Bannock County holds public hearing on reduced Chubbuck area-of-city-impact; residents raise annexation, development concerns

Bannock County commissioners opened a public hearing Wednesday on a proposed reduction to the City of Chubbuck's area of city impact, a planning boundary the county and city use to coordinate growth. Planning and Development Director Hal Jensen told residents the hearing was required after changes in state law and that the county's role is to renegotiate ACIs based on whether a city can provide services within five years.

"If you have received a notification that you live within the ACI of Chubbuck. You're currently in the ACI, and you've been in the ACI for a number of years," Jensen said, explaining that the legislature revised the statute to limit city jurisdiction and require counties to renegotiate ACIs.

The nut graf: The hearing focused on whether properties along Chubbuck's fringe should remain inside the city's ACI after the state revised the Land Use Planning Act. Residents and property owners urged the county to protect parcels from future annexation, questioned how the new ACI map was drawn and sought clarity about development agreements that could affect their rights.

Most important facts: Jensen described the legal change as requiring counties to renegotiate ACI boundaries to reflect whether a city could provide all services — water, sewer, fire, police — within five years. He said counties retain land-use jurisdiction inside ACIs unless a property is annexed.

Several residents and landowners spoke. Keith Jensen, president of Novatech Professional Corporation, said his firm's 1.1-acre industrial parcel would be harmed if Chubbuck's ACI remained unchanged. "If Chubbock absorbs us with their not not annexes, but even being in the ACI is a threat to the company," he said, urging commissioners to keep the parcel under county jurisdiction to preserve the company's ability to expand.

Brett Carlson, who identified himself as living on Buffalo Road, said a development agreement that commissioners' staff would require when properties connect to city water and sewer could force landowners to cede protections they believe exist under older contracts. Carlson said his family had a 1976 agreement with then-mayor John Coton stating the city would not annex without written request; he warned that language required for new development agreements could override that understanding.

"So you sitting here saying that it's still under our jurisdiction. You see all of our protection is patently false because you're requiring an agreement that allows us to cede my input and your input to the city of Chabwick," Carlson said.

Other residents raised related concerns: Josh Bringhurst (North Yellowstone Highway) asked why his family's four parcels remained inside the ACI despite reductions and said developers have bought nearby land. A resident on Lacey Road asked whether Lacey would remain in the ACI and was told it would. Several speakers said they did not receive earlier notice or the earlier map showing prior ACI boundaries; meeting materials showed the prior ACI in brown and the proposed ACI in purple.

Planning staff clarified process and caveats. Jensen said the ACI is a planning tool that prompts a property owner to seek annexation first if a subdivision proposal touches a city boundary; if the city declines or cannot provide services, the county can then consider the subdivision under county ordinances. He also said the provision that requires a development agreement tying connection to city water and sewer to annexation only applies when a property connects to city services.

"So that requirement does not kick in unless you are creating a development that you are going to connect to city water and sewer," Jensen said.

Commissioners opened the public hearing by motion and later closed it after public comment. The board said staff would be available after the hearing for one-on-one map review at the Bannock County Planning and Development office, 5500 S. Fifth Ave., and that further hearings would be held if a future annexation or development proposal arises.

Ending: The county did not take further formal action on individual parcels at the hearing; commissioners said renegotiation of the ACI is ongoing under the revised state statute and that any future development proposals requiring annexation or city services would trigger separate public processes where property owners could raise additional concerns.