Boundary County Planning and Zoning

MINUTES

February 20, 2003

Members present: Jim Paulus, Mary Ann Luedtke, Doug Reoch, Jane Kirby, Jacob Epstein, Rod Barcklay, Donna Standley, Toby Schnuerle. Staff present: Mike Weland

Members absent: Marc Paulson

1. Paulus called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and called for reading of the December meeting. Kirby stated that she did not speak with the attorney general as indicated in the minutes, but with a representative from ICRIMP. Luedtke stated she did not use the word “snubbing” as indicated. Luedtke made motion to accept the December minutes with the changes discussed; Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

2. Member Rod Barcklay was introduced.

3. Paulus called for election of officers and called for nominations of vice-chair. He was met with deafening silence. Standley stated she did not wish to continue as vice chair. Kirby stated she was not interested in serving. Paulus noted Luedtke’s years of service on the commission and made motion that she be named vice-chair. Epstein seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Paulus called for nominations for chair; Kirby made motion that Paulus be named chair. Luedtke seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

4. Paulus opened public hearing on AM 03-01 by Billie Jo Klaniecki and read the procedure for the public hearing. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicant read statement, letter to the editor she had published in the Bonners Ferry Herald and discussed some of the points of her proposal. Epstein asked if her proposal was based on a Bonners Ferry ordinance, she stated it was, and had been adopted in 1959. Staff report was read, there were no questions for staff. Based on the number of people in attendance, Paulus asked those giving testimony to keep their comments as brief as possible and to avoid repetition. Paulus called for comments from those in favor of the application; there were none. Paulus called for comments neither in favor nor opposed; there were none. Paulus called for comments from those opposed.

            Kenneth Alexander, Mt. Hall, said a city ordinance was not appropriate to the county, and stated that he didn’t feel there was need for more laws and more enforcement. He stated that not all old cars were junk, stating that to collectors they are of considerable value, both monetarily and historically. He stated that Boundary County hasn’t needed such an ordinance since its founding and said that if such an ordinance was needed, please take the time to ensure it was good legislation. Luedtke asked how classic cars could be labeled and asked if there was a time limit that could be set on restoration, Alexander stated that he felt hobbyists and restorers should be allowed as many cars as they want for as long as they want.

            John Erickson Sr., who owns property adjacent to the applicant, conceded that there is scrap building material and other refuse on the property, but said he is handicapped and working to clean it up as he is able.

            Ron Husk, County Road 33, stated he owns a towing service in Boundary County and has been through the enforcement process and stated that there is sufficient recourse available under current ordinance guidelines. He stated that if neighbors don’t like what is going on on other properties, they should build a fence.

            Ernie Smith, Naples, said he owns an appliance repair business and often has 20 to 40 appliances on his property, which some might consider junk but which he said have value. He stated he moved to Boundary County because he likes what we are and stated no one should have the right to tell him what he can do on his property.

            Sara McIntyre, Katka, said she is the applicant’s neighbor though she doesn’t own adjoining property. She stated she has a teenage daughter and buys cheap vehicles so she can learn to drive and repair them. She stated her problems with the applicant began the day they moved in. She said she wishes private property to stay private, and said such an ordinance makes private property public.

            Thomas Husk, County Road 33, said that if the proposal is based on a city ordinance, to take time to make sure that whatever is adopted would work and would not establish limits that are not enforceable or in conflict with state and federal law.

            Barbara Blockan, Copeland, stated that based on what she read in the newspaper, such an ordinance would not eliminate farmers. She state she and her husband farm and also work on restoring vehicles, she stated they depend on the income they derive from this work. She said that her habit was to check out property before she buys, that if you buy next to something that is already there, you should have no right to complain.

            John Miller, County Road 72, stated he was against confrontation.

            Dean Prentiss, Moyie Springs, said he’s glad to work in a county where people work together. He stated that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and recommended proceeding with caution; he stated that once a law goes into effect they don’t go away. He stated he hated to see personal problems through legislation, and said such law will impact all county residents.

            Chester Baker, County Road 53, said that one man’s junk is another man’s treasure. He stated Idaho Code has provisions already on the books pertaining to smell.

            There being no further comment in opposition and Klaniecki was offered the floor. She stated that most of the concerns she heard were related to specific definitions, and said she was willing to work to develop a suitable law. She stated that she would not have purchased her property if the trash had been there; the problem, she said, began after. She stated she was willing to work to get something everyone could be comfortable with.

            There being no further comments, Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Kirby said that independent people live in Boundary County, and even more so those who move to Boundary County. She stated that it takes a court order to remove any property, that removing a nuisance car without such order constituted grand theft auto. She stated that obtaining such an order is time-consuming and expensive, and that the sheriff didn’t have funds to undertake such responsibility. She said that presently there is no place in the county to take such vehicles, and that this was something that would need to be addressed.

            Paulus said we all live in a community in which some homes are nice and some are not; in a community where people enjoy property rights. He said he felt that the provisions currently on the books on junk vehicles was sufficient.

            Luedtke stated that she felt the proposal as presented was too complicated and technical to allow consideration of both sides; the problem, she said, is finding the balance to best protect property rights while ensuring neighborhood values. She stated she appreciated Mr. Alexander’s comments on classic vehicles, and felt that if consideration proceeded, this should be taken into account.

            Epstein stated that 75-percent of the county is under state and federal control, leaving 25-percent in which to grow. He said there is a desire to grow economically, and that there are now more people occupying that 25-percent; that we’ll have to learn to live in closer proximity. He said that finding a balance is essential and that a lot of work needed to be done by the board to achieve that balance. He recommended holding a workshop with the county attorney to explore the issue, and stated that he was not prepared as yet to make a decision.

            Luedtke agreed with Epstein, and recommended tabling the application to look at it further. She said there may be a way to come up with an alternative that could address concerns.

            Paulus said the current ordinance has worked. Kirby stated the proposal is too complicated, and Reoch said simplicity is the key. He said that if we try to define what is and what isn’t, it would never succeed. Epstein said he felt the commission could take a closer look and come up with a reasonable compromise.

            Schnuerle said it all comes down to pride, and stated he didn’t feel we needed to have a law, that neighbors should take pride and work together to resolve their problems. He stated that everyone was there because two people were fighting.

            Standley cited the letters submitted, and asked how much time was sufficient to allow for recycling or restoration. She said her neighbor bagged aluminum cans and stored them for recycling, but that they’d been there so long the bags rotted away and the cans were now blowing off his property onto an adjoining farmer’s field. She asked how to define when such activity interferes with neighbors.

            Kirby stated that all the concerns she’d heard could be resolved in court.

            Luedtke made motion to forward application AM 03-01 by Billie Jo Klaniecki to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of disapproval. Kirby seconded.

            Epstein said he strongly favored tabling the application to allow further consideration. There being no further discussion, Paulus called for vote; the motion carried with seven voting “aye” and one “nay.”

4. Paulus opened discussion on AM 02-01 and stated the commission could consider re-dating and resubmitting or table the application to allow further work. Kirby stated that members had invested considerable time in the proposal and felt it should be re-dated and resubmitted. Staff clarified that in returning the application to the Planning and Zoning Commission, County Commissioners desired to ensure public participation through public hearing. Luedtke concurred that a lot of work, time and thought has gone into the proposal and said she favored holding public hearing and resubmitting. Kirby asked if the provisions would be retroactive; staff stated they would not. Epstein noted the letter from Marc Paulson advocating starting over on the process to allow new members to provide input, and said he concurs. Paulus stated the application could be tabled if necessary. Reoch made motion to conduct public hearing on application AM 02-01 at the next meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Luedtke seconded. Epstein stated he felt that tabling would allow an excellent opportunity to strengthen the proposal, he said he doesn’t feel the provisions on home based businesses were strong enough to protect underlying zone districts. There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a vote on the motion; it carried with seven member voting “aye,” one member voting “nay.”

5. Paulus opened consideration of Certificate of Exemption, Personal Hardship by Bob Hyland, who is seeking to divide an eight-acre platted parcel on Meadow Creek Road into three lots, two of approximately two acres in size and one of approximately four acres in size, and to adjust the outer boundary of the parcel to resolve encroachment of a structure by an adjoining property owner. Following discussion, Kirby made motion to forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation of approval; Schnuerle seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

6. There being no further business before the commission, Kirby made motion to adjourn, Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.