, the development code, and other information before publicly making an official decision.  As the first major test of the new code, the decision is seen as a critical proof of concept by many of those in attendance.