×

Warning message

The installed version of the browser you are using is outdated and no longer supported by Konveio. Please upgrade your browser to the latest release.

Gem County Code Update - Module 1 - Steering Committee Review

Please review the DRAFT documents below and provide your feedback.

How to Review This Document? As indicated on the green bar at the top the document, you can click anywhere on the document to comment. You may also click on existing yellow (comment) bubbles to see and reply to comments from others. You can view the Table of Contents to jump between documents or use the search function to find specific sections or topics. 

You do not need to register/sign in to provide comments. However, you will be asked to provide your name and email the first time you comment (if you come back at another time, you'll have to add your name and address again).
File name:

-

File size:

-

Title:

-

Author:

-

Subject:

-

Keywords:

-

Creation Date:

-

Modification Date:

-

Creator:

-

PDF Producer:

-

PDF Version:

-

Page Count:

-

Page Size:

-

Fast Web View:

-
Choose an option Alt text (alternative text) helps when people can’t see the image or when it doesn’t load.
Aim for 1-2 sentences that describe the subject, setting, or actions.
This is used for ornamental images, like borders or watermarks.
Preparing document for printing…
0%

Click anywhere in the document to add a comment. Select a bubble to view comments.
Document is loading Loading Glossary…
Powered by Konveio
Previous
Next
View all

Comments

Close

Add comment

in reply to Glenn Flaherty's comment

SiteAdmin Dec 8 2023 at 3:37PM on page 3

After discussion it was decided to simplify this provision
0 replies
in reply to Glenn Flaherty's comment

SiteAdmin Dec 8 2023 at 3:37PM on page 2

Noted. Will share redlines in the future.
0 replies
in reply to Justin Vickery's comment

SiteAdmin Dec 8 2023 at 3:36PM on page 2

Following discussion we decided to do some additional research and get commission feedback
0 replies
in reply to Glenn Flaherty's comment

SiteAdmin Dec 8 2023 at 3:14PM on page 2

addressed
0 replies
in reply to Justin Vickery's comment

SiteAdmin Dec 8 2023 at 3:13PM on page 2

It is part of the list
0 replies
in reply to Glenn Flaherty's comment

SiteAdmin Dec 8 2023 at 3:13PM on page 1

Yes you can have interior door that is fire rated
0 replies
in reply to Dan Spanfelner's comment

SiteAdmin Dec 8 2023 at 3:13PM on page 1

Final decision was to pull some research and present to the commission for final decision
0 replies
in reply to Glenn Flaherty's comment

SiteAdmin Dec 8 2023 at 3:12PM on page 1

addressed
0 replies
in reply to Glenn Flaherty's comment

SiteAdmin Dec 8 2023 at 3:11PM on page 1

Decided to proceed with removal of the 5-acre lot min
0 replies

Dan Spanfelner Dec 2 2023 at 7:00AM on page 1

Comment
Some additional comments regarding the ADU updates: - legislation may be coming up again in the future, but I’m not certain why we as a committee are working on this particular item at this time. Supposedly, this hasn’t passed in the Idaho legislature yet. - I believe that it’s important to keep ADU’s very small. We just completed and signed a new comprehensive plan that sought to preserve the county’s rural and agricultural nature. Potentially having the ability to put two larger houses (1,500 or 1,800 or even larger square foot houses as has been discussed) onto a one-acre lot or five acre lot would seem to patently go against the comprehensive plan we just approved. - The size of ADU’s should be capped so as to not to not allow someone to make a 10,000 sf or potentially larger multi-family apartment building. - everything that we consider should keep the new comprehensive plan in mind.
0 replies
in reply to Justin Vickery's comment

Glenn Flaherty Nov 30 2023 at 4:04PM on page 3

Comment
I guess I like this paragraph. Although I understand what Justin is saying. I'm not hard over on it; I'll go with the flow. Maybe this would be a good one to get some real public input on.
1 reply

Justin Vickery Nov 28 2023 at 8:20PM on page 3

Suggested Revision
I would like to see this requirement removed. It doesn't allow people to build using materials they have on hand, or maybe purchased 2nd hand. It sounds like subdivision requirements that most people don't want to see in Gem county.
1 reply
in reply to Dan Spanfelner's comment

Justin Vickery Nov 28 2023 at 8:10PM on page 2

Comment
I agree with the idea, but I'm not sure how to write it. A couple ideas are; "Placement of ADU's should not result in loss of agriculture land" or "Preservation of agriculture land should be prioritized when placing ADU's.
1 reply

Justin Vickery Nov 28 2023 at 7:58PM on page 2

Suggested Revision
Seems like this "and" shouldn't be here
1 reply
in reply to Dan Spanfelner's comment

Justin Vickery Nov 28 2023 at 7:55PM on page 1

Comment
I went back and forth on this A LOT with different people, and got a fair amount of input from both sides. In the end, I'm inclined to agree with 1500 or even go to 1800. Personally I wanted to remove the size limitation altogether. But its hard to argue that we're preserving AG land without a size limit on ADU's.
0 replies

Glenn Flaherty Nov 28 2023 at 8:00AM on page 2

Comment
Previous version said <40 acres requires shared driveway and >40 acres requires separate driveway. This version says they must share driveway access for all acreages. Just curious why the change? More concerned that we need a better system to document changes. This change is not flagged from the prior version and is not listed in the Revisions Overview. This type of thing makes our job more difficult. Instead of reviewing a document for indicated changes, I must review every word to look for subtle changes that I might not otherwise notice.
1 reply

Glenn Flaherty Nov 28 2023 at 7:50AM on page 1

Question
Would like to clarify with Building Official - can an ADU have an internal access (i.e. doorway) to the PDU? Or is there a rule that prohibits this?
1 reply
in reply to Dan Spanfelnre's comment

Glenn Flaherty Nov 28 2023 at 7:47AM on page 1

Comment
I agree in principle. But existing zoning defines what can be done on each size lot. I don't think we presently have any restriction on building size on a lot. Can a 10,000 sq ft home be built on a 1 acre lot? I believe the answer is yes as long as they meet setbacks, septic, and all other rules. So for ADUs, I don't think we want to say there is a minimum lot size - just like we don't say there is a minimum lot size to build a primary house. The bottom line, we're trying to encourage the use of ADUs to make Gem County more affordable for kids, in-laws, etc.
1 reply
in reply to Dan Spanfelner's comment

Glenn Flaherty Nov 28 2023 at 7:41AM on page 1

Question
I agree in principle. But do we presently have any restriction on building size on a lot? Can a 10,000 sq ft home be built on a 1 acre lot? I believe the answer is yes as long as they meet setbacks, septic, and all other rules. So why do we care if a lot has a 2,000 sq ft house and a 1,500 sq ft ADU? Or a 10,000 sq ft house and a 1,500 sq ft ADU? As long as the ADU meets all the other rules? My ADU is 2,000+ sq ft (10 acre lot) and that's what I needed to convince my in-laws to move here. :-)
0 replies

Glenn Flaherty Nov 28 2023 at 7:31AM on page 2

Suggested Revision
add "(living space)" to clarify it's not the footprint, but the actual livable square footage.
1 reply

Glenn Flaherty Nov 28 2023 at 7:28AM on page 1

Technical Edit
This should be maximum.
1 reply

Dan Spanfelner Nov 27 2023 at 12:59PM on page 2

Comment
I would like to add that the ADU would not be located in such a way as to impact agricultural operations. I believe also would be better to keep the additional ADU within the existing farmstead, and not have them able to be scattered over the parcel.
1 reply
in reply to Dan Spanfelner's comment

Dan Spanfelner Nov 27 2023 at 12:46PM on page 1

Comment
Additional comment: ...Particularly if it's required on smaller lots...I say this because it could have the effect of making our one-acre lots into a density that is more reflective of being a subdivision in town and has the potential to destroy what the new Comprehensive Plan set out to prevent.
2 replies

Dan Spanfelner Nov 27 2023 at 12:38PM on page 1

Comment
I would prefer to see it smaller than larger.
2 replies

Dan Spanfelnre Nov 27 2023 at 12:37PM on page 1

Comment
Is this required? It may not be a bad idea to keep it if possible. Not sure if this is a requirement.
1 reply
View all