Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

Minutes: June 19, 2003

Unofficial until approved

Members present: Toby Schnuerle, Jim Paulus, Jane Kirby, Mary Ann Luedtke, Jacob Epstein, Donna Standley, Rod Barcklay, Doug Reoch. 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 March minutes. Kirby made motion to waive reading and approve as presented, Luedtke seconded. Standley stated it was her opinion that the discussion at the March meeting on junkyard ordinance, as written under old business, did not adequately reflect the depth of the discussion. No changes to the minutes were proposed. The motion carried unanimously.

2. Paulus opened public hearing on SUP 03-01 and read the procedure. No member cited conflict of interest. Verden Bettilyon described his proposal and stated that he initially planned to operate the business during summer months and to expand the operating season as the business grows. He stated the property fronts Highway 2 and that no stopping place currently exists on the road that caters to families. The business would be a gift shop featuring works by local artists and crafters and would provide restroom facilities. Standley asked what the speed limit is on the highway at the point where the proposed business is to be located, Bettilyon stated it was 60 miles per hour. Luedtke asked if the property would be developed as a roadside attraction, Bettilyon stated it would. He said he plans to set his yacht in rocks and to build a wharf to it, and open the boat to his guests and for children to play on. Luedtke asked about the ITD letter regarding access, Bettilyon stated that his initial plan was to develop a second entrance that would make it easier for traffic, but since the ITD rules had changed regarding access spacing, he had widened his existing driveway to 32 feet, in excess of ITD commercial access requirements. Epstein asked about the seasonal aspect of the application, and stated it was his belief that the application was insufficient to adequately depict the proposal. He stated that from the description, he was unable to picture what the development would look like. Bettilyon stated that he planned initially to operate during the summer season as a tourist stop, and to see how business develops. Barcklay said he was concerned about commercial entities growing in zones established for agriculture/forestry and the effect of rezoning the county by each applicant, he noted that work to develop the site had already begun. Staff stated that to date there was no violation as the building under construction was an accessory structure and opening of the building as a gift shop would not occur until a permit was granted. Luedtke said the property had highway frontage and said that the applicant lives on the property, hence it wouldn’t likely become an eyesore. She said it was her belief that if there was a time when she felt the commission should say yes, this was it. Paulus said the comprehensive plan and the ordinance encourages this type business. Luedtke asked about signage; Bettilyon said the building to be constructed would be placed so signs could be placed on each end and a third sign, not to exceed 60 square feet, would be posted on-premises as allowed by highway setbacks. He said he was exploring the possibility of establishing off-premise signage as well. He stated the signage would not incorporate flashing lights. There were no comments from the public on the application. There being no further questions for the applicant, Paulus closed the hearing to public comment and opened discussion among members. He stated it was his belief that this was precisely what the county was looking for. Luedtke made motion to forward a recommendation of approval to county commissioners. Schnuerle seconded. Kirby stated it was her feeling that the motion should be amended to specify that approval was for year-around operation; Luedtke so amended and Schnuerle seconded the amended motion. There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a vote; Luedtke, Schnuerle, Kirby, Barcklay, Standley and Reoch voted “aye,” Epstein voted “nay” and the motion carried.

3. Paulus opened public hearing on SUP 03-02, no member cited conflict of interest. Applicant Hazel Bolding read a letter and stated that, in talking to Chuck Anselmo of Panhandle Health, she realized that septic service as proposed might not be possible and asked to amend the application to reflect only water and electrical hookups to the proposed RV sites. She said she felt the use was grandfathered, stated that she disagreed with the elevation certificate issued by JRS Surveying and that Panhandle Health left her no options regarding septic. Barcklay said he understood her frustration, but much could have been avoided had she gone through the process, Bolding asserted it was her belief the use was grandfathered as in years past she had RVs, campers and guests on the property at specific events. Staff stated he had no knowledge of permanent RV pads on the premises prior to the application, and that the decision rendered in determining the use was not grandfathered was the fact that it had been reported that permanent sites with utilities were under construction, and that this was deemed an expansion of the non-conforming use. Epstein said it was his belief, based on the material in the file, that approvals from all other agencies should be gained before planning and zoning rendered a recommendation. Luedtke said that based on letters included in the application, Anselmo had already inspected the parcel and found two hookups already in use. Kirby asked how far the RV pads were from Deep Creek; Bolding said between seven and ten feet. She said an existing hot tub was approximately 20 to 30 feet from the creek. Kirby stated that there were federal laws that said no development with water could be located within 100’ of a creek or body of water. Schnuerle asked if Anselmo had given her any options or alternatives, Bolding said he hadn’t. Staff stated that in his discussions with Anselmo, there are options, such as not providing water and septic, relocating the proposed site or upgrading and expanding an existing system to community standards. Reoch told Bolding he understood there were problems, but encouraged her not to give up. Luedtke asked if Bolding was planning to place permanent trailers or if it was her intent to cater to temporary RVs, Bolding said it would be an RV park, not a trailer park. She said she anticipated that some trailers, such as those owned by construction workers, may be sited there for several months, but said her primary target base was RVs. Bolding asked how she could go about proving that the use was grandfathered, staff stated that if she disagreed with the administrative decision he made, she could appeal that decision to the Board of County Commissioners. There was no public testimony on the application. There being no further questions, Paulus closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion among members. Epstein recommended that the application be tabled to allow amendment and proof of conformance. He stated he felt the underlying proposal was an appropriate way to grow if the issues could be resolved. Barcklay said he recommended disapproving the application unless the applicant could prove her proposal meets all state and federal laws. Reoch said the entire problem is with the septic system, and he said he recommended the application be tabled until the problem could be resolved. He stated he’d hate to see the idea shot out of the water. Kirby said she felt the violations need to be addressed, saying she was worried those violations could continue. Discussion was held on the cost of a special use permit; staff stated the cost was $100 and that if a recommendation of disapproval was made the application would go to commissioners for a final decision; if the application were tabled, there would be no additional application fee as it would come back before the planning and zoning commission once the documentation was provided. Epstein made motion to table the application until resolution of the complaints as outlined in the application, to include septic, electric and plumbing permits, that there be no placement or installation of RVs or other buildings, and pending receipt of documentation confirming compliance with Idaho specifications and an amended site plan. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

4. Paulus opened discussion on AM 03-02. Kirby recommended that P&Z hold a workshop to go through the home business portion of the amendment. She stated she concurred with the recommendations of county commissioners. Luedtke asked if the board could approve the commissioners’ recommendations and focus the workshop solely on the home business section; Paulus stated we could. Staff stated that the P&Z commission would need to hold an additional public hearing, at which the entire proposal would be heard, but the workshop could be limited solely to working on the home business portion. Paulus asked when a good time would be, members stated they needed to check their calendars. Time for the meeting was established for 5:30 to 6 p.m., and staff was advised to contact members to set the date, to be held within two weeks.

5. Under old/unscheduled business, discussion was held of special use permits versus zone changes. Kirby raised the issue of P&Z members attending commissioner meetings and stated this devalued and undermined the integrity of the board. She said she objects to Epstein going to commission meetings, and made motion calling for his resignation. Luedtke concurred, saying that for a member to attend commission meetings and speaking reflects a minority opinion and brings it to the fore. She seconded the motion, and said she feels strongly about the value and reputation of the planning and zoning commission. Epstein asked why, if he’s such a minority opinion, his actions make members of the board feel so threatened. There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a vote. Barcklay and Reoch abstained. Luedtke, Schnuerle and Kirby voted “aye,” Epstein and Standley voted “nay” and the motion carried. Staff was instructed to inform commissioners of the vote.

6. There being no further business before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.