[PAGE 1]
Planning & Zoning Commission
Meeting Minutes
March 18, 2026
7:00 pm
Salmon, ID
James Malcom opened the mee(cid:415)ng at 7:00PM.
Members in a(cid:425)endance:
James Malcom, Cody Se(cid:425)les, Thayne Kauer, Ty Cole.
Staff:
Michelle Smith, Sarah Bess, Dan Hobbs
Previous mee(cid:415)ngs Minutes:
James Malcolm made a mo(cid:415)on to approve minutes of February 18, 2026 Cody Se(cid:425)les seconded the
mo(cid:415)on, mo(cid:415)on approved
Communica(cid:415)ons: none
Public Hearing:
7:05PM James Malcom opens the hearing and reviews open mee(cid:415)ng format and procedures. No
conflicts of interest among the Commissioners were stated with regards to the applica(cid:415)on.
Jus(cid:415)n Me(cid:425)ler Applica(cid:415)on for Special Use Permit for Private Airstrip.
Applicant Jus(cid:415)n Me(cid:425)ler 15 Silver Leads Trail Lane Road of North Fork, requested approval to operate a
private airstrip (North Fork Interna(cid:415)onal) on parcels RP001520000030A, RP001520000040A,
RP00141001002G & RP00141001002H, totaling 47.5 acres, owned by Jus(cid:415)n and Tammy Me(cid:425)ler. The
proposed use involves a grass runway approximately 1,600 feet long and 40 feet wide, located on private
residen(cid:415)al/agricultural property. The airstrip would be for personal, non-commercial use, with
occasional emergency access permi(cid:425)ed.

[PAGE 2]
Applicant Presenta(cid:415)on:
Mr. Me(cid:425)ler presented a detailed statement addressing compliance with the Lemhi County Code Title VII
and the Comprehensive Plan. Key points included:
 The proposed use is consistent with rural and agriculture zoning and compa(cid:415)ble with
surrounding proper(cid:415)es.
 The private airstrip would not create undue adverse impacts on public health, safety, or
welfare.
 No hazardous substances subject to repor(cid:415)ng requirements will be stored on the
property.
 Access via a non-exclusive ingress/egress easement remains open and unobstructed, no
permanent structures or obstruc(cid:415)ons would be placed on the easement.
 The applicant requested that the Commission’s findings be limited to land use criteria
and not adjudicate private property or easement disputes as those are civil ma(cid:425)er.
 The airstrip would not affect wetlands, irriga(cid:415)on systems, or wildlife habitat.
 Aircra(cid:332) opera(cid:415)ons would be infrequent, daylight-only, and within FAA safety and noise
standards (approx. 53-61 decibels)
 Repeatedly clarified that private easement disputes were civil ma(cid:425)ers and outside of the
Commission’s jurisdic(cid:415)on.
 Private airstrip will reduce fire fuels on the parcels as it will be grazed, mowed or
swathed as necessary.
Discussion:
Board discussed the following with Mr. Me(cid:425)ler:
 Clarifica(cid:415)on of the airstrip’s dimensions, slope, and access road alignment.
 The applicant’s asser(cid:415)on that the Commission’s jurisdic(cid:415)on is limited to land use, not
private easement adjudica(cid:415)on.
 Ques(cid:415)ons regarding safety, visibility, and poten(cid:415)al interference with exis(cid:415)ng access
routes.
 Mr. Me(cid:425)ler explained that aircra(cid:332) crossings would be brief and infrequent, comparable
to other vehicle use on shared access road.
 Is there any change in eleva(cid:415)on crossing over the access road, will you have to build it
up.
 The road itself will be level. There is no change in eleva(cid:415)on.
 Are there any obstruc(cid:415)ons or blind spots while using the access road.
 No, you can see, 100% there is clear view.
 If take off is so short, why is runway so long?

[PAGE 3]
 Well, I may want to have a friend fly in who has a bigger plane, or I may want to
purchase a larger one.
 A call was made to the office to verify if there has been an easement through an airstrip
previously, office does not know of any at this (cid:415)me.
 Applicant again states that, the board, the members are here to make decisions based
on Local Land Use and that the easement is out of their jurisdic(cid:415)on, as it is a civil ma(cid:425)er,
a legal ma(cid:425)er and not theirs.
 Mr. Me(cid:425)ler stated that the private airstrip meets all applicable County and FAA
standards and that the board should confine its findings to land use compliance.
Public Tes(cid:415)mony:
Several members of the community shared their feedback, with most expressing support while a few
remained neutral.
Wri(cid:425)en Communica(cid:415)on:
An email was received from Brad and Donna Devenport reques(cid:415)ng a copy of the applica(cid:415)on be sent via
email.
Mike England stated historically this parcel was an airstrip “private” when he was growing up used by
Bob Smith. Later on, Cummings built another private airstrip for the 100 Acre woods and I don’t recall
ever having an incident or complaints about noise. I support Jus(cid:415)n’s private airstrip.
Sam Chambers has an airstrip. assumes common sense when it comes to safety and sees it as other
drivers are not paying a(cid:425)en(cid:415)on and if you are coming in for a landing and see a car well then you do a fly
over and wait un(cid:415)l its clear and can land safely. Is in full support of Jus(cid:415)n’s property rights and his private
airstrip.
Rohn Nelson would like to know what happens if you take the word “airstrip” out, as there are no FAA
regula(cid:415)on that says you have to land on an airstrip or at an airport. He is a pilot and was the last private
airstrip hearing. Thinks it’s great to have op(cid:415)ons, especially in that par(cid:415)cular loca(cid:415)on in case of
emergency landing. Also stated that he is a firm believer in private property rights. Heading up North or
toward North Fork there are not a lot of places to land in an emergency, and having that op(cid:415)on is good. I
fully support Jus(cid:415)n.
John Nelson is a pilot himself, worked for fish and game, has flown over several herds of elk, ca(cid:425)le and
wildlife and has never spooked them. The don’t look up, the noise does not have an effect on wildlife.
Having the op(cid:415)on to land my plane safely in an emergency situa(cid:415)on is a great op(cid:415)on. Extends his
support for the airstrip.
Jim Paulekas of Carmen Creek says you always hope to fly more than you actually do, but having the
op(cid:415)on to fly from your property gives you a li(cid:425)le more freedom. In all my years flying I have never had
any issues. I support Me(cid:425)ler’s airstrip.

[PAGE 4]
In Support:
 Local residents and pilots noted the areas history of private airstrips and expressed that
the proposed use aligns with rural character and property rights.
 Supporters emphasized that aircra(cid:332) noise and frequency would be minimal and
comparable to other rural ac(cid:415)vi(cid:415)es.
 Some noted poten(cid:415)al benefits for emergency response and accessibility.
Neutral:
Janet Bloenke, Russ Kozac, Jane Rankin, and Dan Shuler
 Nearby property owners raised concerns about safety, communica(cid:415)on with emergency
responders, and proximity to power lines.
 One resident expressed concern about poten(cid:415)al interference with drone opera(cid:415)ons
under FAA restric(cid:415)ons.
 Others ques(cid:415)oned the adequacy of fire protec(cid:415)on, wildlife impact, and the legal clarity
of shared easement use.
In Opposi(cid:415)on:
None
Applicants Rebu(cid:425)al:
Mr. Me(cid:425)ler reiterated that:
 The airstrip meets all applicable county and FAA standards.
 No credible evidence was presented showing material interference or safety hazards.
 Airspace is federally regulated and not privately owned.
 The commission should confine its findings to land use compliance.
 Environmental compliance: no wetlands, minimal slope, no wildlife or irriga(cid:415)on impacts.
Jim Malcolm closed the public hearing at 8:45PM
The commission discussed the need for addi(cid:415)onal review with county a(cid:425)orney and ul(cid:415)mately moved to
delay the decision pending further verifica(cid:415)on and documenta(cid:415)on.
Cody Se(cid:425)les mo(cid:415)oned to table decision, Ty Cole 2nds the mo(cid:415)on, carried to table decision.