Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

Minutes, August 18, 2005 ~ NOT OFFICIAL UNTIL APPROVED

Members present: Jeff Mellinger, Rod Barcklay, Doug Reoch, Tom Hollingsworth, Jim Paulus, Toby Schnuerle. Members absent: John Kellogg, Trevalyn Shepperd, Barry Davis. Staff present: Mike Weland

1.      Chairman Paulus called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and called for reading of the July minutes. Hollingworth made motion to waive reading and accept the minutes as presented. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

2.       Paulus read the hearing procedure and opened public hearing on application SUB 0508 by Dan and Karen Moore to develop the Caribou Ridge subdivision on a 4.9-acre parcel. No member cited conflict of interest. Mary Peterson represented the applicant, and explained that the developers were aware the project was in the flyway of the Boundary County Airport. She state that a private 60-foot easement would provide access and that a private road would be built to county specifications. Homes would be built by the developer, and all utilities brought to the site. She stated that buyers would be informed prior to purchase about the airport, and that covenants and restrictions would be imposed to address airport issues. Staff reported he represented the applicant as a paid consultant employed prior to his return to the position of zoning administrator. Paulus opened the hearing for public testimony in favor. Tina Bright, Bonners Ferry, stated that as a Realtor, she was amazed at how much interest has been expressed in this development, indicating that there was a need for homes in the proposed price range. Paulus opened the hearing for comment from those uncommitted, no one spoke. Paulus opened the hearing for comment from those opposed.

a.       Linda Hall, who lives to the northwest of the proposed subdivision, said her concern was one of trust, that she had been told by the developer that two houses would be placed on the property, not a subdivision. She expressed concern over limited water supply available through Three Mile Water.

b.      Don Jordan, a member of the Boundary County Airport Board, spoke of reduced quality of life in the area affected and of his concerns about development around the airport, particularly directly off the end of the runway. He stated that the number one factor in forcing airports across the country to close was development, and stated that no matter how people were told of the noise of airplanes flying over and of the potential danger, there would be complaints. He said he was concerned over lack of adequate fire protection, and the lack of adequate water. Paulus asked about prevailing winds, Jordan replied they were from the south and that nearly every plane taking off from Boundary County Airport made its climb-out over this parcel.

c.       Mark Weber, a resident in the French Point Subdivision, said he was concerned about encroachment on the airport, owned by Boundary County, saying that such development may deprive the county of the availability of FAA grants, stating the FAA requires zoning action in areas surrounding airports to prevent noise and safety issues. He stated there was the possibility the airport could be closed due to residential encroachment. Barcklay sought clarification of the FAA potentially withholding grant funds. Paulus asked Weber, a Border Patrol agent, pilot and member of the airport board, when the most dangerous time occurred in a typical flight, Weber stated that the most dangerous part of a flight was during takeoff. Hollingsworth asked about the Border Patrol’s plans to build on airport property, Weber stated that the plan had been disapproved by the FAA because a Border Patrol headquarters was not deemed aviation-related. He stated that an effort to find an alternate location was underway, and of the possibility of adding a Border Patrol air wing at the airport in the future. Paulus asked about past plans by the airport board to create an airport overlay zone, Weber stated those plans were continuing. Barcklay asked if there were plans to extend the runway; Jordan said there is room to expand, and that there would be a need for such expansion should the corporate jet traffic at the airport continue as it has. Barcklay asked if the airport board were considering acquiring additional land for such expansion, Jordan said yes, that they are currently looking to buy property, but that there is currently not enough use at the airport to warrant the expense.

d.      Georgia DeHart, Bonners Ferry, said she represented her children, who live out of state and own adjacent property to the proposed subdivision, saying they were concerned the homes would become rentals and that living standards would degrade, reducing property values in the area.

e.       Doug Higgins, chairman of the Three Mile Water Association board, said he was not opposed to the application, but wanted the planning and zoning commission to understand that the water district, nor any other water district in Boundary County, cannot provide sufficient flow to provide for fire suppression.

f.        Dan Krmpotich stated that the airport was important to his business, and stated that anything with the potential to hurt the airport would hurt the community.

g.       Bob Langford, a member of the airport board, said that if there was enough residential encroachment on the airport, the county could lose it.

h.       Jack Bontrigger, an adjacent property owner, stated that he was concerned about the types of residences that would be available for purchase.

i.         Dennis Shelton, who lives in the area and sold the property to its current owners, stated that when he sold, it was his understanding that the property would be divided into a maximum of four 1 ¼ acre lots, and said that the proposal as presented was too high a density for that area. He stated that he almost lost his home last month to fire due to inadequate water supply. He said he was concerned about the availability of septic systems and the danger and noise from airplanes flying over.

j.        Greg Mead, a member of the North Bench Volunteer Fire Department, stated that the proposal enabled too much growth too quickly.

k.      Tammy Blanford, a flight instructor for Northern Air, stated that the most dangerous part of a flight was take off, and that the proposed development was in the take off flight path. She said she was concerned that unrestricted residential development could strangle the airport.

l.         Clint Chamberlain, a member of the airport board, said he was concerned that complaints from property owners in the subdivision would hurt the airport.

3.      There being no further public testimony, Paulus called for a closing statement from the applicant. Peterson said that the property in question was zoned rural community/commercial, and that under the current ordinance the owner could develop the property for commercial use. Staff stated that under the ordinance, the property could be developed commercially as a permitted use without being sent before the commission, and that the only reason the application was before the planning and zoning commission was because it was proposed for subdivision.

4.      There being no further public comment, Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Schnuerle said he was concerned that the property was purchased on condition that the parcel not be divided into anything less than 1 ¼ acre in size. Reoch said serious consideration had to be given to the airport in relation to its location in respect to the property, saying that the county had no other airport and that no matter how well buyers were informed that they were buying in an over-fly area, there would be complaints that could negatively impact the airport. Paulus said that as a pilot, he has seen airports across the country close due to residential encroachment. Hollingsworth said the board’s first obligation had to be to the airport due to its economic benefit, and that for safety reasons, he didn’t feel it appropriate to place homes at the end of a runway. Paulus stated that when the property was rezoned to rural community/commercial, it was seen that the best use of the property would be for commercial development, which would have a lesser impact on the airport. He stated that putting homes there could put the county in a position of liability as the most likely area to be impacted by a plane crash would be in that area.

5.      There being no further discussion, Hollingsworth made motion to forward to the board of Boundary County Commissioners that application SUB 0508 be disapproved based on its proximity to the airport and the adverse impact such development would have on the future needs of the Boundary County Airport, Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

6.      Paulus opened public hearing on SUB 0509 by JRS Surveying. No member cited conflict of interest. Owner Dick Staples, representing the property owners, described the proposed layout and said a 60’ dedicated access easement from the county road, to remain under private ownership maintained by a property owners association, provided access to county standards. He stated that all parcels meet the minimum property size for that zone district, that water is in place, including a fire hydrant. He said electricity would be brought to site by Northern Lights, and telephone service would be installed by Verizon. Paulus asked for clarification of the property location, and stated that Cabinet Mountain Water, of which he serves as chairman, did get a letter of intent, and while they can provide adequate water for domestic use, they are nearly at their limits for expansion. Staples said the property currently has eight paid water hookups. There was no staff report. Paulus opened the hearing to public testimony in favor of the application.

a.       Dave Graham, Sandpoint, stated that he had been hired to do the excavation work and spoke of the quality demanded by the Monniers, who own the property.

7.      There being no further public testimony in favor of the application, Paulus called for testimony from those uncommitted; there was none. Paulus called for public testimony from those opposed.

a.       Lon Merrifield, an adjacent property owner and owner of Clifty View Nursery, provided letter and read it into the record.

b.      Wayne Nishek, president of the Paradise Valley Fire Association Board, said he was concerned about being able to provide adequate fire protection to such a development, saying that because of a lack of available water, fire crews currently could not open hydrants all the way without disrupting flows to homes. He said he was concerned about maintaining the pristine quality of life currently enjoyed in that area, and increased traffic on county roads. Paulus concurred that the Paradise Valley Water Association could not provide adequate flows for fire suppression in that area. Hollingsworth asked if there were plans to upgrade the system, Paulus said there were not.

c.       Georgia Earley, an adjacent property owner, submitted a letter and read it into the record, then showed a map of existing parcels, saying the area has been traditionally used for large lot farms and residences. She stated that her property enjoyed a clear view of the subject parcel,

d.      Carol Madsen, an adjoining property owner, cited concern over the addition of up to 88 additional vehicle trips per day resulting from the proposed development.

e.       Dan Krmpotich stated that there was a potential for reopening CEDU Schools, and that he was concerned over adverse impact to this possibility due to the potential reduction in water and the increased traffic.

f.        Rupacandra Carll presented a letter and read it into the record, and stated her concerns over the impact of septic systems to an existing wetland and the adverse impacts on public services.

g.       Deanna Merrifield, who owns property on County Road 23A, said she would like to see the land maintained as it is and cited concerns over the adverse impact on water supply and roads.

8.      There being no further public testimony, Paulus called for closing statement. Staples said the property in question had been zoned for five acre minimum lot sizes, deeming that this area was suitable for this sized lots. He stated that the owners were willing to provide individual reservoirs for fire protection, and that Panhandle Health would determine the suitability of the parcels for septic systems.  Paulus reiterated the concerns of Cabinet Mountain Water on the impact to its system. Ricardo Carll asked for specifics on the proposed reservoirs, Staples stated that each home would be equipped with a 2,000-to 4,000-gallon reservoir specifically designed for fire protection. There being no further public testimony, Paulus closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion among members. Hollingsworth stated that initially, the plan looked good, but that without adequate water, the subdivision should not be approved, especially as Cabinet Mountain Water is already having problems adequately serving its existing customers. Paulus clarified the Cabinet Mountain stance, saying the development would have to provide a system so as not to impact existing customers. Reoch stated that he felt that the concerns over availability of adequate water put the kibosh on the proposal. Barcklay stated that when the commission considered rezoning the area to five acres it appeared reasonable, but that being confronted by a courtroom full of people in opposition indicated a need to revisit the zone district map. Paulus stated that Boundary County is one of the country’s last frontiers, that we’ve seen land rise in value from $2,000 an acre to $10,000 an acre in recent years, and that people want to take advantage. He said it was the duty of the planning and zoning commission to watch out for the community as a whole. Schnuerle said it was more of a concern to think of the younger people trying to make a living in Boundary County, and the impact they face through the loss of potential jobs made possible by such development. Paulus said it was necessary to regulate for slow and lasting growth. Hollingsworth said the commission had to know adequate services were available to accommodate the proposed growth and Paulus concurred, saying there will be growth, but the commission needed to ensure it was adequately directed. Schnuerle said there has to be room to allow growth to occur. Barcklay said it was obvious from the testimony that people don’t want to see this type of development, saying it’s not in the right location. Reoch said that water shouldn’t be the concern of the commission, but that county roads were insufficient to accommodate the increased traffic. Staff advised the commission that under the provisions of the zoning and subdivision ordinance, their options were not limited to recommending approval or disapproval, but that they had authority to recommend terms and conditions, and recommend performance bonds to ensure completion of promised improvements at no expense to taxpayers, conditions to be met prior to the final plat being filed and parcels offered for sale. There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a motion. Barcklay made motion to recommend that application SUB 05-09 by JRS Surveying be disapproved based on public input regarding degradation to the quality of life currently enjoyed in that area, the concerns over lack of adequate water and fire suppression. Hollingsworth seconded. Hollingsworth and Barcklay voted “aye,” Schnuerle and Mellinger voted “nay,” and Paulus stepped down to break the tie, voting “aye” to pass the motion, three votes to two.

9.      Paulus called for a five minute recess and the recording of the meeting was stopped. The meeting was called to order and the recording resumed. Paulus opened public hearing on application SUB 05-07 by Chris Sevard. No member cited conflict. Rob Froelich, Naples, represented the applicant, and described changes to the previous preliminary plat to address concerns raised during public hearing on the adjacent plat presented in July, and stated that this portion of the proposal requested the placement of 10 lots on an existing 12.6 acre parcel, providing a 60-foot private easement for access and utilities. Froelich stated that he had received assurance from the Three Mile Water Association board that adequate water was available for domestic use, and that he had been working with the state fire marshal and home building contractors to ensure adequate fire protection was provided to meet state fire codes. He stated that he addressed Hollingsworth’s concern raised in July over useable are not encumbered by easement, and said that all but three lots, one through three inclusive, had been redrawn to provide a full acre of useable space, the three lots named providing .98-acre in useable space, not including easement encroachment. He said the land had been tested for adequate septic disposal. He said the plan is not popular with everyone, but that progress required this type of development to create affordable homes, that increased land prices have placed larger lots out of the price range affordable by those who make their living in Boundary County. Attorney Paul Vogel, representing the applicant, submitted a letter into the record and expounded upon it; saying the comprehensive plan is a guide to the adoption of land use regulations, and that by using that plan to rezone the property in question to rural residential, the planning and zoning commission deemed that property suitable for development down to a parcel size of one acre. He said that if the commission deemed this proposal unsuitable, the ordinance and zoning map was invalid. Paulus stressed the impact of such density. Hollingsworth said that he looks at the comprehensive plan as a guide, but stated he has to look at all aspects of a proposal, taking public concerns into account. He reiterated that he felt that one acre should be one acre, free of encumbered easements. No staff report was presented. Paulus opened the hearing for public testimony in favor of the proposal.

a.       Glen Belden, an adjoining property owner, stated that people needed property they could afford on which to build their homes, and that denying this opportunity denied this ability by pricing them out of the market.

b.      Mary Peterson stated that market studies she commissioned indicated a strong need for affordable properties in the community and that the application met the specifications of the zone district in which it was proposed. She stated that currently there are fewer than 20 homes in Boundary County available for less than $100,000, and that most of those were substandard.

10.  Paulus called for testimony from those uncommitted on the application, there was none. Paulus called for testimony from those opposed.

a.       Mavis Baker stated she was concerned about the additional traffic and impact on roads.

b.      Jack Blake, an adjacent property owner, reminded the commission they’d recommended denying the first phase of the application, and stated that the entrance to the proposed subdivision was a problem, that such density would drain Three Mile Water and that 50 homes (three proposed subdivisions combined) would have a major impact on a rural area. He stated there was no green zone incorporated, that such density created a fire danger. He said that many residents in the area were unaware that the property had been rezoned. He cited concerns over increased traffic, and reiterated objections made during the July hearing.

c.       Wilma Wallace, who lives one-half mile from the proposed subdivision, said you have to look at the overall effect of all three subdivisions proposed. She stated that Blume Hill Road is steep and not well maintained, and cited concerns over increased traffic. Barcklay asked when the property had been rezoned, she stated she had no idea. She stated that the proposal was unreasonable and too much for the community to tolerate, and expressed concern over wildfire danger.

d.      Teresa Taggart, an adjacent property owner, agreed with what had been said, and asked who was going to buy these properties and where they would work. She stated the proposal to add 50 homes was overwhelming.

e.       Don Jordan stated that the proposal was too much, too quick, and said the subdivision might be legal, but it was inappropriate. He cited concern over impact on county roads.

f.        Vicki Blake, an adjacent property owner, stated that this was a very large development and a substantial change to traditional land uses in the area which would impose substantial adverse effects, including increased traffic and loss of privacy.

g.       Ed Granger, an adjacent property owner, stated the roads were inadequate to support the increase in traffic. The applicant stated he was working with Road and Bridge, and while they were not looking to incorporate the roads into the county road system, they would be built to applicable county specifications.

h.       Karen Brown, an adjacent property owner, stated that the access road proposed goes 10’ by her property, and stated that this was a pedestrian area and not an area suitable for the proposed density.

11.  There being no further public testimony, Paulus called for a closing statement from the applicant. Paul Vogel stated that the zoning ordinance allows the commission to make recommendations to mitigate potential adverse impacts, but does not enable the commission to disapprove. He stipulated that his client would be willing to include vegetative buffers for additional privacy. He stressed the economic benefits to the county of the proposal, and said that water and septic concerns could be established as terms and conditions. Barcklay asked if the applicant would be willing to consider increasing the parcel size to two acres, Froelich stated that doing so would increase the price he’d have to charge and put the homes out of reach of those he was attempting to serve. He stated that going up to a two acre lot would add at least $20,000 to the cost, and that developing the projects in unison enabled him to save further to keep the prices affordable for those who need quality housing at a reasonable price.

12.  Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members, advising them that just because an attorney was present representing the applicant, that the decision before the commission rested not on what he said, but on the comprehensive plan and the zoning and subdivision ordinance. Reoch stated that the property owner has the right to pursue his own best interests, but that the commission still had to consider the people there now and how it would impact them, and stated that the proposal should not pose adverse impacts to the health or safety of surrounding property owners. Paulus asked members if the proposal provided for systematic growth and asked if there were adequate services available. Hollingsworth said that the area was prime for growth, but said he would prefer a compromise with larger lots. The applicant was again asked if he would consider two acres in all three proposed subdivisions, the applicant stated it was not economically feasible. Following the discussion, Reoch made motion to table application SUB 05-07 pending public hearing on SUB 05-06, the next item on the agenda, Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried by a vote of four to one.

13.  Paulus opened public hearing on application 05-06, stipulating that due to the proposal’s proximity to the two applications heard previously and due to the fact that all three were proposed by the same developer, comments made at the previous hearings would carry forward. He called for an opening statement. Froelich said that all but one lot of .98 acres, all proposed lots had in excess of one acre of useable area, and that covenants and restrictions presented in application SUB 0507 applied to this development. He stated that an existing 60-foot easement extends to Highway 2, and a verbal agreement had been made for the purchase of land to connect the proposed subdivisions by an access easement to be maintained by a homeowners association. He stated that the proposal was a five to six year plan, and that not all construction would be undertaken at once. He stated that the three projects presented created a total of 47 lots, and enough work to keep two building crews busy for this length of time.

14.  Paulus called for testimony in favor of the proposal.

a.       Property owner Glenn Belden said he was born in the county and a lifelong resident, and that he’s owned that property for 30 years. He said his plan was to use the property as a retirement investment. He explained that the proposal left a green belt along an existing pipeline easement, and that horse and pedestrian trails were planned.

b.      Mary Peterson said that stipulations should be applied that were common to all subdivision applications.

15.  Paulus called for public comment from those uncommitted on the application, there was none. He called for comment from those opposed.

a.       Rick Binns, who owns property along a proposed private access to Highway 2, stated that his property is bisected by that easement. He stated that his biggest issue is with water, that Three Mile Water can’t handle the additional residences. He stated that the proposal would increase the population in that area by 500% within five years, and that roads would not be able to handle the impact, and that such growth would also impact police and ambulance services. He stated that the community would see a dramatic increase in the number of pets and problems associated with them. He said that with the sudden increase in population, the impact of power outages that are common would increase in severity.

b.      Don Jordan said that a homeowner’s association would be incapable of maintaining the road adequately.

c.       Wilma Wallace stated that the magnitude of the proposal was too much and in the wrong place.

d.      Jack Blake said the long range impact on the infrastructure had to be considered.

e.       Vicki Blake questioned the ability to stipulate terms and conditions, asking how width of a green belt could be controlled and asking what could be stipulated to limit sound, odors, car fumes, animals. She stated that in the event of fire, the first thing that goes is electricity.

16.  There being no further comment, Paulus called for a closing statement from the applicant. Vogel said the setbacks for agriculture/forestry and agriculture/suburban were the same, 25-feet front, 10-feet side and 20-feet rear. He stated his client could agree to conditions including addressing dust abatement and meeting the requirements of Panhandle Health District for septic and Three Mile Fire. He said conditions could include a 15-foot buffer, no livestock. He said access could all come from Highway 2, which is slated for being widened and resurfaced.

17.  There being no further public comment, Paulus closed hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members, saying again that he felt it necessary that the commission consider the full impact of all three proposed subdivisions, which he said posed a huge impact on the county and surrounding property owners. He stated that the commission could forward the same recommendation as forwarded on Phase I, heard in July. Barcklay pointed out that an area near this proposed development recently had a fire, and he questioned allowing such density in a rural area. Paulus reiterated that he felt these proposals were too much for such a small area.

18.  There being no further comment, Paulus called for a motion. Reoch made motion on application SUB 05-06 to forward a recommendation of disapproval based on concerns of the public, inadequate roads and inadequate water supply. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried, with two abstentions, two members voting “aye” and one voting “nay.”

19.  Barcklay made motion to recommend disapproval of application SUB 05-07 for the same reasons, that motion died for lack of second. Hollingsworth announced he abstained from the vote on application SUB 05-06 because he was an adjoining property owner to this proposal, but said he hated to see that density on the site.

20.  Following further discussion, Barcklay repeated his motion, Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried, with three members voting “aye” and two members voting “nay.”

21.  In new, unscheduled business, Reoch expressed concern that Trevalyn Shepperd had attended only two meetings since being appointed to the board, and staff said she had called in saying she wouldn’t be at that evening’s meeting, but that it was the first time since he’d returned that she had given notice. Following discussion, Reoch recommended that a letter be sent County Commissioners recommending that she be removed from the planning and zoning commission for lack of attendance and following discussion, members concurred and Paulus directed staff to submit a letter to this effect. Hollingsworth announced he would not be in attendance at the September meeting.

22.  There being no further business, Reoch made motion to adjourn, Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.