After months of workshops, discussions and public meetings, Hailey's new comprehensive plan is taking shape.
But, the new plan might be limited in application. The City Council voted two weeks ago to remove consideration of the plan from subdivision and planned-unit-development applications.
Council members will meet independently with Planning Director Beth Robrahn this month to discuss issues in the plan, which will be used for the next 10 to 20 years to shape and guide developments in the city.
Those issues will be presented at a public hearing on Aug. 27.
Hailey City Attorney Ned Williamson said the decision to remove comprehensive plan compliance from the development application process was made in order to avoid litigation stemming from a 1990 court case.
In that case, a judge ruled that it was "improper" for Blaine County to deny a subdivision based entirely on the requirements of a comprehensive plan, said Williamson.
"We have to do this to be safe," said Councilman Don Keirn in an interview. "We will still use it in the writing of ordinances that will then shape development. It will provide guidance for what is good for the city."
The council members agreed to meet individually with Robrahn over the next three weeks to discuss portions of the comprehensive plan they think need to be changed.
Councilman Fritz Haemmerle said at a City Council meeting last week that he thought the plan should have more specific "tools" for enforcing the goals laid out in the plan. He said he would support clauses that prohibit transfers of development rights and limit "abusive" waivers for developments.
Transfers of development rights, or TDRs, allow a developer to transfer density requirements from one zoning district to another.
"I don't like TDRs and I don't like giving massive waivers to developers," Haemmerle said. "Ketchum allowed projects that included waivers and that hurt the town."
Councilman Don Keirn said in an interview that he also did not like TDRs and that "nine out of 10 times" he thought waivers were a bad idea, but he did not think writing a prohibition into the comprehensive plan was a good idea.
"I think you would tie yourself down too much and tie down future councils. You have to give yourself some leeway," Keirn said.
Tony Evans: tevans@mtexpress.com
