Nampa planning commission continues deannexation hearing for two Orchard Avenue parcels to April 29

The Nampa Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday continued a public hearing to April 29, 2025, on a request to deannex two parcels at 12246 and 12250 Orchard Avenue totaling 3.45 acres.

The request was made by Michael Whistle on behalf of his brother, Clinton Whistle, who is the property owner. "It was not ever meant to be annexed in the city," Michael Whistle told commissioners, saying the parcel had been treated as county land and that he intends to use existing buildings on the property to malt barley and potentially produce distilled spirits.

Principal planner Christie Watkins told the commission the site is currently zoned RS6, is contiguous to city boundaries on the north and west, and was part of a larger 40.33-acre parcel annexed in 2005 and later included in Middlebury South subdivision approvals and development agreements. Watkins said the 3.45-acre split does not appear in the citys records prior to February 2024 and that the county assessor now lists the smaller parcel separately.

Canyon County Development Services, in a comment letter included with the staff report, recommended denial. The county cited three concerns: that the division creating the 3.45-acre parcel does not comply with county land-division rules; that the parcel would require rezoning and a comprehensive-plan amendment to return to county rural residential zoning because county plan designates the area as agricultural; and that the existing 28-foot shared access easement does not meet the countys 60-foot minimum unless the director grants a reduction. Watkins said the county engineering department opposed the request and the fire district said it would provide services regardless of jurisdiction.

Commissioners and staff discussed practical hurdles the applicant would face if the commission approved deannexation. Commissioner Turner and others noted the county would likely accept the land back only if the parcels were merged to meet minimum lot-size requirements; staff said the county indicated the 3.45-, 20.94- and 0.05-acre pieces would need reconciliation. Commissioner Kehoe and others also questioned whether a developer who recently acquired adjoining property, identified in the record as Corey Barton Holmes or CBH, would be willing to sell enough acreage back to recreate a county-compliant parcel.

Rodney Ashby, planning and zoning director, told the commission he would help facilitate contact with the county and staff identified Dan Lister of Canyon County Development Services as the county contact who authored the comment letter.

Several commissioners noted that even if the property returned to the county, a conditional-use permit for a distillery would still have to be evaluated against the citys comprehensive plan if the county requested the citys comment under the jurisdictionsjoint procedures. "From the city's perspective, that's not the appropriate use," Christie Watkins said, adding that city staff would recommend denial if asked to comment that a distillery is inconsistent with the city's plan.

With those issues unresolved, the commission voted to continue the public hearing to the April 29, 2025 meeting to allow the applicant time to meet with county staff and for city staff to follow up. The motion to continue was made and seconded; the commission voted in favor.

Votes at a glance

- Consent agenda: moved, seconded and approved (voice vote; unanimous). The consent agenda included several planning items reported earlier by staff, including annexations and zoning approvals that the commission had recommended and the city council approved. Specific items were described in the staff report and minutes.

- Deannexation of 12246 & 12250 Orchard Avenue (3.45 acres): public hearing continued to April 29, 2025 (motion moved and seconded; unanimous). No final decision on deannexation was made.

What happens next

City staff offered to contact Canyon County staff on the applicants behalf and the commission continued the hearing to April 29, 2025, to provide time for the applicant to pursue county guidance on how a return to county jurisdiction would be handled and whether adjacent parcels could be merged to meet county standards. The commission noted that county and city comprehensive-plan designations and county access and land-division standards are central to any future decision.