Bannock County weighs piecemeal fixes or full land‑use rewrite for zoning and alternative‑energy rules
Loading...
Summary
Commissioners and planning staff debated whether to adopt an alternative‑energy chapter first or complete a full land‑use and development ordinance; staff will return with a condensed timeline and options for concurrent steps.
On Jan. 8 the Bannock County Board of Commissioners spent the bulk of its public meeting discussing the process for updating county zoning and land‑use rules, including how to accommodate renewable energy, battery storage and other emerging energy technologies.
Planning staff and counsel outlined two broad approaches: advance a targeted alternative‑energy chapter first (then amend existing ordinances to match), or complete a full land‑use and development ordinance that integrates subdivision rules, use charts and definitions in a single document. Tristan Borkman, assistant planning director, cautioned that piecemeal changes can perpetuate contradictions because "subdivision and zoning are separate documents, they contradict each other," and said doing only one chapter could leave unresolved conflicts.
Jonathan Radford (with the council) said one practical pathway is to adopt a renewable‑energy ordinance first, then the subdivision ordinance, and finally an encompassing land‑use and development ordinance, but warned that adopting pieces will require amending existing rules to maintain consistency. Several commissioners said they were concerned about delaying action for property owners who are waiting on decisions that affect development and financing; one commissioner said some property owners feel the county is "holding us back." Commissioners discussed whether to include solar and wind first, defer battery storage for more study, and include nuclear uses because of activity at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).
Staff described a condensed timeline option: a focused effort on wind and solar could be completed in roughly 4 to 6 months, with a series of work sessions and public hearings that could lead to adoption in late spring under an accelerated schedule; more comprehensive rewrite work would extend the overall adoption timeline and push other items into late 2026 or 2027. Commissioners asked staff to return with a written, revised timeline and a best‑case concurrent schedule they could approve; staff agreed to present a document the following Tuesday.
No ordinance was adopted at the meeting. Direction to staff was procedural: produce a revised timeline and an option set for concurrent steps so the board can decide whether to prioritize the alternative‑energy chapter or proceed with a full, integrated ordinance.
