Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

MINUTES: October 20, 2005

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

1.      Vice chairman Tom Hollingsworth called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. and called for a reading of the August minutes. Kellogg made motion to waive reading and approve the minutes as presented, Davis seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

2.      Hollingsworth read the hearing procedure and opened public hearing on AM 05-10 by Scot Lindsay for a zone map amendment on parcel RP61N01E143311. No member cited conflict of interest. Staff reported that the applicant had informed the office that he would not be present and that he requested the planning and zoning commission proceed to hear the application in his absence. Staff explained the application and gave report. Hollingworth called for public testimony. There was no comment in favor of the application. Lou Maring, Paradise Valley, said he was uncommitted, and said the business doesn’t create noise or pollution. He said he was concerned that in the future neighbors could complain, and force the loss of employees and jobs. Speaking in opposition, Ed Katz, Paradise Valley, said he would like to see the business continue as a home business, and stated that if the business changed hands, with a zone amendment to rural community/commercial, a new owner could change the use and asked what could be done to prevent that. Hollingsworth stated that a special use permit would allow continuation of the existing business and not allow reduction in lot size. Jay Epstein spoke in opposition, saying he saw no clear need for a zone change. There being no further public testimony, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Barcklay said he knew the applicant and has toured the factory and stated it was a great business, but that a special use permit would best serve the county. Kellogg stated that it was important to scrutinize applications to amend the zoning map and to look at what could ultimately happen, and stated that because of its location, he didn’t feel this application warranted an amendment. There being no further discussion, Hollingsworth called for a motion. Barcklay made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application AM 05-10 be disapproved with the recommendation that the applicant file application for a special use permit. Davis seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

3.      Hollingsworth opened public hearing on AM 05-11 by Clarence Ansley. No member cited conflict of interest. The applicant stated that he felt the requested rezone was justified in that area, which was approximately 400-feet off U.S. 95 with a good turn lane access and a total of four points of access. He stated that all utilities are available, that he had been issued a can-serve letter for water, that the road and bridge superintendent stated that the accesses to the property were good. He stated that he did not intend to break the parcel into one-acre lots, but saw a layout with parcels ranging from one to five acres in size. He stated that the parcel was in close proximity to Bonners Ferry and had been looked at for incorporation into the city area of impact. There was no staff report except as written. Hollingsworth opened the hearing to public testimony. Bill Michalk stated that it was his family who sold the property to the applicant, and stated that the family homesteaded the area since 1900. This particular parcel, he said, had been in the family for 60 years, and had been variously farmed until, before a zoning ordinance, the area began to develop for residential use. He stated there were actually five points of access from U.S. 95, four of them paved. He stated that the history of the area shows this as an area where residential growth is going to occur. No one spoke uncommitted. In opposition, Tim Patton, Fall Creek, said that he was concerned that since the county was in the process of redoing the comprehensive plan, such amendment would conflict, and recommended completing the comprehensive plan to ensure the proposal was applicable. There being no further comment, Hollingsworth called for a closing statement from the applicant, there was none. Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion. Reoch asked the applicant that since he had no plans to divide the parcel into 40 lots to clarify how many homes were planned. Ansley said that this was simply a rezone hearing and no firm plans have yet been made, but said the maximum number of homes he envisions would be 30. Hollingsworth noted that the commission had no way to know what he might propose and Ansley stated that the plans would come before the commission in the development process. Hollingsworth stated that the commission was looking at giving the applicant the right to reduce the parcel size to one acre, and while that might be a good idea, it was very vague. Schnuerle stated that the applicant was simply seeking a rezone, and that the applicant had stated that parcels would range from one to five acres in size. He said the parcel was located near town, that there were two subdivisions adjacent to the parcel, and that the parcel was next to land already zone rural residential and rural community/commercial. Staff stated that if a development were forwarded and the parcels proposed fell below two acres in size, it would be subject to the provisions of the emergency ordinance. Reoch said he felt this was a natural development. Staff stated that before a motion, a zone map amendment required review of each section of the zoning ordinance to see if it fit or if the section was applicable. Using the staff report and the comprehensive plan, the commission determined the following:

a.       Private Property Rights: The application advocates the private property rights of the owner without interfering with the health or safety of surrounding property owners.

b.      Population: Not applicable in that no recent population studies have been conducted by the Planning and Zoning Commission.

c.       Economic: The application promotes economic growth.

d.      Land Use: The application adds value to the existing economic base while imposing little adverse impact on current uses of surrounding lands, the flow of traffic or the Boundary County landfill.

e.       Natural Resources: Not applicable in that the proposal will not appreciably detract from the values cited.

f.        Hazardous areas: The proposal does not lie in any identified hazardous area.

g.       Public Services, Facilities and Utilities: The proposed zone map amendment will not impose undue burdens on public services within Boundary County. The proposal promotes the orderly expansion of the existing infrastructure and is a logical expansion of areas already zoned for increased development and growth.

h.       Transportation: The area proposed for zone map amendment is served by Boundary County Road and Bridge, and the Road and Bridge superintendent provided the applicant verbal assurance that access to the area proposed was good, and that development of the parcel would not adversely affect the county road system.

i.         Recreation: Not applicable as no recreational areas are identified in the area proposed for zone map amendment.

j.        Community Design: The application promotes the best use of the land and its resources and promotes private enterprise. Approval would promote the initiative of the property owner to further his own economic interests.

4.      Based on the above, Reoch made motion that county commissioners be forwarded a recommendation that application AM 05-11 be approved as presented. Schnuerle seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

5.      Hollingworth opened public hearing on application SUB 05-10 by Nelson Mast, no member cited conflict of interest. Surveyor Steve Moyer represented the applicant, and described the proposal as creating 37 lots all five acres or greater in size on County Road 34. Access would be by a 60’ easement to each lot, and Moyer stated that current plans are to pave the road. He stated that Forest Service land bounded the parcel to the north and west, and that a ridge separates the proposed development from homes to the east. He stated that a no-building zone would be established in a meadow to preserve the view, and that hiking and equestrian trails would be constructed to provide access to Forest Service land. He stated that CC&Rs would provide for building standards, road maintenance and to protect the aesthetics of the area. He stated that water would be provided by private wells and septic by individual septic system, and that utilities would be provided to each lot, including wells and electricity. Hollingsworth asked if the paved road would be built to county standards, Moyer stated it would not but would be adequate to serve residents in the proposed subdivision. Reoch asked about surface water on the parcel, Moyer stated that surface water existed in the meadow, which would be protected from construction. There was no staff report. Hollingsworth called for testimony in favor. Mary Peterson, Highland Flats, said the proposal has all the elements sought by Planning and zoning and said the proposal made sense as there was infrastructure nearby. No one spoke uncommitted. In opposition, Cynthia Cunningham stated that the county was growing at a huge rate and said that Bonners Ferry was once dubbed the friendliest city and that the rate of growth threatens that. She stated she felt it important to maintain what we have. Tim Patton, Highland Flats, stated that the application violated the comprehensive plan as regards maintaining natural resources as such a large subdivision would deplete the agricultural base. Ed Katz said that he was concerned about the number of wells, especially surface wells, interfering with septic, and that he was concerned about adequate fire protection. John Miller, County Road 72, said he was in favor of the application as it did not exceed limits set in the zone district, that the owner had the right to develop and that such development put people to work. There being no further public comment, Hollingsworth called for a closing statement. Moyer stated that the division of 226 acres into 37 lots was conducive to that area, that the area is pretty and best suited for residential use. He stated the property slopes to the southwest and has a ridge to the east which reduces impact to surrounding parcels. He stated that the parcel is not classified as agricultural land, and that while the meadow may be arable, the remainder of the parcel is mostly mountainside and rocky. He stated that wells and septics would be approved by Panhandle Health, that setbacks would be maintained to protect Fry Creek and that no further timber removal is planned so that privacy may be maintained. Kellogg stated that people who purchased the property could not be prevented from doing additional logging, and said perhaps additional logging should be allowed for improved fire protection. Moyer stated that the parcel had been thinned to provide good space to provide fire protection, and stated that having wells on each parcel would assist in fire suppression. There being nothing further, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Discussion was held regarding the access. Davis stated that he felt the developer should have the right to determine access standards, Reoch stated that the access had to be sufficient for emergency vehicles. Mast stated that the road would be built close to county specifications and would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. Hollingsworth said he felt the road should be built to county standards. Barcklay said roads were an important consideration, and said that the subbase should be there to provide a good road. He stated he was also concerned about fire danger. Hollingsworth said that the parcel is zoned agriculture/suburban and that the proposal met zone district specifications, and said that Mast had developed one subdivision in Boundary County already and that it has proven a good one. Schnuerle stated that all that should be considered is the width of the easement and that it was sufficient to bring the road up to county specifications should residents one day want the road brought into the county system. Amoth asked staff about response from North Bench Fire, staff stated that there had been no response but that the commission could establish as a condition that the design be approved by the State Fire Marshals Office. There being no further discussion, Schnuerle made motion to approve application SUB 05-10 as presented. Reoch seconded. Discussion was held regarding amending the motion to require road standards or a statement from the fire marshal, Schnuerle declined to amend the motion and vote was called. Six members voted “aye,” one “nay” and the motion carried.

6.      A five minute recess was called and taken and the meeting reconvened. Hollingsworth opened hearing on application AM 05-05 by John Miller. No member cited conflict. Miller stated that the parcel had already been divided to create a 10-acre parcel, which he sold, and a 9.44 acre parcel, upon which he lived, and that he wanted to bring that division into compliance. He said that both parcels perked and that there was good, high-flow water by well available to both parcels. He stated the parcel was not in agricultural production, but was mainly steep, rocky hillside. He said access from the county road was available to both parcels, that utilities were in place to service both. There was no staff report. Hollingsworth called for testimony in favor of the proposal; there was none. No one spoke uncommitted. In opposition, Cynthia Cunningham said she opposed breaking up land, saying it was too crowded as is. She stated that she enjoyed the view without seeing the applicant’s road. Reoch stated that the parcel had already been divided, and that approval was not for any further division but to approve what had already been done. Martha Jones said she came to the community for the tranquility and to enjoy the animals, and that she thought it was a conflict of interest to have a developer on the planning and zoning commission. She said she was concerned about wild fire, and reiterated that she didn’t feel contractors or realtors should serve on the commission. Nelson Harris, a neighboring property owner, stated that Miller misrepresented the division of the property and that prior to the split he’d been told the parcel would not be divided. He stated the applicant was only interested in the money. Tim Patton, Fall Creek, said the proposal violated Chapter 7 of the comprehensive plan in that the minimum lot size for the zone district was 10 acres. Staff clarified that he was referring to the zoning and subdivision ordinance, and that Chapter 9 established criteria for variances. In closing, Miller stated that this was a good piece of land, that there were still deer and elk on the property almost daily, and that the split was a practical one. He stated he would like to have the right to sell property. Kellogg asked the applicant if he knew his original parcel was 19.44 acres and if it had been surveyed, the applicant said yes. Staff stated that the applicant’s home had been under construction prior to the division, and that the 10-acres split off and sold met the parcel size requirements. He stated that without a variance, the implication would be that should the existing home on the 9.44 acre parcel be destroyed, no zoning certificate could be issued to allow it to be rebuilt. Reoch stated that the situation should not have gotten this far, but that the parcel was very near to minimum parcel size. Staff stated that for a variance to be granted, it had to be based on the topography or other feature. He stated he had visited the property, and that it was bisected by a sloping ridge down its center, extending nearly to the county road, leaving two relatively flat areas on each side of that ridge suitable for construction. There being no further discussion, Davis made motion to approve application AM 05-05 based on the topography of the parcel; Schnuerle seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

7.      Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application AM 05-13. No member cited conflict. Staff reported that he had been contacted by the applicant and informed he would not be able to attend the hearing as he was out of county until spring, and that a relative would try to attend the meeting on his behalf. No one responded to a request from the chair to speak on behalf of the applicant, and the chairman tabled the application until further notice.

8.      Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application SUB 05-11 and staff reported an error in the notification process wherein the applicant listed parcels affected in Section 10, but failed to list parcels in Section 11 on the application. Staff told the applicant that they had the choice of proceeding with hearing, though the failure in notification could leave them open for appeal; that they could request hearing only on those parcels included in Section 10, and delay hearing on those parcels in Section 11 until proper notification could be made, or that the entire proposal could be tabled until the following month to allow for proper notification. The applicant requested time to confer, and Hollingsworth tabled the hearing to allow opening the next agenda item.

9.      Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application SUB 05-12 by Chris Neu. No member cited conflict of interest. Surveyor Steve Moyer represented the applicant, and stated that the proposal was to develop the north 40 acres of an 80 acre parcel, dividing that portion into eight five-acre lots accessed by County Road 21C. He stated a 60’ easement would extend to each parcel. He stated the property in question was wooded and mostly flat, that CC&Rs would establish building and maintenance standards and that all utilities would be brought to each parcel. Hollingsworth stated he had spoken with a board member of Cabinet Mountain Water, who said they would not be able to provide water without an upgrade estimated at $250,000. Moyer stated he had received no such indication from Cabinet Mountain Water. Hollingsworth asked Cabinet Mountain board member Ed Katz, who was in the audience, if he had any information; Katz stated that the system was getting close to capacity but that there were still memberships available. He stated that about 50 memberships could be accommodated, and said the system could provide the eight being sought, but he said he could not commit to that until an application was made. Hollingsworth opened the hearing to public testimony and called for comment from those in favor, there were none. Speaking uncommitted, Vern Burlingame, County Road 21C, said he was concerned about water flow and traffic. He said the entrance to the proposed subdivision was on a hill and was dangerous. He stated the area had a sand subsurface. Speaking in opposition, Dave Macknovich said he was concerned with adequate infrastructure. He said fire protection had not been addressed, and stated that the county needed to charge impact fees for infrastructure as a way to make the developer pay for needed improvements. He said he felt that the commission should tell the applicant what improvements would be required to develop the property. Jim Graham, County Road 21C, said he was concerned about sufficient water and fire protection. He stated traffic would be one way in, one way out, and stated that the density was a concern. He stated that he would like to see something from the State Fire Marshal. He said he was concerned about increased capacity on the county road. Lou Maring, County Road 21C, said the roads in Paradise Valley are insufficient, and that the sight lines of the intersection to serve the proposed subdivision were insufficient. He said the infrastructure, especially the road, needed to be built up to accommodate the growth before additional growth was allowed to occur. Scott Pierson stated he was uncommitted on the proposal, but, as the developer of a recently approved nine-lot subdivision in that area, and knowing other people were interested in developing, agreed that the county road is a problem that will need to be addressed. Verne Burlingame said he was against taxpayers being burdened with the cost of infrastructure improvements that benefit the developer. Ed Katz stated that growth was out of hand, and said he felt the community was being taken advantage of by people who are taking advantage of our ordinance. He stated the infrastructure cannot handle the increased growth. Staff stated that this was precisely the reason county commissioners had enacted the emergency ordinance and ordered the comprehensive plan review to take a fresh look at where the community wanted to go, and stated that in the days and weeks ahead, everyone in the community would have the opportunity to be part of that process. He encouraged everyone who was concerned to help with the process, which would direct growth for the next several years. There being no further public comment, Hollingsworth asked for a closing statement. Moyer stated that the owner purchased 80 acres and wanted to develop half. He said there was a 60-foot easement to each parcel, and that road and bridge had been contacted regarding access from County Road 21C, and at the superintendent’s advice, the location of the access had been relocated to meet sightline requirements, and that the relocation met approval from Road and Bridge. There being no further public comment, Hollingsworth called for discussion. Kellogg stated that subdivisions were a complex issue, and said that while hundreds of houses are available in Boundary County, ever since the property boom, people have been taking advantage of land prices. He stated that with the road and water situation, he felt the commission needed to put the brakes on. Hollingsworth talked of requiring road standards and said the commission needed to regulate growth to do something for the public. Kellogg made motion to deny application SUB 05-12. Schnuerle stated that the zoning and subdivision ordinance provided guides to follow, and if an application met the criteria, the application should be approved. He stated the commission was not there to appease neighbors. Reoch said it is the commission’s responsibility to determine what was good for a community. Hollingsworth said he’d like to table the application to verify Cabinet Mountain could provide adequate water. Kellogg moved to amend his motion to forward a recommendation of disapproval on SUB 05-12 due to safety considerations related to County Road 21C, Blue Sky Road. Reoch seconded. Three members voted “aye,” three members voted “nay,” and Hollingsworth broke the tie, voting “aye” to carry the motion.

10.  Hollingsworth reopened public hearing on SUB 05-11. The applicants stated they had decided to present only Phase I of their proposal, all of which lie inside Section 10 and which had been subject to proper public notification, and to postpone hearing on Phases II and III until the following meeting to allow proper notification of those parcels. Steve Klatt, Bonner County, represented the applicant, saying that since application had been made, Gary Williams had completed the purchase of all parcels proposed for subdivision, each in 20-acre parcels, which, he said, could be split into ten-acre parcels under the existing and emergency ordinance without coming before the planning and zoning commission. He asked the commission to keep in mind that the emergency ordinance didn’t apply to this proposal because it had been filed prior to passage, and asked members to remember that the ordinance in effect at that time allowed consideration of a designed development. He stated that when the applicant purchased the property, he saw that the land had a great deal of potential were the homesites optimized to take advantage of the characteristics of the land. With the 10 acre minimum parcel size requirement, he said, 29 homes could be built; under this proposal, the applicant was seeking to create 42 home sites. He stated that in the designed development, the area along Fall Creek, which has traditionally been used by the entire community for recreation, would be retained as common area still available to the public which remaining on the tax roll. He stated that proposed roads within the subdivision would all be paved to county standards, that water and utilities would be brought to each parcel. He said that CC&Rs would prohibit further division of the land, provide for maintenance of the roads as private roads, would ensure that the Fall Creek common area remained available to the general public. He stated the clearing plan would retain wildlife habitat and improve protection against wildfire. He stated that the applicant had discussed the proposed subdivision with the chief of the South Boundary Fire Protection District, and presented a letter committing the owner to donate to the district a piece of ground to the district, regardless of the outcome of the application. He stated that approval of the application would provide the means for the applicant to build a fire station for the district to district specifications. He stated that Williams has been a developer in Bonner County for many years, and that the majority of his subcontractors were workers from Boundary County. He stated there are several existing subdivisions in the area, and that this proposal allowed common ground would be permanent open space that would stay on the tax roll, that the applicant had voluntarily made a commitment to School District 101 that would be made regardless of whether the application was approved or not. He stated the applicant knew that subdivisions have an impact on communities, and that these obligations were self-imposed impact fees promised to South Boundary Fire and the School District, as these entities benefit the development as well. He stated that the applicant has obtained a will-serve letter from Cabinet Mountain Water, that Chuck Anselmo, Panhandle Health, foresees no problem with septic, but if a particular lot won’t perk, that lot will not be developed. He stated the proposal included a trail system for hiking and riding that was more than five miles in length. He stated such a project would be a good addition to the county tax base, that County Road 4 is adequate to handle the increased traffic, and that traffic will increase slowly over time as the development is built. He stated that the applicant could have more cheaply retained the 10-acre minimum lot size, but that this would not be in the best interests of the community, and asked the commission to approve the application as proposed. Amoth asked about lots which encroach into the flood plain, Klatt said that the common area removes most flood plain from development, and that no lot would require development in the flood plain. There was no staff report. Hollingsworth opened the hearing to public testimony. Speaking in favor, South Boundary Fire Protection District chief Tony Rohrwasser presented a letter and read it into the record, then added that fire protection had long been a problem in this area because many volunteer firefighters are from the Highland Flats area, but no station exists there. He stated that firefighters often can’t get to the stations because of train traffic, and told of a car versus train collision that closed access for several hours a few nights before. He stated that the proposal includes possible access to County Road 11, which is currently closed, if that were to come about, it would greatly improve response time. A station in that location, he said, would significantly reduce insurance rates to homeowners throughout the area. Jay Jeppesen, the previous owner of one of the parcels, stated he was a lifetime resident of Boundary County, and that when he grew up, he knew there was a job waiting, in a mill or in the woods. He stated that this is not the case now, that the county is now like a little Appalachia, there are only either no jobs or small minimum wage jobs, forcing kids to leave to find work. He stated that right now, building and construction offers to provide livable wage. He stated that throughout their acquaintance, the applicant had been upfront and honest, and stated that the applicant obtained the property owner’s approval of his proposal before he made the application. He said he felt this was a good plan, providing common ground and protecting a mile of trout stream that will still be there for everyone. He said the proposal will benefit wildlife, that it includes utilities and a good paved road, he stated that those living on that end of the county would be proud of the development. He said that those opposed to the development, many of whom live in existing subdivisions, did not think of his serenity when they moved in. Bob Martin, president of the South Boundary Fire Protection District, said he was impressed by Mr. Williams, and said this is the kind of development the county needed, the type of development that would set the standard. He said the proposal would benefit the south end of the county and not raise taxes, and the number of people coming in would offset. He stated that the proposal would benefit everyone in the South Boundary Fire Protection District, that they were in desperate need of a station in that area. He stated that a new station would qualify those in the area for a new fire insurance rating, and that would save homeowners in insurance rates. He stated that this is responsible development which would set a positive precedent. Ken Hoagland, First American Title, stated that this proposal exceeds standards the commission is likely to set in the future. Mary Peterson, County Road 4, stated that the zoning in the area is currently ag/forestry, but that there are many existing parcels below that minimum and many old subdivisions. She stated that the area had long been recognized as conducive for residential use, and the only reason it wasn’t zoned ag/suburban is because at the time the zone map was being considered, there were still questions whether Cabinet Mountain Water would be able to serve the area. She said that now the infrastructure is there. She said there were very few farms in the area except for tree farms. She said there were over 150 parcels in the immediate area below minimum parcel size, and that this was the best subdivision application she’d seen, one that would set the bar for large-scale subdivisions. She said the location offered easy access both to Bonners Ferry and Sandpoint, and that it would benefit both communities. Speaking uncommitted, Dave Macknovich said this is the kind of project he spoke of earlier. He said he was concerned by the emergency ordinance, but that it had been enacted because so many sub-size lots had been developed. He said this type application is what we need to see, that roads can be built without burdening the taxpayer. Ed Katz, Paradise Valley, said he was concerned that a water line would need to be placed in a flood plain; the applicant stated that there would be none. Katz asked when the fire station would be built if the proposal was proposed, the applicant stated it would be included in phase I for early development. Williams stated that he has been a developer for 30 years, and he stated that a building site would be given to the fire protection district no matter the outcome. He said that with passage of the proposal, he will build the station to district standards, that it was a matter of economics. He said again that if approved, the station would be built during the first phase. Lou Maring asked for clarification of a graph presented during the opening statement. Verne Burlingame said that taxes will increase regardless of the number of people and spoke of the reasons for the parcel size difference between Highland Flats and Paradise Valley. Speaking in opposition, Tim Patton presented a second petition and read it into the record. He stated that the proposal did not use good greenspace design, that there was not sufficient water pressure and that the proposal was a violation of the comprehensive plan and constituted spot zoning. Discussion was held on water pressure and where the speaker lived. Chris Curry, County Road 4, said he was sick over the idea of a subdivision coming in, and that the roads were too good, encouraging people to speed. He said he was afraid for his kids’ lives as it is, and said the development would increase the number of speeders as well as litter. There being no further public testimony, Hollingsworth called for a closing statement. Klatt stated that because of the terrain, people would see only three homes from County Road 4, the rest, he said, would be hidden. He stated that a booster pump was planned to increase pressure to meet fire flow requirements, and that the water would be brought in as a loop system, which would not diminish flow to residents already served by Cabinet Mountain Water. He stated the application was not a violation of the comprehensive plan or the zoning ordinance, that it was a distinct provision which allowed consideration of a designed development. He stated this is a classic example, which did not ask for spot zoning, but had been worked out to make the neighborhood better instead of worse. Barcklay asked staff to explain what the ordinance allowed for consideration as a designed development, staff stated that it was considered a special use which allowed a higher degree of use, and that the commission had to decide whether the proposal made was better for the community than what was permitted in that zone district, and if so, that the commission could approve the proposal, and set terms and conditions to offset any potential adverse impacts. There being no further public testimony, Hollingsworth closed the hearing and called for discussion. Reoch said this was a beautiful proposal with only one hitch, parcel size. He said that if there was ever a good road in the county, it was County Road 4, and stated it would be hard to say no as this is the type of development the planning and zoning commission has been wanting to see. Barcklay said the emergency ordinance had been enacted to prevent the creation of lots below the minimum parcel size. Mellinger said the proposal was a work of art, that it built up to a standard people want, improves the infrastructure and fire protection. He asked Williams about opening County Road 11, Williams stated that there had been discussion about placing a locked gate to be used only for emergency access as many residents along the road indicated they didn’t want to see it opened for general use. Kellogg said he is not in favor of large scale development, and in this case, he was concerned about phases four, five and six. He said he was curious who would hold the developer accountable for the promised improvements, staff stated that the commission could recommend a performance bond pursuant to Chapter 4. Barcklay asked Patton how many people had signed the petition he’d presented, Patton said there 33; Barcklay said he counted a total of 46, and said he’d like to table the hearing for a public hearing to allow those who signed the petition to participate. Schnuerle stated that this was a public hearing and that they could have attended. Davis stated that he felt the proposal was a good idea, and stated that it was good to see someone come before the commission offering what they’ve been asking for. Kellogg stated that he found it telling that 46 people signed the petition, but no one was here. He stated that the proposal as presented gave them the opportunity to see it in its entirety, including Phase II and III. There being no further discussion, Schnuerle made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that Phase I of application SUB 05-11 be approved as presented. Reoch seconded. Six members voted “aye,” one abstained, and the motion carried.

11.  A five minute recess was called and the meeting reconvened. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on AM 05-12 by the planning and zoning commission and, with only a single member of the public remaining in attendance, waived an opening statement and staff report and opened the hearing to public testimony. Ken Hoagland, First American Title, said he was uncommitted, but stated that development had an orderly protocal, and that family gifts should not be exempt from good stewardship practices. There being no further public comment, Hollingsworth closed the hearing and called for discussion. There being none, Schnuerle made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application AM 0512 by the Planning and Zoning Commission be approved as presented. After discussion, he amended the motion to include the provision that the gift deed exemption provisions include the condition that each parcel so created have adequate access. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

12.  Staff requested discussion on the upcoming comprehensive plan review and recommended a planning and zoning workshop be held November 3 to discuss the process and assign duties. After discussion, the commission agreed that it would be better to hold such workshop during a regular meeting of the planning and zoning commission, and staff was directed to add the workshop to the agenda of the November 17 meeting.

13.  Under old/unscheduled business, Kellogg asked about the possibility of limiting the number of applications to be considered each month. After discussion, no action was taken. Schnuerle presented an email letter written by Chairman Jim Paulus to two members of the county commission the day after Jeff Mellinger’s appointment, and after having it read, stated that he did not feel such letter was an action appropriate of any member, let alone the chairman, and he said he felt the commission should forward to county commissioners a recommendation that Paulus be terminated for cause. After discussion, it was agreed that the letter was wrong, but that the matter could be handled during the next election of a chair in January.

14.  There being no further business before the commission, Davis made motion to adjourn. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 10:35 p.m. Following the meeting, Reoch advised staff that while he would make every effort to be at the November meeting, he was embarking on a trip to India and returning the 17^th, so he might not be able to make the meeting.