Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

Minutes

October 17, 2002

Members present: Jim Paulus, Lon Merrifield, Jacob Epstein, Marc Paulson, Mary Ann Luedtke, Doug Reoch. Members absent: Jane Kirby, Donna Standley. Staff present: Mike Weland.

1. Paulus called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and called for reading of the September minutes. Luedtke made motion to waive reading of the September minutes and approve them as presented, Paulson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

2. Paulus opened public hearing on CUP 02-05. The applicant was not present. Paulus read the procedure of the hearing and called for staff report. Staff report was read. Paulus opened the hearing to public comment in favor of the proposal, there was none. Paulus called for comment uncommitted, there was none. Paulus called for comment opposed. Ron Eliasson, a resident of County Road 34A, stated that the building size suggests a larger operation than what is proposed. He stated he was concerned the applicant would move his tractor sales business to the site. He stated concern over fluid containment and drainage of chemicals and stated that the applicant would not have to address these concerns due to the location, whereas he would if the business were proposed in Bonners Ferry. He stated that such a business would adversely impact the rural residential nature of the community and would decrease property values. He recommended the application be disapproved. Barbara Rexford, County Road 34, stated she was concerned about decreased property values, added traffic and signage. She stated she was concerned about the possibility of noxious chemicals seeping into the groundwater. Jennifer Durban, who owns property across the street, stated that she concurred with the points raised earlier. She said that about two years ago, a conditional use permit was issued to allow construction of a convenience store and said she purchased the property to protect the zoning. She said she was concerned about setting a precedent. John O’Conner, an adjacent property owner, stated his primary concerns were seepage of paint, thinner and other solvents into the groundwater, and said that as presented there is nothing but good will to ensure that water wells would be protected. He stated that the Three Mile area had been designated for such use, and felt the business should be located in a more suitable area. He said he objected to changing the use of the property. He said his concerns were increased traffic, vehicle exhaust, noise and light, and said that based on the description, it was reasonable to assume the building would be lit all night. He stated that the Highway 2/Meadow Creek Road intersection was dangerous, and that there was no enforcement of the 25 mile per hour speed limit on Meadow Creek Road. He said he appreciated the need for business, but felt such business should be more suitably located. Cassandra Rutherford, County Road 34, said she opposes the proposal, saying she is already concerned about traffic due to the number of children riding bicycles and people running. She stated increased traffic is a concern. There being no further public comment, Paulus closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion among members. Paulson said he felt a better site plan was needed, and said Meadow Creek Road is becoming a densely populated residential area. Paulus said he didn’t feel the proposal was conducive to the area. Reoch stated he had worked at Sims Implement for 17 years and knew the complexity of complying with EPA standards for the drainage of chemicals and had questions as to how the applicant proposed to comply. He stated he had serious concerns about the effect of chemicals on water quality. Luedtke said she was concerned about the complexity of the drainage system requirements as well, and stated that other areas of the county are more conducive to light industrial uses. She said even a small business could drastically change the ambiance of a neighborhood. Merrifield asked staff if the applicant had been notified of the meeting, staff stated he had. Merrifield said he shared concerns over diminished property values which would result from the operation. Epstein thanked those in attendance for participating, and stated he felt the application had been written to be consistent with the zoning ordinance on its face, but based on concerns raised it was apparent the proposal was more intrusive that it first seemed. There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a motion. Epstein made motion to table the application pending receipt of additional information and that the applicant be informed of the questions raised, Paulson seconded. Luedtke said she felt that if the applicant felt the proposal was important, he should have attended. Merrifield asked if the motion was open to discussion, Paulus stated it was. Merrifield said he did not feel that tabling the application was wise, and said the commission should decide on the application as presented. Paulson said he favored the motion, saying that disapproval would allow the applicant to proceed to appeal before all the facts are ascertained. There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a vote; one voted aye, for voted nay and the motion failed. Merrifield made motion to deny the proposal to protect the property values of the neighborhood, Reoch seconded and the motion carried, five voting aye and one nay.

3. Paulus called for discussion of applications to fill a commission vacancy. Luedtke said she’d worked with Rod Barcklay for several years and said he’d always showed a strong interest in planning and zoning matters. She said she felt he was a very well qualified applicant. Merrifield said he knew Barcklay and spoke in favor of his application. Paulson noted that Del Grosso had applied for a position before, Luedtke said she feared he carried a personal agenda incompatible with the duties of the commission. Following discussion, Luedtke made motion to present to commissioners a recommendation that Rod Barcklay be appointed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Paulson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

4. Under old business, Paulus called for discussion of the state gravel pit on Old Highway 2. Weland stated he’d pulled each of the conditional use permits, and that the Old Highway 2 pit had no requirements for security fencing or signage, however, permits issued subsequently included language that allowed the Planning and Zoning Commission to set additional restrictions as deemed necessary. Staff stated that he did not feel the commission had legal authority to impose requirements on the Old Highway 2 pit and recommended that Planning and Zoning issue a request to the state to install fencing and no trespassing signs. Members of the commission concurred and asked staff to draft such a letter.

5. Luedtke asked staff about a reported change of ownership of the Mead property on County Road 34, and stated that the current owners are apparently adding on to an existing shop and that the property is still being used as a junkyard. Staff stated he would investigate and issue a notice of violation if appropriate.

6. Reoch expressed concerns over a scheduling conflict with the Extension Office, staff stated that the extension was holding a class using the extension classroom and that the class would still be going on at the time of the November meeting. Paulus directed staff to schedule the next meeting in the courtroom.

7. There being no further business, Merrifield made motion to adjourn, Paulson seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:25 p.m.