Bannock County panel denies conditional use permit for Downey gravel pit

The Bannock County Planning and Development Council denied a conditional use permit for a proposed rock-and-sand mining operation at 1405 East Richards Road in Downey, voting 4-0 with one member recused. The applicant, Richard Jessup, had sought permission for screening of native gravel on up to a 10-acre area with proposed hours of 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Saturday.

The council’s decision followed more than two hours of testimony from neighbors and staff about noise, dust, roadway safety, property values and missing state approvals. The denial reflects the council’s finding that the proposed gravel pit would produce materially greater noise, dust and traffic than permitted uses in the agricultural zoning district and that public-health and safety impacts outweighed the applicant’s case.

The proposal would have allowed screening of native material, with the application estimating as many as 20 one-way vehicle trips per day as a maximum and four employees. Jessup told the council the site currently has a well shown on his plans and gave water-flow figures: a domestic well on the pit parcel that “will do 50 gallons a minute” and “the well that’s on my piece over there will do a hundred gallons a minute,” which he said would be available for dust control. Jessup also said the operation was primarily screening (not crushing) and that some material had already been used on local driveways while the permitting process proceeded.

Staff and public commenters disputed aspects of the application and described neighborhood impacts. Planning staff noted that the Idaho Department of Lands had not yet received a reclamation-plan application tied to the proposal; Annie Healy, a planning staff member, told the council, “we have heard from Idaho Department of Lands that there has not been an application submitted or filled out,” and recommended the council consider requiring written approvals from state agencies if the permit were to be approved. The staff report made 14 recommended conditions should the council choose to grant a permit.

Several neighbors who testified in opposition said the pit had already been operating without required state or county approvals and described nighttime activity, heavy truck traffic on a narrow gravel road used by school buses, horseback riders and pedestrians, and health and property-value concerns. Rebecca Falcone, who submitted a video included in the record, said, “From the video that I submitted, it is easy enough to see that this pit has been operating under cover of darkness for a long time,” and added that trucks and equipment were using a dirt roadway used by children and others. TJ Barnes, a nearby resident, said the pit “will be less than 200 yards from my home when it reaches the full 10 acres” and described noise and dust he said had occurred before the county issued a cease-and-desist.

John Crowder, who said he had reviewed written materials in the record, argued the traffic estimate understates potential impacts: “I would say that even 20 trips per day is a substantial increase,” he said, noting that 20 outbound trips implies about 40 vehicle movements daily. Several speakers connected dust concerns to respiratory impacts observed near other pits.

In rebuttal, Richard Jessup disputed some claims that the operation was flagrantly violating rules. “I’ve been made out to be a real bad guy, and I disagree,” he said, adding that some haul activity had been halted when the county intervened and that he was willing to work with neighbors.

After deliberation the council moved to deny the permit. The motion to deny and adopt findings was seconded and approved on roll call: Molly Dimock—yes; Stuart Ward—yes; Edward Ulrich—yes; Crystal Madsen—yes. Commissioner Chad Selenite had recused himself from agenda item 4 at the start of the meeting and did not vote. The council’s written findings cite increased noise, dust and traffic-safety concerns demonstrated in submitted video and oral testimony and the absence of required state reclamation paperwork as material factors in their decision.

The Planning Council’s procedural statement on the record reminded participants that decisions by the Planning Council may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners within 10 days; the council’s notice-language explaining the appeal process is part of the public record for this hearing.