P&Z Minutes Mar 16 2017

Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

March 16, 2017

Public Eric Pipitone, Hector ‘Marty’ Martinez, Stephen Howlett, Adam Isaac
Planning & Zoning Ron Self, John Cranor, Tim Heenan, Scott Fuller, Kim Peterson (Audio Remote), Marciavee Cossette, Wade Purdom, Caleb Davis, Counselor Tevis Hull
Staff John Moss

At 5:30 pm Chairman Caleb Davis opened the meeting and after identifying the presence of a quorum asked if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the February 16 meeting. There were several and Davis asked for a motion to table approval until corrections could be clarified and the minutes updated. Ron Self so moved, seconded by Tim Heenan. The motion to table the minutes from the February 16 until corrected carried unanimously and Staff will present the corrected minutes for approval at the next 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.]

Next on the agenda was a hearing to grant a variance. However, the application was canceled and the agenda item was moot. Eric Pipitone left the meeting.

Davis explained to the applicants for the open position on the Planning and Zoning Commission that there were a number of questions to be asked the applicants, but before proceeding with these questions asked if there were any members of the Planning and Zoning Commission who had a conflict with any of the applicants. Tim Heenan asked to be recused from deliberations on this basis. Kim Peterson was asked if she could hear the conversation and she answered in the affirmative.

Three applicants for the Planning and Zoning Commission opening (Hector ‘Marty’ Martinez, Stephen Howlett, Adam Isaac) were asked questions by Commission members from the list of questions shown here. All three applicants were given 5 minutes to respond to questions, and there were three 'cycles' where the applicants (in rotating order of selection) were again given 5 minutes to respond to questions taken from this list:

  1. What is the applicant's desire for Boundary County. Do they desire a bigger role in government or a more streamlined (hands off) form of government control?
    • “What is your vision concerning growth in Boundary County?”
    • “How can the County contribute to your vision?”
  2. What is the applicant's vision for the county and how would that reflect on their thought process being biased or not?
    • “When considering an open-minded approach to decision making, what are the pitfalls of being too open-minded?”
    • “Would you say that having your mind already made up is a bad thing or a good thing, and why do you think this way?”
  3. What sort of building experience or development experience does the applicant have?
    • “What might be some key concerns when considering new building development?”
  4. In reference to Planning and Zoning, what is the applicant's vision for the future of the county?
    • “How do you picture the role of Planning and Zoning as it relates to the future you envision for the County?”
  5. Why do you want to be a member of the commission?
    • “What brought you here tonight, what motivates you to participate like this?”
  6. Have you read the Comprehensive Plan? The Land Use Ordinance?
    • “When reviewing the Comprehensive Plan and the Ordinance, what similarities do you see?
    • What differences come to your attention (if any)?”
    • “Why do these documents exist – what is their role in the duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission?”
  7. How do you feel the county should go in the future relating to jobs, development, expansion?
    • “What can the Planning and Zoning Commission do to assist in the area of creating jobs and in aiding expansion and development in the County?”
  8. Sometimes you are placed in a position where people are adversarial or controversy exists: have you experience dealing with stressful situations?
    • “When neighbor confronts neighbor in front of you and you are expected to weigh in on the controversy, how have you dealt with this in your experience?”
    • “What guides your involvement in a dispute concerning knowing who is right and which argument gets your support?
    • Just how do you know you’re doing the ‘right thing’?”
  9. What is the responsibility of a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission?
    • “When considering your role on the Commission, what are the duties and responsibilities you feel you have toward the Commission?”
  10. Communication requirements of this Commission include being able to make and receive phone calls and make and receive emails.
    • “If you are a successful applicant do you have a telephone?”
    • “If you are a successful applicant do you have an email address??”

After questioning the applicants at length, they were thanked for their participation and excused. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the applicants' responses and after agreeing that all were good candidates decided that, of the three, Adam Isaac was their choice for recommending to the County Commissioners the applicant to fill the open position on the Planning and Zoning Commission.

The last item on the Agenda, Ordinance Considerations, had to do with agreeing the proposed changes to the Land Use Ordinance 2017-1 were ready for public comment and subsequent recommendation to the County Commissioners for adoption. There was agreement of the typographical changes in Section2, the Final Plat timing considerations proposed in Section 11 (and related enforcement provisions in Section 4). John Cranor had to leave and about this time the audio connection for Kim Peterson was lost.

Staff mentioned a concern regarding both Subdivision and Parcel Division exemptions, specifically in Section 11.2.5. and Section 20.3.5. the statement reads “Parcels are established through testamentary provisions or the laws of descent, provided documentation is provided the administrator so as to identify parcels so created”. Tevis Hull commented that separating personal opinion from legal opinion, people with large tracts of land, knowing this code exists, have used this knowledge to formulate the comprehensive plan. He went on to say that the provision for smaller parcel sizes, granted using this exemption, can wreak havoc on the Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinances. Staff suggested this exemption be removed from the two sections. Davis said that a motion to deal with this suggestion could not be made since the topic relates to material tabled until the minutes from the prior meeting have been approved. Staff interjected that the tabled motion had nothing to do with this suggestion and that a new consideration could be made at this time. Counselor Hull agreed and Chairman Davis stated that last month's minutes and decision were NOT binding on this discussion. Further discussion among the Planning and Zoning Commission members present clarified the existence of this exemption in both sections and it was agreed that voting could take place regarding the proposed removal of this exemption from the current ordinance. Tevis clarified that if you have parcels created through testamentary provision or the laws of descent there is no recourse but to accept parcels so created, per this exemption.

Discussion again focused on the transfer of property to a family member. Scott Fuller asked if there were any other counties with similar provisions and Tevis said there are some; prompted by Fuller to identify verbiage for consideration, Tevis said he would look for this and provide feedback by the next meeting. Tevis left the meeting.

In an effort to provide material for public review, Chairman Davis asked for a vote to be taken which would identify the proposed changes to be presented at the next meeting for public review. Ron Self moved to approve for public review: "In addition to the typographical changes in Section 2, the changes to Section 4 related to enforcement of the changes proposed to Section 11 regarding Final Plat timing, to remove the exemptions in Section 11. and Section 20. involving "testamentary provision or laws of descent". Wade Purdom seconded the motion and the votes were as follows:

Ron Self - Aye, John Cranor - Absent, Tim Heenan - Aye, Scott Fuller - Aye, Kim Peterson - Absent, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Caleb Davis (tie-breaker);
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (5), Absent (2) - Motion approved unanimously.

Chairman Davis recommended that discussion related to Section 20.11, Family Transfer of Property to Family Member, required the participation of all members. John Cranor's absence and Kim Peterson's lost audio connection suggested that this portion of the approval must wait until the next meeting.

Staff suggested the April meeting should be held on schedule to provide a public hearing regarding the changes being discussed (with exception of the Family Transfer question). Ron Self moved to adjourn, Scott Fuller seconded, approved unanimously at 7:10 pm.

John B. Moss

Thursday, March 16, 2017 - 17:30
Back to Top