joconnell@journalnet.com

POCATELLO - Pocatello and Chubbuck city leaders have denounced a Bannock County proposal to allow large-scale master planned communities to be built on unincorporated land far away from municipal borders.

During a Monday public hearing hosted in the Bannock County Commission chambers, Pocatello Planning and Development Services Director Robert Chambers argued such developments would create problems for cities and contribute to sprawl.

Officials with the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game voiced similar concerns during the meeting. But a large crowd of local Realtors attended in support of the amendment.

The commission must vote on the issue by Dec. 15 and will continue accepting written comment until a decision is rendered.

"Our position is if you're going to have urban density type development, it ought to be in an urban setting where you have urban amenities to take care of it," Chambers said. "You set yourself up to where people have to drive more, you're eating up open space, you're creating consumers of urban services - roads, library, even fire and police protection services - but they're not necessarily supporting those services with tax dollars."

Chambers believes allowing master planned communities in the county outside of designated areas of city impact goes against the county's own comprehensive plan, which was approved late this summer. Chambers said state law requires entities to draft ordinances that reflect the principles of their comprehensive plans. He said the county would have to reopen its comprehensive plan and make adjustments to keep in line with the law.

"We have felt like that comprehensive plan had a very thorough public input process," Chambers said. "I don't think you ought to take lightly the elements of that plan and circumvent it. We've been concerned about that."

Bannock County Planner Steve Ernst echoed Chambers' concerns about contradicting the new comprehensive plan. He noted a specially formed committee of about 20 people recommended against reopening the plan to address master planned communities.

"I'm trying to bring the zoning ordinance into compliance with the comprehensive plan. Some of these folks want to go the other way. Both our zoning ordinance and state code say the zoning rules and ordinance need to be consistent with our comprehensive plan," Ernst said. "To open up the comprehensive plan again would really require a major effort. We don't have the funding really."

Chubbuck Mayor Steve England acknowledged the importance of developers to the local economy, but he said his preference would be to keep large-scale developments within areas of city impact, where it's easier to provide services.

"It's certainly easier managed and easier planned for in those areas (of city impact)," England said. "I think it's probably better if we leave the safeguards in the comprehensive plan and then have these people who would like to do these things come in and make a presentation, and we'll see if it can work."

Commissioner Steve Hadley and incoming Commissioner Karl Andersen have both voiced their support for the change to allow master planned communities outside of the area of impact. They argue the county would be foolish to close the door to growth without even considering it.

Tiffanie Mai-Ganske, president of the Greater Pocatello Association of Realtors, has lobbied for putting off the vote until after the new commission assumes office.

"The association feels that allowing master planned communities outside of the areas of city impact are a tool for smart growth. Not including this (language) in the comprehensive plan we feel would limit Bannock County's ability to grow. We don't feel they're appropriate everywhere, but we do feel that including the (language) is mandatory for responsible, smart growth in our county.

"It quite frankly baffles us that the county is looking to shut the door to growth."

Commissioner Larry Ghan hasn't made up his mind on the amendment, but he said Wednesday he has serious concerns about changing county code to go against a comprehensive plan that took considerable time, money and effort to draft.

"We just want to sit down and talk about it amongst ourselves and talk with (our legal) counsel a little bit," Ghan said. "I can see the good in good planning, but I am concerned about violating the concern and the intention of the efforts that were put in over a year and a half to address issues of development in the county.

"People like this area because of what it is. Change is going to come, but we need to work with the people that are here as well as understand you can't freeze out everything. I'm trying to find a way that works responsibly with the cities and would also help steer us away from things like sprawl."