Menu
P&Z moves toward expanding county industrial areas
After 90 minutes of discussion Jan. 13, the issue facing the Elmore County Planning and Zoning Commission came down to one word -- "only" -- which it wants to remove.
Commissioners on both sides of the debate questioned whether that one word cripples future industrial growth in the county or serves to protect the quality of life of its residents.
On a 4-3 decision, the planning and zoning commission agreed to amend the wording in the county's comprehensive plan. Last updated in 2004, the document governs future residential, agricultural, commercial and industrial growth across the county. The matter will now go to a future public hearing.
The vote follows months of deliberations by the planning and zoning and county commissioners on how the county approves land use for industrial development. A proposal by Alternate Energy Holdings Inc. to build a nuclear power plant near Hammett in 2008 triggered initial discussions regarding the comprehensive plan.
Previous debate focused on possible conflicts between the comprehensive plan's goals and objectives and AEHI's rezoning application.
According to the discussion at last week's meeting, the conflict centers around one line in the comprehensive plan's land use objectives. It currently reads, "Allow heavy industrial/manufacturing land uses and waste facilities to locate in the Simco Road District only, subject to specific review and Conditional Use Permits."
The word "only" became a sticking point for planning and zoning representatives. As written, the plan identifies the Simco Road area on the county's western border as the county's only place for heavy industrial growth.
County Growth and Development Director Alan Christy told the commission that one word "totally shuts off" any heavy industrial growth outside of the Simco Road area.
Holding up a map of the county's future land use map, Christy asked if the commission wanted to identify other areas in the county for heavy industrial development.
Board representative Sue Fish expressed concern with the idea, saying a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work with every type of heavy industrial operation. Different industries have different needs, she said.
Commission Chairman Nick Nettleton warned against identifying other sections of land for heavy industrial growth unless a land owner offers to sell their property for this use.
"We shouldn't be fishing for different land," Nettleton told the committee.
The chairman urged the committee to avoid removing the word from the comprehensive plan, saying Simco Road is where heavy industrial development belongs within Elmore County.
"At this point, we haven't seen another site that works," he said.
No other land in the county is appropriate for heavy industrial growth, added vice chairperson Patti Osborn.
Planning and zoning representative K.C. Duerig told the committee the comprehensive plan, as written, remains too restrictive in terms of heavy industrial growth. Removing the word "only" from the plan still encourages heavy industrial growth in this area but doesn't make it mandatory, he said.
An amended plan makes it easier for developers to look at other areas in the county more suited to their needs, Duerig said. He identified land near Exit 129 on the interstate as a possible example of future heavy industrial growth an amended plan could open up. The area is connected by rail lines, a four-lane highway, necessary power lines and water industrial developers need.
"The land is nothing but rocks" and not well suited for its current use as agricultural zone, Duerig said.
Even if a company applies to rezone land within the county for heavy industrial use other than the Simco Road area, residents still have the right to come forward and tell the commissioners "no," Duerig added.
Meanwhile, Duerig highlighted the massive delays involved in approving heavy industrial conditional use permits in Elmore County. He estimated it takes up to 24 months for these requests to reach a final vote. By then, the company has already turned to other counties, which take 75 percent less time to get the same paperwork approved.
"We're putting undue restrictions on future growth in the county," Duerig said. It takes too long for these applications to get approved because of one word -- "only."
Alan Sobtzak told the commission it makes no sense for someone to pay for a heavy industrial rezoning application anywhere other than Simco Road because they're already "shut out" of more optimal sites.
Developers will see the Simco Road area, know that it won't meet their needs "and go to some other county," Duerig added.
Osborne disagreed, saying the comprehensive plan must balance the benefits of heavy industrial growth without sacrificing the people's rights to enjoy their current quality of life.
"We don't want to fast track something detrimental to citizens in the (county)," Nettleton added.
The comprehensive plan provides the commission needed guidance on heavy industrial growth previously reserved along Simco Road. It takes people coming forward to convince the commission to rezone different areas for heavy industrial, Nettleton said.
Duerig again urged the committee to support amending the comprehensive plan, saying leaving it "as is" denies the county of the future industrial development it needs.
"We can't deal with AEHI unless we do something with the comprehensive plan," he added.
Sobtzak highlighted the county's current unemployment statistics in his plea to urge the board to amend the plan. Encouraging new industries in Elmore County would help alleviate these growing figures.
"This issue is beyond AEHI, which is what brought us here in the first place," he said.
Nettleton again urged caution against issuing a more lenient approval process for future industrial growth within the county.
"If you asked folks what they wanted, they'd say they want us to protect them against certain types of industry," he told the commission.
Sobtzak and Duerig, along with representatives Sue Fish and Betty Van Gheluwe, voted to remove the word from the comprehensive plan. Nettleton, Osborne and board member Debbie Lord recommended leaving the wording as is.
Following the vote, Nettleton asked the county's growth and development office to draft the recommended amendments to the comprehensive plan.
At the earliest, the planning and zoning board could address the issue at its Jan. 20 meeting.