Planners frustrated in area-of-impact discussion

A land-use agreement remains elusive to planners from Bellevue and Hailey, who met as an ad-hoc committee last Wednesday.

"There was a feeling afterwards that we were back to square one," said committee member and Hailey planner Becki Keefer.

At the meeting were Keefer, Hailey city planner Carl Hjelm, Bellevue Planning and Zoning Commissioners Parke Mitchell and Mike Mattias, and two recent additions, Blaine County planner Tom Bergin and Friedman Airport manager Rick Baird.

Absent were Hailey P&Z Commissioner Greg James and Bellevue city planner Diane Shay.

Arrangements had been made for the Idaho Mountain Express to be present at the committee’s meeting, but Hjelm asked that it be closed to the press and public. Hjelm said the presence of a reporter would have inhibited discussion.

Under Idaho’s open meeting law, such gatherings can be closed to the public as long as no quorum from any one governing body is present.

"The committee kicked around a lot of ideas, and it’s not necessarily a good idea for the public to have those ideas before the committee can formalize their recommendations," Hjelm explained.

The committee, which has been meeting since October, is charged with recommending a mutual land-use agreement for the area between Bellevue and Hailey that is in both areas of impact.

Under Idaho law, a city has some control over development within its area of impact, which in the Wood River Valley consists of Blaine County land. Unless the city and the county negotiate otherwise, the area of impact is a one-mile-wide band around the city. A city is allowed to annex only property that is within its area of impact.

Bellevue and Hailey, separated by less than one mile of county land, have overlapping areas of impact.

According to Keefer, the ad-hoc committee has been searching since its first meeting for an agreement that would: 1) preserve as much open space in the area while respecting the property owners’ development rights; 2) maintain a distinct buffer between the two cities; and 3) explore ideas for a recreational use in the area.

But impeding that agreement are some incongruous plans regarding area-of-impact boundaries and future land uses.

Planners from Bellevue have brought to the table a map depicting a northern boundary that extends into land being considered for annexation by Hailey.

That land, owned by Spencer Eccles, is currently open space and zoned residential. Eccles is requesting annexation as light-industrial zoning to Hailey.

Hailey would stand to profit from annexation fees and property-tax revenues generated from light-industrial zoning, but the city would have to extend its boundary south to accommodate the Eccles property.

That southward expansion is perceived by Bellevue planners as an encroachment, and officials there seem determined to keep their northern neighbor at bay.

Bellevue feels strongly that its impact zone should extend to the section line at Hailey’s southern boundary, according to Keefer.

Disagreement over where the boundaries will fall has stalled the ad-hoc committee’s discussion.

"That’s where things fell apart," Keefer said.

If the cities cannot reach an agreement, jurisdiction remains with Blaine County, which could be forced to act as mediator between the two cities regarding area-of-impact negotiations and reviews of applications within the area.

"Our first choice is to find a way to obtain public ownership of these lands," said Keefer of the committee. "Any development should be minimal, non-residential, and a benefit or asset to both communities. The best development is none at all."

When asked for details on the meeting, committee members Mike Mattias and Parke Mitchell said they had no comment.