Bannock County planning council denies 30‑site campground permit after sustained resident opposition

The Bannock County Planning and Development Council denied a conditional use permit request by applicant Christian Cobas to develop a 30‑site campground west of Lava Hot Springs.

Council members voted 3–0 to reject the application after hearing two hours of public testimony, staff recommendations and council deliberation. The decision followed extensive comments from nearby residents who raised concerns about road safety, water and septic infrastructure, wildfire risk and the effect of noise and lighting on the narrow valley.

Cobas, who described himself as seeking “to make a small campground, just for overflow … people that wanna be a little bit farther away from the roads and crowds,” told the council he planned to start as a dry camp with portable restrooms and mostly RV parking and to phase in “tiny homes on wheels” later if demand warranted. Planning staff’s packet noted the original proposal listed a private well and septic but included recommended conditions if the council approved a campground.

Residents said notice was inadequate and described repeated problems on local roads. “The only notice I received was a very small snow‑covered sign on the road,” said resident Sarah Reese, adding the neighborhood already handles heavy weekend traffic and renters using narrow routes. Glenn Christiansen and others raised worries that runoff, drainage and proximity to a canal and springs could cause contamination, and multiple speakers questioned whether local roads and emergency access met county standards.

Council members said the primary deliberation points were the scale of use for the relatively small valley, traffic impacts on private interior roads and the wildfire and access risks posed by the area’s dry conditions. “Thirty campgrounds is a lot for that little area,” one council member said during deliberations, noting adjoining lots and another nearby campground would bring total capacity higher.

Elise Foster, subdivision planner, reviewed staff findings and the packet of recommended conditions. During deliberations the council indicated several factors weighed against approval: the proposed campground is more intrusive than permitted uses in the recreational/suburban zoning district (single‑family homes being the baseline), predicted traffic on private roads, and the risk of wildfire given dry conditions and limited emergency access. The applicant did not propose immediate septic or a public water system; he said he planned portable toilets and that customers would generally supply their own water.

After closing testimony, Councilmember Daniel moved to deny the permit “based on the record and the discussion this evening,” reading findings that included noise, traffic, generator use and increased vehicle trips as reasons the proposal would materially affect surrounding properties. The motion listed conditions that would have applied if the council had approved the CUP, but the motion itself recommended denial. The roll call vote was 3 in favor of denial, 0 opposed.

The council chair noted that, because parts of the applicant’s original submission mentioned well and septic, a future proposal that sought a public water or sewer system would require a substantial change to the conditional use permit and a return to the council for review.

With the denial final, the applicant and neighbors were advised of appeal rights: decisions by the planning council may be appealed to the Board of County Commissioners within 10 days, per the published hearing procedures.

The council also removed a later agenda work session item (bylaws review) earlier in the meeting and rearranged the order of public hearings to await an absent member; that procedural change did not affect the Cobas item.