MINUTES

Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

January 19, 2006

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

1. Paulus opened the meeting and called for reading of the December minutes. Kellogg made motion to waive reading and accept the minutes as presented; Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Paulus called for election of this year’s chair and co-chair. Reoch nominated Jim Paulus as chair; Hollingsworth seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Kellogg nominated Hollingsworth as co-chair; Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Discussion was held on the status of the Taft subdivision, tabled until further notice by the applicant pending sale of the property and the possibility of annexation into the city of Bonners Ferry.
4. Paulus opened public hearing on application SUP 0510 by Scot Lindsay and read the procedure. No member cited conflict of interest. Lindsay gave an opening statement, saying his business provided local jobs and was expected to grow. He stated that he currently had 11 full-time employees. Staff report was given. Paulus opened the hearing for public testimony. Don Jordan spoke in favor of the application, saying Lindsay had a great business and the community needed more like it. Mark Sheldon, Rathdrum, who owns property to the east of the subject parcel, said he has no problem with the operation as it currently exists, but did not favor its expansion. Jacob Epstein, Copeland, spoke in opposition, saying that the enterprise started as a home-based business and expanded, and that with the expansion and success it should be relocated to an area with commercial zoning. He said the use is not compatible with the intent of the zone district and that approval would set a bad precedent and undermine the integrity of the zone. Lindsay waived closing statement and Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Kellogg commended Lindsay for his success, but said he struggled with the application, stating that the footprint depicted commercial use and was outside the scope of the agriculture/suburban zone district. He said that if the business was a successful as it appeared, it should be moved to a commercial area. Hollingsworth said that application was too vague to allow rendering an informed decision, and that stipulations were needed. Paulus concurred that the application was too ambiguous. Reoch discussed the duration of the permit, which goes with the property, and said the application was too wide open, so subject to potential abuse. Hollingsworth stated that the application asked for the extreme, with no stipulation as to hours or days of operation, types of business or product or noise levels. He said that these needed to be stipulated to protect the community, and that if the product line changed from manufacture of plastic goods, the applicant needed to return to planning and zoning. Kellogg said that if the planning and zoning commission recommended approval and established stipulations, the applicant could be put at risk should an opportunity of great economic value arise, and said it made more sense to relocate to a commercial area where he wouldn’t have to go through a process to gain approval. He stated that the application was for commercial/industrial use in the ag/suburban zone district, and that he didn’t want to lose sight of that. Barcklay said he had visited Lindsay’s business and was impressed, and said that Lindsay has invested considerably in the structure. He said he felt the commission would recommend approval if the applicant agreed to stay with his current plastic product line. Hollingsworth suggested a recommendation of approval based on staying with the current product line, allowing an extra shift and establishing days and hours of operation. Davis recommended tabling the application pending receipt of additional information, thus allowing the applicant to define the proposed use. After discussion, Davis made motion to table the application pending receipt of additional information, to include a more detailed description of the proposed use, Kellogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
5. Discussion was held on the comprehensive plan review process and on the potential need to amend the zoning ordinance prior to its completion. No action was proposed.
6. There being no further business before the commission, Reoch made motion to adjourn. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:20 p.m.