Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
MINUTES
June 30, 2005
Members present: Tom Hollingsworth, Trevalyn Sheppard, Doug
Reoch, Rod Barcklay, John Kellogg, Toby Schnuerle. Members absent: Jim Paulus,
Barry Sanders. Staff present: Mike Weland.
1. In the absence of Paulus, vice chairman Hollingsworth chaired the meeting and called it to order at 5:30 p.m., calling for reading of the May minutes. Reoch moved to waive reading and to accept the minutes as mailed, Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Hollingsworth read the public hearing procedure.
2. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on VAR 0501. No member cited conflict of interest. Staff reported that Stone was unavailable to attend the hearing due to recent diagnosis of a serious illness and that the applicant was aware that the hearing would be held solely on the basis of the contents of the application. There was no staff report other than what had already been sent. There was no public comment on the proposal, in favor, uncommitted or opposed. Members noted that the parcel was divided by a county road, and that based on this such split was logical. Barcklay moved to approve application VAR 0501 as presented, Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Hollingsworth opened hearing on application SUP 0507. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicant Joel Martin stated that he lives and operates Panhandle Kitchen and Door on a 20-acre parcel on U.S. 95 south. He stated the parcel is accessed by a multiple family private road, which he maintains, and that he builds doors and cabinets for wholesale distribution. Deliveries are made in his own truck and all manufacture is done indoors. When he developed his business, he said the operation successfully passed a Small Business Administration environmental impact assessment. He stated the business employs 10 people and last year brought $650,000 revenue to the community, mostly from out of state. He stated that the business is an asset to the community. Barcklay asked him how he initially received a permit to establish the business, Martin stated that he hadn’t. Barcklay asked when the business was established, Martin said 1999. Reoch asked why only five acres of the parcel was included in the special use permit application, Martin said he wanted to retain the remaining 15-acres for his residence. Reoch stated that if he sold the business on five acres it would be non-conforming, Martin said that was not his plan. There was no staff report in addition to that presented. Hollingsworth opened the hearing to public testimony; no one spoke either in favor or nor opposed. There was no closing statement and the hearing was closed to public testimony. Schnuerle made motion to recommend that the application be approved as presented, Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application AM0504. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicant Clint Kimball stated he was a lifetime Boundary County resident and that he’s operated businesses on the subject parcel pursuant to a conditional use permit for five years. He stated that the area in which the businesses are located has historically been a commercial corridor and described the various uses since the 1960s. He said that to improve economic development, land needed to be identified for commercial use, and he said his parcel is conducive to such use in that it lies on a straight stretch of highway frontage with a good line of sight in both directions and offered a safe approach. He stated he requested the zone map amendment to protect his investment should regulations ever be altered to preclude his ability to continue operations under conditions established. He stated that he’s not looking to build or expand, but wanted the additional security afforded by rural community/commercial zoning. Barcklay asked what would preclude him from dividing the parcel into quarter-acre parcels, Kimball said the Department of Transportation would limit frontage and access and the property wasn’t conducive to such development and such development was not his intent. Hollingsworth asked him what would preclude developing the property for residential use, Kimball reiterated that was not his intent. Schnuerle said P&Z had gone through looking at amending the zone maps and had determined that this area was conducive for such rezone. There was no staff report. Kellogg asked if other commercial zones existed, staff said only industrial, but the commission could look at establishing other zone districts. Hollingworth opened the hearing to public comment. No one spoke in favor of the proposal. Jay Epstein spoke uncommitted, asking if such a request could lead to unintended results in the future and asked if limits could be applied. He asked if it would be better to wait before deciding such applications to revise the comprehensive plan. No member of the public spoke in opposition. In his closing statement, Kimball said the lack of opposition to his application shows his close neighbors were not concerned about the proposal. The hearing was closed to public testimony. Schnuerle stated he felt this the ideal spot for this zoning in that it had highway frontage along the corridor earlier identified. Barcklay stated that a conditional use permit had already been granted and that he thought it should remain as zoned. Kellogg stated that you have to look back historically, that the area had been used commercially for decades, and hadn’t changed much over that course of time. Sheppard made motion to recommend that application AM 0504 be approved, Schneurle seconded and the motion carried by a vote of 4-1.
5. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application SUP 0504. Applicant Kevin Yunger stated that based on the location, shape and placement of the parcel, it was ideally suited to creating substantially sized residential parcels to provide privacy and beauty. He stated that CCRs will be imposed to preserve the quality of life in the area and to protect wildlife, and explained the economic benefits. He stated that the average frontage of each parcel would be about 500-feet. He said the CCRs would preclude manufactured homes, require a minimum 1,600 foot home built of 2x6 construction or log, that would require increased setbacks from county requirements, and would allow no junk. He stated that he had checked on the availability of utilities and had confirmed that water, power, septic and phone service was readily available. He stated that the road was sufficient to accommodate the increase in traffic. Barcklay said the CCRs were commendable, but asked how they would be enforced. Yunger stated that there were a homeowners association could be established and through liens for violations. Rod brought up the petition that had been submitted and the letter from Fish and Game regarding the wildlife corridor and asked the applicant if he’d consider reducing the proposal to three lots to appease most people and to maintain the wildlife corridor, Yunger stated that he might consider two five-acre parcels, a four acre and a six acre parcel, but explained that the six-parcel configuration provided the best and highest use of the property. Staff stated that prior to his reappointment as zoning administrator, he had contracted to represent the applicant, and that his sole role at the hearing was to maintain minutes. He stated that he might make a closing statement on behalf of the applicant. Hollingsworth called for public comment. No one spoke in favor or uncommitted. Speaking in opposition was Tim Patton, a resident of the Fall Creek Subdivision, who presented a petition with 33 signatures in opposition. He stated he was concerned about aesthetics, increased traffic, impact on a wildlife corridor and increased dust. Patton recommended a moratorium on subdivision development pending a review of the comprehensive plan and zoning and subdivision ordinance. Barcklay asked how many homes there are in the Fall Creek Subdivision, Patton said about nine homes. Reoch showed the map depicting the Fall Creek Subdivision and the proposed subdivision, and asked what makes people consider this a wildlife corridor. Hollingsworth stated that he’d twice heard comments about reviewing the comprehensive plan, and stated he felt it was an excellent plan dedicated to saving Boundary County while accommodating growth and development. Reoch asked how many who signed the petition were residents of that area, Patton stated eight live within 300 feet of the parcel. Clint Kimball said he may have missed the appropriate time to speak, but said he owns four acres one half mile from the proposed subdivision. He said the roads serving the proposed subdivision were good, and said he had seen past decisions made on the basis of wildlife corridors. In his closing statement, Yunger said he is not trying to go beyond Fall Creek Subdivision, but said his proposal dovetails with the existing subdivision. Barcklay asked why he bought the parcel in April if he knew there was a 10-acre minimum parcel size; Yunger stated he and his wife saw it as an opportunity that fell in their laps by which they could secure their retirement while benefiting the community by using the parcel to its best potential use. Weland said that the comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance were deliberately written as they are to allow the wisdom and judgment of those serving on the Planning and Zoning Commission to be exercised, and said that he saw this application, due to the lay of the parcel and its proximity to an existing and successful subdivision as an application which would allow an exercise of that wisdom. He stated there was concern over setting precedents, but that if it were setting a precedent, there were ways to set good precedents that would serve the county. Hollingsworth said the commission did not set precedent, but made exceptions to the standard when it was appropriate. The hearing was closed to public testimony and opened for discussion among members. Reoch stated that when he first looked at the proposal, his gut reaction had been to say no, that this was ag/forestry. But in looking at the comprehensive plan, the goals of the policy on residential development were that when practical, new residential areas should be located near existing, and that this application fit that objective. Barklay concurred, but said that the proposal should be reduced to three or four lots. Kellogg stated that it was apparent, since the parcel had been purchased in April, that it was purchased for one reason only, and said he was amazed that the Fall Creek Subdivision was placed where it was and the opposition to the proposal came from where it did. He stated that he felt a recommendation of approval would set a precedent, and would lead to further development across the road. Schnuerle said he felt this was a great spot for the proposal as it was on a long, skinny useless property with 26 one-acre lots behind it. Reoch asked the applicant if he was amenable to reducing the number of lots, Yunger said he was not sure, that he and his wife felt an opportunity fell into their lap with this parcel as an investment for their retirement because this was an ideal parcel in its layout and surroundings for residential use as its highest and best use. Patton stated that his main concern was not the wildlife corridor, but the decreased quality of life should the application be approved. There being no further discussion, Hollingsworth called for a motion. Barcklay made motion to recommend disapproval it as it sits, but withdrew the motion. Schnuerle made motion to recommend the application be approved as presented, but the motion died for lack of second. Discussion was held on possible steps that might attain a recommendation of approval. Reoch made motion to recommend approval provided the applicant amend the plat to four lots each of five acres or larger, Trevalyn seconded but the motion was withdrawn and no vote taken. Reoch made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation of disapproval with a recommendation that the applicant return with a plat showing no lots less than five acres in size. Schnuerle seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
6. Under old business, Kellogg stated he felt the fees for applications under the ordinance were too low to cover administrative costs. After discussion, staff was directed to determine costs for processing and publicizing applications and prepare a report for the next meeting.
7. Under new business, staff was directed to include Robin Ponsness on the July agenda. Discussion was held on a request by a member of a local fire association to administer roads to ensure emergency vehicles can gain access. Staff stated that on private roads on uplatted land, the county had no jurisdiction, but such standards could be imposed as a condition of approval when an application for subdivision is submitted. Discussion was held as to what the minimal standards necessary to ensure access by fire suppression equipment would be, and staff was directed to ask Jeff Gutshall his recommendations and report his answer at the next meeting.
8. Interviews were held with three people interested in serving on the planning and zoning commission to replace Jane Kirby, who retired. Interviews were held with Matt Brian, Fred Marek and Jeff Mellinger. Members also reviewed letters of interest from other applicants. Following the interviews, discussion was held and a vote by secret ballot taken. As a result of the vote, members directed staff to forward to commissioner a recommendation that Delton Amoth, interviewed at a previous meeting, Jeff Mellinger and Matt Brian be forwarded as the candidates recommended by the board.
9. There being no further business before the commission, Kellogg made motion to adjourn, Reoch seconded and no one stuck around long enough for a vote. The meeting adjourned at about 7:40 p.m.