Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
February 19, 2015 Regular Meeting
Attending: Matt Cossalman, John Cranor, Ron Self, Caleb Davis, Tim Heenan, Kim Peterson, Marciavee Cossette; Wade Purdom. Staff: John Moss. Absent:. Scott Fuller
At 5:30 pm Cossalman, opened the regular meeting and welcomed new member Wade Purdom to the regular P&Z Meeting as well as congratulate Ron Self and Marciavee Cossette for their decision to request a second term and subsequent approval by the Commissioners; it was noted that the P&Z Commission is now complete with 9 active members. After reviewing the minutes from the prior regular meeting, Self moved to adopt the 01/15/15 minutes as read, Davis seconded, and approval was unanimous.
Chairman Cossalman reminded those present that the previous meeting's activity had centered around proposed changes to the 2012-1 Planning & Zoning Ordinance, and that after finalizing a review of the proposed changes the P&Z Commission would be ready to submit an application for amending that ordinance in this meeting's activity.
Chairman Cossalman opened discussion by again reviewing the proposed changes, page by page, as provided in supporting documentation. Everyone agreed that it was helpful to clearly specify the page number being discussed, so that each member could follow the progress of the decision making as various points were discussed. It was also declared that all typographical errors would be accepted as presented, without having to devote time on each such item throughout the ordinance review.
The discussion followed this Proposed Changes document, accepting the proposed changes as seen in the attached document. However, when we got to Section 8, Staff's proposed changes to Section 8, Special Event Permit, were then reviewed. It became clear that using the criteria for determining just what constituted a Special Event could NOT be an event that charges a fee; there are too many legitimate events that are NOT 'Special' where a fee is charged, thus making the charging of a fee a confusing conditional requirement.
A lot of discussion involving how to determine just what is a 'Special Event' ensued,; the number of people is a problem when trying to count people (who does the counting, how is this validated, how to document the counts). Everyone agreed that calling an event 'family friendly' does not address concerns related to safety issues (traffic and parking, EMT, fire), noise control or dust abatement. So if we don't use a fee as an indicator, how can we establish criteria for a 'Special Event'?
The question of enforcement was raised, and the point here is that this is not a criminal issue but a civil matter to be addressed by those impacted. It was agreed that specific groups or activities (e.g., the Moyie Mud Bog), were not the issue and not to be discussed. Rather, the ordinance is to be intended to establish guidelines that qualify a 'Special Event'. Examples were quickly proposed, such as the inclusion of more than 500 people, overnight camping, the serving of alcoholic beverages; perhaps let the public weigh in on just what a specific number of people might it take to make an event 'Special'.
It was agreed that the sale of alcohol would be seen as signaling a 'Special Event', especially when camping overnight. At this point, the Commission held a vote and agreed that any one of three conditions would be seen as common to the definition of a Special Event.
A gathering of more than 500 people
the sale of alcohol
More than 300 people involved in overnight camping
Further changes proposed regarding the Section 8 definition of a Special Event were discussed. The Commission agreed that the duration of 1 year for a permit, even if recurring events were to be held in that year, This provision replaces the existing condition where, once granted, the Permit runs with the land. It was agreed that an event meeting any one of the proposed criteria would be one which should be reviewed on an ongoing timely basis.
At the time a permit is requested, a Staff Report is sent to various agencies to provide for their input and concerns. Section 220.127.116.11 was agreed to expand these agencies to include, in addition to the Sheriff's office and rod & Bridge, to include ambulance service and the associated fire district or association.
Finally under Section 8, under enforcement, it was felt that the Administrator has the responsibility to respond to formal concerns and complaints received, consistent with Section 4.3 to attempt to bring about voluntary compliance. See also Section 4.7 concerning a Notice of Violation, which spells out specific steps to be taken by the Administrator.
Section 11, Subdivisions, under Clustered Subdivision, the statement was added: With transfer of Development Rights, density may be increased to the condensed development density for the zone. This same statement was added to the Mixed Use Subdivision, thus bringing both definitions in line with the Residential Development Rights Section, 11.9.
In addition, Section 11 was modified to migrate Simple Subdivisions to a new Section (20), Parcel Division. This change was found acceptable, with the provision that in Section 20, regarding Parcel Line Adjustments Section 20.4, the consideration 18.104.22.168 was added, essentially for the Administrator to determine a lot line adjustment is NOT intended to circumvent minimal zone density acreages.
Finally regarding CAFO, the following language is to be added in the Prohibited Use Class for each zone: “CAFO operations exceeding Idaho code 67-6529”, The result is that CAFO operations less than the numbers stated in Idaho code are possible, but since no CAFO operations currently exist this is a moot point. Anyone having what might be considered a CAFO would be considered an agricultural operation, thus there is no need to add a Boundary County CAFO ordinance specifically.
Chairman Cossalman called for a vote in accepting the changes as reviewed to formally amend the ordinance, and Cranor moved to accept the changes to Ordinance 2012-1 as being approved and ready for Public Hearing. Self seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
The P&Z Commission then reviewed the use of the application forms filled out when requesting a Conditional Use Permit, a Special Event Permit and a Temporary Use Permit. Staff pointed out that the forms are used as the basis for completing the Staff Report, and perhaps the review of that form would indicate it could be modified so as to provide more meaningful information to the deciding body; in the case of the P&Z Commission, that body has responsibility for the Conditional Use Permit. Self suggested that the members review the form (available for download on the web from http://www.boundarycountyid.org/planning/index.htm) and the subject was tabled for later review.
Meeting adjourned at 7PM by unanimous vote
John B. Moss
Matt Cossalman, Chairman Date