Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
January 15, 2015 Regular Meeting
Attending: Matt Cossalman, John Cranor, Ron Self, Caleb Davis, Tim Heenan, Scott Fuller, Marciavee Cossette; Staff: John Moss. Absent: Kim Peterson.
At 5:30 pm Cossalman, opened the regular meeting and introduced the members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Staff. Cossaalman modified the agenda so that after the reading of the previous meeting's minutes, an election of P&Z Commission officers could be held.
Self moved to adopt the 11/20/14 minutes as read, Fuller seconded, and approval was unanimous.
Cossalman opened the floor for election of P&Z Commission officers. Self moved to accept the existing officers (Cossalman: Chairman; Cranor: Co-Chairman), Davis seconded, the vote was unanimous.
Chairman Cossalman reminded those present of a tabled hearing, related to the procedure pursuant to Section 19 of Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 2012-1. Discussion centered around the reason for tabling this motion, since the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is being reviewed by the P&Z Commission, and subsequent review of this limitation may make this reason for this particular Variance a moot point.
The applicant of Staff Report 14-087, Darleen Jackson, was asked to make an opening statement.
Darleen Jackson provided the background of her request, and acknowledged the situation regarding tabling the hearing. Heenan drew attention to the difference between floor space (living area) and footprint space (outside dimensions). Ms Jackson stated that she has additional documentation concerning the size of her manufactured home. She knows the inside dimensions are less than the 1040 square footprint (outside) dimension, and stated that she would submit additional documentation to Staff..
Cossalman suggested that a motion be made to table the hearing (again); moved by Self, seconded by Cranor, unanimous approval.
Staff suggested that upon review of new documentation submitted by Jackson, that if the ADU size is less than 950 square feet then a Residential Placement Permit would be issued for the ADU and the variance hearing would be removed from the table at the next hearing and voided (contingent upon presentation of the supporting documentation and subsequent Permit issuance).
Cossalman thanked Ms Jackson for participating in the hearing, at which point she left.
Chairman Cossalman opened discussion concerning proposed changes to Ordinance 2012-1. Note that accompanying these minutes is a document titled: 'Minutes 2015-01-15 Proposed Ordinance Changes'.Refer to that document regarding the following discussion.
The discussion followed this Proposed Changes document, accepting the proposed changes as seen in the attached document. However, when we got to Section 11 dealing with Subdivisions the change document was set aside and discussion centered upon making changes to several classes of subdivisions to incorporate the transfer of development rights in (for example) Clustered Subdivisions. The intent is to be consistent in the application of such transfer rights relative to all appropriate subdivisions. The intent is to keep the land use consistent with its history, while transferring the right of development to another property elsewhere in the county.
A number of revisions to Section 11 were proposed, involving the aforementioned concern regarding the transfer of property rights to specific types of subdivisions. The actual verbiage was not clear and although the same statement was to be made to each appropriate subdivision, this will need to be clarified at the next meeting. See generally Section 11 for these changes regarding transfer of rights changes to be made.
Next the discussion centered on the new proposed Parcel Division, Section 20. It was suggested that for simple or primitive parcel division a minimum acreage size (5 acres) should be applied in both instances where access from a county road or state highway does not exist. Again, actual verbiage was not clear and should be clarified at the next meeting.
A lot of discussion concerning Lot Line Adjustment needs clarification but the questions regarding a change in a parcel's status (compliance/non-compliance) complicated the discussion to the point where it seemed hard to draw a conclusion regarding changing the ordinance verbiage.
Parcel divisions should include the consideration that land previously divided by the 20 acre exemption, or by simple or primitive parcel division, can not be further divided if such division creates a parcel size smaller than the minimum parcel size for the zone in which the parcel exists. (Add this to 20.4.3 and 20.5.3)
INSERT – NOT FROM THE MINUTES: We never got back to the Proposed Ordinance Changes Summary document which had a lot of corrections identified as being typographical errors. Staff has been working on the Proposed Ordinance Changes document, and so it includes some changes NOT discussed in the meeting. This document must be re-reviewed in its entirety at the next meeting.
In a county surrounded by mountains, in a narrow valley land corridor, we have major geographical limitations that restrict the kind of major land-occupying operation of CAFO (stench). Therefor, Cossalman suggested that we use the following language in each zone: adding to prohibitive uses, such as septic disposal, the statement of prohibition (in every zone) would read “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.
The P&Z Roster was then reviewed, with 1 vacancy to be filled. Mr. Wade Purdom was interviewed, and asked about his feelings concerning being on the board. He was asked specifically his thoughts concerning this night's meeting, and he said he was interested in just how many lots were 2-1/2 to 5 acres in size, such that they merited the kinds of discussion held concerning parcel splits. He said e is genuinely interested in being on the commission, in that trying to balance the contents of the ordinance and what people actually want to do.
Cranor asked if placing limits or prohibitions in the ordinance was a good thing or bad, and whether there should be more or less prohibitions in the ordinance. Purdom responded that restrictions are usually the result of need, not arbitrary. There are probably ways to handle issues, and what we are doing works. He's good with what we have.
Before closing the meeting, Heenan asked about the Maximum Condensed Density seemed to be ½ the zize of the Standard Density applicable to all Zone Districts except Urban Zone Districts (no service to full service) as NOT being hald the Standard Density: 1 per 1 ¾ acres, 1 per ¾ acres, 1 per ¼ acre. Cossalman explained that the density for Urban size parcels relates to the availability of services (well, sewer) below which you just can't go any lower.
Caleb moved to add Wade Purdom to the board, seconded by Fuller. Unanimous vote to recommend Mr Purdom to the Commissioners as a new P&Z Board member.
Cosalman asked for a vote to recommend Self and Cossette be extended for another term. Davis voted, Fuller seconded, vote was unanimous.
Meeting adjourned at 7PM by unanimous vote
John B. Moss
Matt Cossalman, Chairman Date