Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pocatello council denies annexation request for 21.92 acres on North Facer Mountain Drive
Summary
The city council on Feb. 5 denied an annexation request by Christopher White for 21.92 acres on North Facer Mountain Drive after staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial; the applicant said he did not want annexation but followed the process to allow county development to proceed.
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Pocatello City Council voted unanimously Feb. 5 to deny an application to annex about 21.92 acres on North Facer Mountain Drive and to assign it a residential-estate zoning designation. The request, submitted by Christopher White, was before the council after the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial.
Christopher White, the applicant, told the council the annexation filing was largely procedural: "My name is Christopher White, and I'm here in part of the application for annexation," and he said he did not want the property annexed into Pocatello but was following required steps so the county could move forward with development. Jim Ang, the city's long-range planner, told the council that because the property is contiguous to city boundary, subdivision and development require city review of whether annexation is appropriate.
Councilman Mangum moved to deny the application as outlined in agenda item 7; Councilman Paulson seconded. After brief council clarification about whether denying annexation also covers the zoning-map designation, the mayor confirmed that denial of annexation includes denying the proposed zoning designation. Shawnee called the roll and the motion passed unanimously.
The denial leaves the parcel outside the city limits and means future subdivision or development would proceed under county jurisdiction unless a new annexation request is filed. The Planning and Zoning Commission had already recommended denial following its earlier public hearing on Jan. 14.
Next steps: with the council's denial final at this meeting, any future action on land use will depend on the applicant filing a new proposal or the county proceeding under its processes.

