Boundary County Planning & Zoning

MINUTES

March 18, 2004

Members present: Mary Ann Luedtke, Tom Hollingsworth, Jane Kirby, John Kellogg, Doug Reoch, Barry Davis, Toby Schnuerle, Rod Barcklay, Jim Paulus. Staff present: Mike Weland. Members absent: None.

1. Paulus opened the meeting and introduced new members Barry Davis and John Kellogg. He announced the agenda and asked for a reading of the February minutes. Luedtke made motion to waive reading and to approve minutes as presented. Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

2. Paulus read the public hearing procedure and opened hearing on SUP 04-03. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicant Dave Duarte said the proposal was for land west of town near the rock cut, which has been used over the years as a rock pit. He said approximately 30-50,000 cubic yards of useable gravel remains to be extracted. He said a crusher will be set up by Wood’s Crushing and product will be sold to Bonners Ferry Redi-Mix and stockpiled on the property. Staff report was read. Paulus called for comment in favor, there was none. Paulus called for comment from those not committed; Dave Walter, an adjoining property owner on County Road 18A, asked about the length of time blasting and crushing operations were anticipated. Those details were read from the application. Roy Day, D&D Service, located adjacent to the proposed operation, asked for clarification of which road would be used for hauling. Duarte stated the majority would be on County Road 18, though materials and equipment might be brought in on County Road 18A. Day said he was concerned that dust could be a problem, but said that if most hauling would be on CR18, the problem would be minimized. Brenda Walter, an adjoining property owner, asked how loud crusher operations are. Duarte stated he didn’t know. She asked for clarification of the duration of crushing; Duarte said it was anticipated crushing could be done in a three-week period, and that it would then take three to four years to haul crushed material. He stated he hoped to start crushing this spring, in April or May. Walter said she is off in the summer months, and that her mother visited during the summer months, and she was primarily concerned specific to that period. Jacob Epstein asked what happened to the pits at the end of the life of the use; staff explained IDL requirements for reclamation plans. Duarte presented a 3-D model of the proposed operation. Paulus called for comment in opposition to the proposal, there was none. Kirby asked the applicant where the Walter property was in relation to the proposed operation. Luedtke asked again about the three- to four-week crushing period this spring, Duarte affirmed that crushing would take about three- to four-weeks, then there’d be no more crushing until the rock was moved. Reoch asked what guidelines covered dust abatement, Glen Meredith stated that federal and state regulations on mining operations, including open gravel pits, were strict and monitored. Duarte affirmed that he was aware of those guidelines and said they did cover dust abatement and other aspects of the operation. Schnuerle asked if conditions could be set as to when crushing operations could be conducted and Walter stated she didn’t want to set limits, but didn’t want to see crushing conducted all summer. Duarte said he had no problem with limits to crushing after June. There being no further comment, Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Reoch said he could see no problem with the application. Davis said Day’s concern was more with trucking materials and Day agreed he didn’t see the hauling as a big problem. Barcklay made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that SUP 04-03 be approved with the condition that no crushing be allowed between the months of June to September. Reoch seconded and Paulus called for discussion. Schnuerle asked if dust abatement measures for hauling on County Road 18A should be included in the conditions. Barcklay amended the motion to include the condition that dust abatement measures be employed while hauling on County Road 18A, Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

3. Paulus opened public hearing on CUP 04-01. Applicant Clint Kimball stated that he’d received a conditional use permit earlier to operate a construction business, but said that he was easing out of that business and looking to do other things. He said he was proposing to sell horse stock trailers and establish a boarding kennel for dogs. He stated that he was following American Kennel Club recommendations for the construction and operation of the kennel and that he’d discussed the septic requirements with Panhandle Health and that he would meet those requirements. He stated that noise from the kennel would likely be the biggest complaint, and said the kennels would be insulated and the dogs kept inside at night. Schnuerle asked how many dogs he proposed to board, Kimball said 20 initially and perhaps as many as 40 if the demand was there. He stated that 40 was likely the maximum for what he and his wife could tend themselves. Reoch asked if trailers would be built on the site, Kimball stated that down the road he might customize them in his shop, but for now he was just seeking to resell manufactured trailers. Kirby asked if the kennel would be enclosed, Kimball stated it would. He stated some of the pens would have private runs, others would have runs for three or four dogs. Kirby asked about ITD requirements, Kimball stated that the property was not accessed off US 95 but gained access from two existing private roads. Luedtke asked about the RV park that was part of his original conditional use permit, he stated that the operation had not proven economically feasible. Staff report was read. Paulus called for public comment in favor of the proposal. Eric Carstensen, whose property adjoins the Kimball property to the west, asked if the kennel would be for homeless dogs or for boarding, Kimball stated for boarding only. Carstensen said he was in favor of the proposal. Ernie Smith, who lives further to the west, stated that Kimball has been a good neighbor and that he supported the proposal. Paulus stated he remembered the conditions on the initial conditional use permit, and said that Kimball has met or surpassed them. Glen Meredith, who owns property south of the proposed site, stated he thought the proposal was a great idea. Paulus asked Kimball what he was going to grow in the greenhouse, Kimball stated he was growing product for wholesale and that he was hoping later to expand to offer retail sales. Paulus called for comments from those uncommitted, there were none. He called for comment from those opposed, there were none. Paulus called for questions from members. Barcklay asked for clarification on the number of dogs the kennel would hold, Kimball said 20 to start and growth would depend on market. He stated that the maximum would be 40. Reoch asked how the commission determined whether public services as outlined in the staff report were adequate. Staff stated that each agency was provided notice and given the opportunity to address any concerns they had; it was assumed if there was no comment that there were no concerns. There being no further discussion, Paulus closed the meeting to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Luedtke said she thought it was a good idea, Kirby agreed. Kirby made motion to approve CUP 04-01 as presented. Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

4.  Paulus opened the site plan review on the JRS subdivision proposal on behalf of Seth Seton. Staff stated the area was zoned ag/suburban and that the minimum parcel size was five acres. Staff explained that the parcels involved were currently owned separately, but ownership would be transferred to Seton to allow the subdivision. Paulus described the area where the parcel was proposed. Staff noted that there are several non-conforming lots of record in the immediate area of the proposed subdivision. Members raised no specific areas of concern and recommended application be made.

5. Paulus opened discussion of potential zone map amendments. He discussed the previous night’s meeting with the Economic Development Committee, and stated the concerns expressed there that there weren’t sufficient areas in the county where a business could be established without a long public hearing process and as a result, the county was losing businesses. Luedtke asked the difference between commercial and industrial use and staff read those definitions from the ordinance. Kimball, who submitted a petition by property owners south of Naples interested in being rezoned from Agriculture/Forestry to Rural Community/Commercial, stated that the topography of that area was conducive to business development. Discussion was held on what constituted light industry as opposed to heavy industry. Staff stated that because of the way the ordinance was written, the burden of making that determination rested with the Planning and Zoning Commission during the site plan review required by ordinance for the establishment of commercial use. He said that if the P&Z commission determined that a site plan depicted an industrial use, the applicant would be informed of that decision and of the need to obtain a conditional or special use permit. Discussion was held of the pitfalls of strip zoning. Paulus stated that any commercial zoning certificate application would come before Planning and Zoning and the decisions could be made on a case-by-case basis. John Bartling said that this was a step for P&Z to get ahead of growth, and to establish policies and procedures to direct that growth. Epstein asked if consideration could be given to establishing standards of appearance to prevent US 95 from becoming an eyesore. Staff stated that as part of this process, Planning and Zoning could look at several things; amending the ordinance to define light industrial and heavy industrial, establishing aesthetics standards, etc. Paulus reiterated that P&Z would be involved in any development and said it wasn’t sensible to try to over-define what didn’t need to be. Staff explained the process for amending the zoning maps and zoning amendment and said the next step was to determine the specific areas to propose for rezone and to determine if ordinance amendments were needed. Kirby recommended setting a workshop to begin this process, and members concurred that there was a necessity to proceed.

6. In old/unscheduled business, Kirby spoke of the P&Z workshop held in Post Falls and stated there was a need to better control meetings as these were official proceedings with a legal record-keeping requirement.

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