Boundary County Planning & Zoning

Minutes, December 18, 2003

Members present: Mary Ann Luedtke, Jane Kirby, Tom Hollingsworth, Marc Paulson, Jim Paulus, Rod Barcklay, Donna Standley, Toby Schnuerle. Staff present: Mike Weland. Member absent: Doug Reoch (flu)

1. Paulus called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., announced that there were two public hearings on the agenda and read the hearing procedure. He called for reading of the November minutes. Barcklay made motion to waive reading and approve as mailed, Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

2. Paulus opened public hearing on SUP 03-04. The applicant was not in attendance, nor were there any members of the audience there in regard to the application. Schnuerle recommended tabling the application until after public hearing on SUP 03-05 and Paulus concurred.

3. Paulus opened public hearing on SUP 03-05. Applicant Tom Bushnell provided an overview of his proposal, stating that he planned to remove loose gravel in an existing scree pile for personal use and to sell to neighbors and local users. He stated the pile existed in a dry area and that there were no water concerns. He stated his access to the proposed gravel pit provided ¼ mile visibility in either direction, and that the proposed site was surrounded by hills on the north, east and west to provide a natural noise and dust buffer. Kirby asked if his residence was on the parcel, Bushnell stated it was and indicated on the map that it was immediately south of the proposed gravel pit. Barclay asked what would happen were the state or county to need rock, Bushnell stated that because the rock was exposed, it would not meet degradation standards required, and he affirmed the use was intended primarily for his own personal use and to sell to neighbors. Luedtke confirmed that the gravel to be extracted was surface rock and scrabble, which would be removed without digging, Bushnell confirmed this was the case. Staff report was given and letters submitted by the Idaho Department of Transportation and Pat Gardiner were read into the record. No member cited conflict of interest. Paulus called for public comment from those in favor of the proposal, there was none. Paulus called for comment from those uncommitted, there was none. Paulus called for comment from those opposed.

a. Steve Banks, Porthill, stated that an inadequate number of people had been notified of the proposal. He stated that the application was ambiguous in that the applicant did not “anticipate” the need for blasting. He stated that the life of the use was estimated at 40 years, and stated that an environmental impact study needed done. He said that if, as the applicant stated, he proposed removal of surface rock only, he had no problem, but if it involved any digging at all, he had definite concerns.

b. Pat Gardiner said that he had no concerns if the applicant stayed with what he’d described, but said he was concerned it would progress beyond that. He recommended stipulating surface rock only and prohibiting any blasting.

 

c. George Johnson, County Road 51, stated that he’d assisted in writing the comprehensive plan and it had been agreed then that possibly the worst thing you could do to a neighbor was establish a gravel pit. He stated that notification was insufficient, that no one in Porthill had been notified. He stated the application was ambiguous and that the site plan didn’t clearly define the proposed use. He cited concerns about dust, traffic and the decline in property values. He submitted a “distance map” indicating residences within the area.

 

d. Jacob Epstein, Porthill, stated the application sounded more like a hobby than a commercial enterprise, and stated that this didn’t seem feasible. He stated that a gravel pit was an intense activity for a community, and subjected an impact on the underlying zone district. He expressed concern that the use would become more intense than described.

There being no further public comment, Paulus called for rebuttal from the applicant. Bushnell stated that no one seemed to have problems with the Ponsness and Dillin pits, which were nearby, and stated that he had no problem with conditions, to include no blasting. He restated his goal as extracting gravel for personal use and local sales, and stated that in order to sell he needed a permit. Using the distance map, he pointed out that there were no close neighbors to the proposed site. He stated that he did make significant changes to the ’99 application, relocating the site and eliminating need for digging or blasting. Kirby asked Johnson about homes on County Road 51, Johnson stated there were about 35. Kirby noted that they were a considerable distance from the proposed site. Schnuerle asked the applicant to better describe the rock, stating he was familiar with the area and knew of exposed rock on knolls; Bushnell stated this was a substantial scree pile apparently left by a slide. Bushnell stated he would like to be able to use a crusher. Luedtke asked for clarification of local customers, asking if she, living in Eastport, had need of gravel, could contact him and he’d deliver, he stated that was what he proposed. Standley asked if there was a particular time of year a crusher normally operated, Stan Mastre stated it was usually a winter job. Standley asked staff if the applicant could expand beyond what was allowed in the special use permit, Paulus answered, stating that if the applicant wished to expand beyond the established terms and conditions, he would have to appear before the P&Z commission again. Weland added that it was likely that in obtaining IDL and DEQ permits, only the use as defined would be allowed, and that expansion would also require additional state permits as well. Discussion was held on “certification” of a pit, Bushnell stated that the state and county only used certified rock, which had been tested for strength and shattering point. Barcklay asked those in attendance if they would still have a problem if there was no blasting and only surface rock were taken; Johnson stated he had a problem with the noise of the crusher. Schnuerle stated the times of crusher operation could be limited as a condition. Hollingsworth stated he felt an agreement was close, and stated that he felt P&Z could establish conditions, to include requiring notice of compliance from the IDL and DEQ, set working hours and prohibit blasting. He stated that if it were kept to a limited scale, the proposal would be acceptable. Standley asked how deep Trow Creek lines were and was told approximately four feet. She asked staff about “grandfathering” a pit. Staff stated that in most cases, a use was deemed abandoned after the use stopped for a period of two years, but that was not the case with gravel pits, as they were regulated by IDL, which imposed a reclamation plan that had to be carried out to reclaim bond. Staff stated that for that reason, a pit was not considered abandoned until the reclamation was carried out, though it may go a few years without being used. Standley asked Gardiner how for the Ponsness pit was to his home than the one proposed, he stated the proposed pit was closer. Standley stated the nearest operating pit was the Blackmore pit in Canada, which she said was closer to anyone that Bushnell’s pit would be. Schnuerle asked if adjoining property owners could see the pit, Bushnell stated that if Gardiner rebuilt on a flat overlooking the property, he might peek in. There being no further comment, Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion. Luedtke stated she felt confident that restrictions could be imposed which would mitigate the concerns; no blasting, reasonable time limit on crushing, etc. She said that both sides were very near agreement, and that the applicant was amenable to restrictions. She stated that expansion would be controlled through the permit process.

Following discussion, Luedtke made motion to forward to the Board of County Commissioners a recommendation of approval of Tom Bushnell’s application with the following terms and conditions:

a. No blasting.

b. Removal of surface rock only.

c. Crusher operations permitted during regular operating hours during the months of January and February only.

d. Hours of operation be limited to 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday.

e. Any expansion must be referred to Planning & Zoning for approval.

f. The special use permit is not transferable with the sale of the property outside the applicants immediate family.

g. Operations be limited to the five acres in the draw as depicted on the site plan.

h. That the applicant provide planning and zoning proof of compliance with Idaho Department of Land and Department of Environmental Quality rules and regulations prior to the onset of operations.

Hollingsworth seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.

4. Paulus reopened public hearing on application SUP 03-04. As no member of the public, including the applicant, was in attendance, Paulus waived opening for public comment and called for discussion. Staff stated that a few calls had been received on the application requesting information, and that none of the callers expressed concern or provided comment. Staff showed a map depicting the location of the site and surrounding property owners notified. Staff affirmed that no public comment had been received. There being no further discussion, Schnuerle made motion to forward to the board of county commissioners a recommendation of approval on SUP 03-04 as presented. Kirby seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

5. Under old business, Paulus stated that his and Standley’s terms were due to expire at the end of January. He said he’d discussed this with Standley, who has served 10 years and is not seeking another term. Paulus and other members thanked her for her service. Paulus stated that, based on the cooperation between the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, he was willing, at the discretion of the commission, to serve another term. Luedtke made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation to retain Jim Paulus for “a thankless job he’s done well.” Paulson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

6. Paulus announced he will be absent in January as he is undergoing surgery.

7. There being no further business, Barcklay made motion to adjourn. Paulson seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.