NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Boundary County Commissioners will hold public hearing at 11 a.m. Tuesday, October 6, 2009, in Commission Chambers at the Boundary County Courthouse to accept public comment on application 09-056 by Gina Swift, who is seeking a variance from setback requirements and a lot line adjustment in the Fall Creek Subdivision.
Specifically, the applicant is seeking to add .02 acre from Lot 2, owned by Robert and Sandra Johnson, onto her parcel, Lot 3, and to obtain a variance of side yard setback of five feet to eliminate the encroachment of a residence built in 1992.
The deadline for written comment and material is 5 p.m. Thursday, September 31, 2009. Written comment may be mailed to Boundary County Planning and Zoning, PO Box 419, Bonners Ferry, ID 83805, faxed to (208) 267-1205, or emailed to planning@boundarycountyid.org. Written material not received by the established deadline will not be included in the public record for consideration. Depending on the number of people who may wish to testify at public hearing, there may be a five minute limit per person on verbal testimony.
Further information on this application is available at the Planning and Zoning Office, Room 16 of the Courthouse, and the application is available for public review. Information is also available by calling (208) 267-7212.
Anyone requiring special accommodation due to handicap or disability should contact the planning office at least two (2) days prior to the hearing.
Staff Report
Variance/Lot Line Adjustment Application 09-056
Applicant: Gina Swift
Parcels Affected: RP002600020030A; Lot 3, Block 2, Fall Creek Subdivision, .867 acres: RP002600020020A, Lot 2, Block 2, Fall Creek Subdivision, .785 acres.
Zoning: Agriculture/Forestry
The applicant is seeking a variance from minimum side yard setback requirements and an attendant lot line adjustment to eliminate an 8.5-foot encroachment of the Swift home onto Lot 2, owned by Robert and Sandra Johnson. If granted, the variance and lot line adjustment would establish a five-foot setback from the Swift home and Lot 2, and leave enough acreage on Lot 2 to comply with subdivision covenants requiring a 15-foot side yard set-back.
A variance application would normally be considered and decision made by the planning and zoning commission, however, since this application involves a lot line adjustment, the decision goes to the board of county commissioners, and the P&Z hearing is waived.
Chapter 9, Section 2, Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, establishes that, “In the event that a building, structure or use is erected or established in good faith and with intent to comply with the provisions of this ordinance, the Planning and Zoning Commission may grant a variance for waiver of violation.” By definition, a variance is a special grant of relief from any specific provision of the ordinance provided, in this case, that the variance requested does not constitute a grant of special privilege and that the variance requested will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
The following facts are submitted for your consideration:
Allan and Susan Day purchased Lot 2 in July, 1992, and Lot 3 in October, 1992, and the house was built that year. While the original zoning certificate is not on file, a zoning certificate to allow a 900-square foot expansion of the structure was issued in March, 1995. On the attached site plan, Day indicates that the entire structure is on Lot 3, and appears to show that the established setbacks were met, though the setback distance given clearly spans both Lots 2 and 3. It is unknown whether this depiction was a simple error on Day's part, but from the county perspective, the fact that he owned both lots, showing a side setback of 250-feet to his property line, rendered the question moot.
Despite single ownership, the two lots were never consolidated for property tax purposes.
If the homeowner's association in place at the time the structure was built had concern about a technical violation of the CCRs, there has been no record of such concern presented to Boundary County.
In November, 2005, Day sold both lots to Robert and Sandra Johnson. In December, 2005, Johnson sold Lot 3, the house and other improvements to Gina Swift.
Swift stated to me that at the time of purchase, she believed the house to be entirely on Lot 3 and in conformance with county and homeowner association requirements. She stated that she invested in improving the house while living there, and did not discover the encroachment issue until having the property line surveyed prior to offering the land and home for sale earlier this year.
Swift and the Johnsons, the two property owners affected by this application, are in agreement that the application presented is the most effective way by which to resolve the situation.
Written notice of this hearing was mailed on August 25 to the Fall Creek Water Association, Panhandle Health District, Northern Lights, the South Boundary Fire District, JRS Surveying, the applicant and 16 surrounding property owners. In addition, a letter was submitted by this office to the Fall Creek Subdivision Homeowner's Association September 9 in time for a special meeting of the association being held to consider their response to this application.
Written comment was subsequently received from the Fall Creek Community Association Board in favor of the application.
Written comment was received from Panhandle Health indicating that no septic permit has been located for the house on Lot 2, and that a site evaluation in 1987 found Lot 3, which is undeveloped, unsuited for any type of septic system. Because Panhandle Health must sign the amended plat prior to it being recorded, the commissioner's decision should be conditioned to requiring that sanitary restrictions be lifted.
Upon conclusion of public hearing and weighing the materials of the application and any testimony received, the commission must determine the following in order to grant the variance:
That the house was built in good faith and with intent to comply with the provisions of the zoning ordinance in effect at the time of construction.
That the variance requested is not materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.
If the conditions for variance are met, the commission must further determine the following in order to grant the lot line adjustment:
That the lot line adjustment would not result in a greater number of lots than shown on the original plat; and that the adjustment would not result in the formation of any lots without access.
The the lot line adjustment would not materially or adversely affect adjacent properties.
That the lot line adjustment would not materially increase the non-conformity of any lot or lots.
If the above conditions are met, the Commission may approve the variance and the lot line adjustment and direct the applicant to proceed to develop and recorded a final amended plat, to include signatures of agencies as found on the original plat.
If the above conditions are not met, the Commission may disapprove the application or establish terms and conditions by which the application would be approved.