EMMETT, Idaho — Another proposed gravel pit in Gem County is back in front of commissioners — months after the original Premier Spring Creek South project was approved by planning and zoning.
After Gem County's Planning and Zoning Commission approved the project in January — following two nights of hearing, testimony and a lengthy deliberation — opponents brought their concerns back before county commissioners through an appeal hearing Tuesday.
The Premier Spring Creek South project would be located northeast of Emmett, approximately 5 miles from town near the intersection of Spring Creek Road and State Highway 52. The company says the original 223-acre project was later voluntarily reduced to roughly 61 acres — about 21 percent of the total property — after removing Phase 2 in response to comments from the appellants, Idaho Fish and Game and other agencies.
Shad Richard Larson has lived in Emmett since 2001 and says his family owns property that shares a property line with the proposed project site — land they had planned to develop. He said the approval would have a significant impact on that property's value and does not belong in a rural agricultural setting.
He said he has a long memory when it comes to Premier's position on gravel pits in the area.
"I sat in an SUP hearing in front of Planning and Zoning in 2016 with a representative of the Premier sitting next to me saying, it's terrible that anybody would consider putting a gravel pit in a rural zone like that," Larson said.
He said the company's position has since reversed.
"They were on the side of stopping. Now they're on the side of expanding," Larson said.
Larson said he submitted a letter as part of the public comment process outlining the history of the project and the community's concerns. He said the existing pit was supposed to be reclaimed in 2019 and remains unreclaimed seven years later — and that Premier's track record gives him little confidence in promises about the new project.
"When they say that the new pit, they're gonna be better, they're going to be different, I don't know. There's no evidence for that," Larson said.
He said his concern is personal.
"I'm just concerned about this spot. It's my home. It's where I plan to live for... yeah, till the end," Larson said.
He also raised concerns about the broader impact on the area, including the Black Canyon experience at the dam.
"If this is approved, the Black Canyon experience at the dam that a lot of people from our area come to enjoy is going to be changed dramatically. It will be visible from the reservoir. If you're on the water, you will know what's going on, you will know what's happening, you will see it and hear it," Larson said.
During Tuesday's hearing, attorney Sebastian Griffin presented the opposition's case. He was clear at the outset that the appeal is not an argument against aggregate or mineral extraction in Gem County — it is a narrower legal question about whether the record before commissioners contains adequate evidence to support every mandatory finding required by Gem County Code for this specific permit at this specific location.
"It may be remote from the city of Emmett. It is not remote from the people and property affected by this operation," Griffin said.
Griffin said the Larson family owns two separate 40-acre parcels — their residence and a separate undeveloped parcel closer to the project that takes direct access from Spring Creek Road. He said Premier's arguments focused on the distance to the residence and ignored the undeveloped parcel entirely. He said Gem County Code specifically requires that a special use permit not deter the lawful development of vacant land — and that the planning and zoning commission never addressed that question.
On traffic, Griffin said Premier provided historical truck count information from an existing site and argued that a shorter haul route to Highway 52 reduces impacts. He said that is not a traffic safety analysis. He also raised concerns about the Idaho Department of Fish and Game's letter in the record, the Class 1 versus Class 3 notice issue, and the exclusion of photographs and supporting materials that residents attempted to submit during testimony.
Griffin said the central theme of the appeal comes down to one standard.
"If any mandatory finding cannot be answered strictly and conclusively, yes... the SUP should not be approved or stand," Griffin said.
In his rebuttal, Griffin addressed Premier's presentation directly. He said Premier spent significant time discussing the economic value of aggregate, the demand for basalt and the number of employees who benefit from the operation — but said those are not the nine findings required to approve a special use permit.
He also clarified the opposition's position on conditions.
"Our argument is not that conditions are improper. Our argument is that the existence of a condition does not automatically mean that the nine findings are met. A condition can mitigate an impact once the county has enough evidence to understand that impact and determine that the condition will actually address it. But a condition cannot substitute for the underlying evidence that is needed and required to make the finding in the first place," Griffin said.
He said Premier's argument that the site is remote does not address the people and property actually affected.
"It may be remote from the city of Emmett. It is not remote from the people and property affected by this operation," Griffin said.
Griffin pushed back on Premier's suggestion that the undeveloped Larson parcel was a new argument raised on appeal. He said the January 2nd written comment already in the planning and zoning record specifically identified the separate 40.01-acre parcel and Shad's intended development of it. He said the GIS information presented at the hearing was used only to visually explain a property interest already in the record — not to introduce new evidence.
He also pushed back on Premier's argument that A1 zoning is primarily agricultural and therefore residential development is not the intended use. He said Finding C does not say no deterrence to agricultural development.
"It says no deterrence to the legal development of vacant land. That is Chad and Kim's 40.01 parcel. That language was chosen by good commissioners like yourself at some point in time and maybe some staff, that is what it says, that it no deterrence to the legal development of vacant land," Griffin said.
He also noted that the Larson family has lived in the area since 2003 — well before the 2011 grandfathering of the existing pit that Premier cited as establishing the area as an aggregate extraction corridor.
"There have been residences there far before 2011 commissioners. This isn't an issue for the new pit, old pit, residents have been there. It's been a residential area since well before 2011," Griffin said.
Attorney Jeff Bauer, representing Premier Aggregates, defended the project and said the planning and zoning commission's unanimous approval — with 33 carefully developed conditions — was well-supported by the evidence.
"Premier Aggregates is a local Gem County company," Bauer said.
He said because the project is a replacement source, it would not create new transportation impacts.
"It being a replacement source, it won't have any new impacts on the transportation system," Bauer said.
Premier also pointed to project conditions — including operating limits, road improvements and blasting restrictions — as evidence of compliance with county requirements.
"The conditions in this instance are very important to show that we complied with the nine criteria," Bauer said.
Gem County commissioners will deliberate the appeal on September 8 at 1 p.m. at the Gem County Annex.
