Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

MINUTES

March 20, 2003

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

1. Meeting called to order at 5:30 p.m. by chairman Paulus, who called for reading of the February minutes. Kirby moved to waive reading and approve minutes as mailed, Luedtke seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

2. Paulus opened public hearing on application AM 02-01, re-named AM 03-02, and reviewed procedure. No member cited conflict of interest. Staff report given. Paulus acknowledged Kirby’s proposal to amend Chapter 5 Section 5 to encompass all utilities; Kirby read that proposal and stated that it was her idea that expanding the section to encompass all public utilities rather than just electric companies was more fair and would better accomplish the goal of attaining compliance with zoning certificate requirements. Epstein recommended that the proposal be further amended to include language regarding temporary and upgrade, and suggested a requirement that the zoning certificate be posted at construction sites. After discussion, it was determined that posting requirements not be included, and members agreed to the proposal as amended. Paulus called for comment from the public. No one spoke in favor of or uncommitted to the proposal.

a. Ernie Smith, Naples, spoke in opposition to the amendment, saying that he was a home business owner and that the county’s objective was to encourage economic development and business enterprise. He stated that the home based business requirements in the proposal would dampen the ability to conduct business. Paulus pointed out that the proposal was not to deter business, but to address situations where people abuse home based businesses to the detriment of surrounding property owners. Kirby stated that the main purpose of the amendments proposed was to get enforcement, and that the home based business aspect was only a small portion of what was proposed. She stated the proposal would not be retroactive on businesses already in place.

b. Glen Meredith, Naples, spoke in opposition to the amendment, saying he moved from Bonner County because the restrictions imposed by their planning and zoning were so screwed up. He stated he feels the proposed amendments are strangling, and stated that we need less restriction, not more, to promote business.

c. Ron Husk, County Road 33, stated he had a problem with turning over so much authority to the administrator. He said the proposals negated the need for a planning and zoning commission and a board of county commissioners as the zoning administrator will be in a position to make all the decisions. Kirby stated that someone had to look at problems if there was a violation, Paulus stated that the amendments strengthened the zoning administrator’s position as the “eyes and ears” of the planning and zoning commission and the board of county commissioners on zoning issues.

d. Ernie Smith, Naples, stated there will be people in the county who will not want enforcement, and asked if the ordinance proposals authorized the zoning administrator to go onto properties to investigate complaints without a warrant. Staff stated he had talked to the Sheriff, who supported the proposal, and said that the amendments did not provide authority to enter property without a warrant.

e. Dale Blackwell said he felt the proposed amendments punished utilities, and said the utilities already had their own requirements. He objected to adding more.

There being no further comment, Paulus closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion among members. Epstein asked if each provision could be taken up separately. Kirby stated that each provision had been considered separately in great depth. Epstein cited concerns with Chapter 2, Section 4, Notice of Violation, and with the section on mediation, saying he felt allowing the zoning administrator to serve as mediator could lead to conflict of interest. Staff stated he had asked that question during the seminar during which he learned of the state requirement, and said no conflict could occur because the administrator had no decision authority in any matter requiring public hearing. There being no further discussion, Kirby made motion to forward AM 03-02 to the Board of County Commissioners as amended. Reoch seconded; Epstein voted “nay,” all other members voted “aye” and the motion carried.

3. Paulus asked if there was old business. Standley stated she was concerned by reference in the February minutes to comments that the existing junk vehicle ordinances were sufficient. She stated it is her belief that what is in place is ineffective.

4. There being no further business, Reoch made motion to adjourn. Kirby seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.