P&Z Minutes Apr 21 2016

Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
April 21, 2016 Regular Meeting

Attending: Kim Peterson, Caleb Davis, Marciavee Cossette, Scott Fuller, Ron Self, Wade Purdom, Matt Cossalman, John Cranor, Tim Heenan
Staff: John Moss. Absent: Tevis Hull

At 5:30 pm Chairman Kim Peterson opened the regular meeting and asked for an approval of the minutes from the March 17 meeting. Davis suggested correcting the minutes with reference to his voting on application 16-041 (Nay instead of Abstain); noted by staff. Peterson mentioned a spelling error; noted by staff. Ron Self moved to accept. Caleb Davis seconded, and the minutes were approved by all except Cranor and Heenan (absent Feb 18 meeting).

{ Planning & Zoning minutes are transcribed from the conversation that takes place during the meeting. Topics are condensed, eliminating verbatim comment in order to condense the material. Key points are included in this extraction and all votes taken are recorded.}

Chair Peterson then read the script for conduct of Public Hearings, reviewing the procedure to be followed for all official proceedings per Section 19 of the Boundary County Zoning and Land Use Ordinance 2015-2.

The first item on the agenda, application 16-063 by Jim Wadel was announced and concerned an application for a Conditional Use permit related to an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) the applicant wishes to place on the parcel The criteria for reaching a recommendation/decision was presented:

7.7.1.       Whether the application, site plan and additional documentation provided by the applicant sufficiently demonstrate the full scope of the use proposed.
7.7.2.       Whether the proposed use conforms to all applicable standards established by this ordinance.
7.7.3.       Whether there is sufficient land area to accommodate the use proposed, and whether development is so timed and arranged so as to minimize adverse effects on surrounding properties and uses.
7.7.4.      How the impacts of the use proposed compare with the impacts of existing uses within the zone.
7.7.5.       Whether concerns raised by other departments, agencies or by the providers of public services, including but not limited to road and bridge, water, electricity, fire protection, sewer or septic, can be adequately addressed.
7.7.6.      The potential benefit to the community offered by the use proposed.
7.7.7.       Whether specific concerns aired through the public hearing process have validity and whether those concerns can be adequately addressed.
7.7.8.       Whether the use proposed would constitute a public nuisance, impose undue adverse impact to established surrounding land uses or infringe on the property rights of surrounding property owners, and whether terms or conditions could be imposed adequate to mitigate those effects.
7.7.9.       Whether the use proposed would unfairly burden Boundary County taxpayers with costs not offset by the potential benefits of the proposed use.

Mr. Wadel was asked to make an opening statement, and he explained that he lives on Maas loop Rd (15 acres) and wants a second dwelling for his son.
Cranor asked for square footage (2240).
Self asked if the split of 5 acres had been considered.
Mr. Wadel responded that he has 15 acres and wants to place a second residence on his property for his son. After Davis asked if a split were possible, Mr. Wadel responded that there was a financial burden to split the property.
Peterson suggested that if the property were ever sold, what are the plans for the second home?
Mr. Wadel replied that at that time the property would be split.
Davis noted that the construction start date was in the past, and Mr. Wadel responded by saying the foundation was in and the utilities were in place.
Peterson asked if there was an address for the second home.
Mr. Wadel responded by saying there would be a need for another address in the event an ambulance was called and would need to know where to go. He explained they use a common driveway and one splits off to go to the new house.
At this point staff interrupted the discussion to suggest there is information in the staff analysis that would clarify the nature of Mr. Wadel's request for a Conditional Use Permit. That analysis reflected upon Ordinance Section 15.11.5. - Conditional Uses, - Multi-family or multi-structural residential, and Section 2.46.4 Multi-Structure Residential: More than one primary residential structure, whether single family, duplex or multi-family, on a single parcel or lot.
Peterson told Mr. Wadel that after the staff report had been given and discussion regarding the staff report was concluded, he would be called again to give a closing statement.
Heenan asked if there had been notification sent to the surrounding land owners.
Staff said yes, and there were two positive written responses by neighbors in support of Mr Wadel's application. No additional comments had been received, neither Aye or Nay.
After Cossalman asked for clarification on the density for a Suburban zone, staff referenced - where community water or sewer service are available, 1 acre. Where neither are available ( the density is 2-1/2 acres. Cossalman asked if water or sewer were available and staff replied water, but not sewer.
Peterson said there being no further discussion related to the staff report, Mr. Wadel was asked to give a closing statement. Stating that he had nothing more to add, Self asked if the septic approval had been granted. Mr. Wadel explained this was in progress.
Peterson closed the hearing to public comment and asked the Commission to discuss the application.
Cossalman explained the background for the multi-structural option is that in general it is better to have separate properties for residences for resale. However, if you really want to do it there is this provision for it. But it isn't as simple as just doing it, which is why you have to come before the board and state your reasons for wanting a separate residence. It means jumping through a hoop in order to do so, but as long as the minimum zone density has been met, and the criteria for the zone has been met, the board can determine acceptance of the request.
Peterson continued to review the considerations related to a Conditional Use (7.7.1.-7.7.8.), and the Commission agreed there were no discrepancies that related to the application. After determining there was nothing further to discuss, Peterson called for a motion.
John Cranor moved to accept the proposed Conditional Use as presented. Caleb Davis seconded, and the vote was as follows:
1. Cossalman – [Aye], Davis – [Aye], Cossette –[Aye], Fuller – [Aye], Peterson – [Aye], Purdom –[Aye], Self –[Aye], Cranor - [Aye], Heenan -[Aye]
2. Tally: Aye – _9__; Nay – _0__ Absent: _0__
The request for Conditional Use permit 16-063 was approved.

Next there was some comment concerning the proposed changes to the ordinance, but nothing specific was decided and everyone agreed to review the changes as discussed from previous workshops and come next month prepared for further discussion.

Matt Cossalman moved to adjourn, Caleb Davis seconded, approved unanimously at 7:45PM.

John B. Moss

____________________________________ _________________
Kim Peterson, Chairman Date

Thursday, April 21, 2016 - 17:30
Back to Top