Council denies proposed gift‑shop and 25‑site campground; applicant said operation would prioritize pay‑dirt business

The Bannock County Planning and Development Council voted to deny Martin Sanders’s request for a conditional use permit to operate a gift shop and a 25‑site campground on roughly 6 acres near Lava Hot Springs.

Sanders told the council his primary business model is a family‑oriented pay‑dirt operation — customers buy bags of mined sediment, sift and wash material on site to find gemstones — and that overnight camping was intended as a limited ancillary offering for long‑distance travelers. He said he did not plan to install a private well or septic and intended to provide two rented porta‑toilets (one ADA accessible) with weekly servicing.

Despite that, neighbors testified at length, saying even limited overnight use would change the character of the narrow valley and amplify existing traffic and safety problems. “This application, submitted for 25 campgrounds, is going to conflict with the surrounding residential uses due to noise, light, litter, and dust,” said a resident who lives on Bald Eagle in Lava. Multiple speakers reported that public notice was limited to a small sign on the roadside and asked for better outreach.

Other concerns raised at the hearing included potential drainage impacts on adjacent wetlands and a canal, strain on already limited emergency access routes, and the risk of increased trash, intoxication and trespass. Candace Simmons, who lives up the river from the proposed site, told the council there are “abundant campsites that already exist” nearby and argued the area is “bone dry” and not suited for expanded camping use.

Staff described the application as noticed for 25 campsites and included recommended conditions should the council grant approval. Planning staff noted the application packet originally listed private well and septic but that Sanders had since sent an email clarifying he would use portable restrooms and not drill a well.

Council discussion echoed concerns from the public, focusing on the number of proposed campsites, emergency access on a private road, floodplain adjacency for portions of the parcel and consistency with the county’s comprehensive plan. Council members noted the property had been the subject of previous discussions and that a change from day‑use commercial to overnight campground would alter review expectations.

After deliberation, Councilmember Crystal Madison moved to deny the permit, reading findings that highlighted traffic, noise and potential conflicts with neighboring residential uses. The motion included a list of conditions that would have applied if the council had approved the use (for example, portable restrooms only, trash collection by owner, quiet hours). The roll call vote to deny was 3–0.

Sanders said he would comply with any county requirements if he chose to return with a revised application. Planning staff noted that any future proposal that included a public water or sewer system would require the applicant to return for a substantial amendment and additional review.

The council’s written findings and instructions about appeal rights will be provided to the applicant and interested parties; a denial may be appealed to the county commissioners within the statutory timeframe.