Commission remands propane‑storage permit to Planning & Zoning over safety, traffic and wildfire questions

Valley County commissioners voted July 7 to remand the Schneider Propane Storage conditional use permit (CUP26‑012) back to the Planning & Zoning Commission for additional analysis after a lengthy public hearing that focused on wildfire risk, private‑road use and traffic safety.

Appellants argued the record lacked substantial evidence supporting several required findings under county code, especially relating to comprehensive‑plan consistency, the potential for undue adverse impacts on adjoining properties and public safety concerns tied to a 30,000‑gallon tank proposed on a chassis. Brandon Fiscus, speaking for objecting property owners, told the board, “the record does not demonstrate how the commission concluded this proposal is consistent with several key provisions of the comprehensive plan,” and raised pointed questions about wildfire preparedness, emergency response and private‑road use by recurring commercial vehicles.

Neighbors described the site as a high wildfire‑risk area and supplied letters from insurers and other materials documenting difficulty obtaining coverage. One appellant noted that Saddle Rock is in a high wildfire‑risk zone and said an isolated large fuel storage tank presents unique hazards that require a site‑specific emergency plan and clear operational limits.

The applicant, Heidi Schneider, responded that the site is not visible from Highway 55 or from most Saddle Rock lots, that Cascade Rural Fire approved conditions for the site, and that Borealis Fuels (the prospective tenant) and the applicant would comply with NFPA and local fire‑district requirements. “This site is not visible from Highway 55,” Schneider said, and her team stressed ITD’s review of traffic assumptions for eight daily trips by bobtail trucks.

Commissioner concerns and remand items: Commissioners said they remained unconvinced about several technical points in the record: whether ITD had been adequately informed of the final level of activity the commission might allow; whether a truck required by P&Z could practically move the tank during fire season; what mitigation (bollards, fencing, tanker‑unloading procedures, limits on hours and days of operation) would be required; and whether private roads and the applicant’s rights to annex additional property had been fully documented.

Motion and next steps: The board voted to remand CUP26‑012 to Planning & Zoning for additional information including a full site plan showing tank siting and security measures, clarification from ITD about access and hazmat transport considerations on the Highway 55 segment, documentation about the feasibility of relocating the tank in a wildfire emergency (or alternative mitigation such as offloading into bobtail trucks), and precise conditions from the Cascade Rural Fire District regarding on‑site apparatus and response. The remand will trigger a new public hearing at Planning & Zoning; that body’s new decision can be appealed to the board.