Boundary County Planning

Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission

MINUTES

May 18, 2006

Members present: Tom Hollingsworth, Doug Reoch, Toby Schnuerle, Jake Negley, Henry McMahon, John Kellogg, Rod Barcklay. Members absent: Delton Amoth, Barry Davis. Staff present: Mike Weland

Hollingsworth opened the meeting and called for a reading of the April minutes. Reoch made motion to waive reading and adopt as presented, Schnuerle seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Hollingsworth read the public hearing procedure.
Hollingsworth opened public hearing on AM 0513 by Gene Envik.

Envik stated the property was 1/10^th of a mile from the Three Mile signal, and the property was ideal for home sites. Negley asked where the parcel stopped; Envik stated it ran from 1/10^th mile west of the turn signal to the corner.
Hollingsworth called for a staff report and Weland read into the record a letter received from Louis Maring. Hollingsworth explained that the application was for a zone map amendment and called for public testimony in favor.
Travis Blackmore stated that he owned property to the north of the parcel proposed and stated he was in favor as a rezone would be a positive for the community. Barcklay asked if he was considering making a similar application, Blackwell said potentially, but not now. Hollingsworth called for testimony from those uncommitted, there were none.
He called for testimony from those opposed. Jake Sanders, County Road 30C, stated he was concerned about the conflict between farms and residential use, and stated he was concerned about residential use forcing out agriculture. He stated approval would alter the rural character of that area.
There being no further public testimony, Hollingsworth called for rebuttal. Envik said he hoped the commission would vote yes. Reoch asked if the applicant had talked with road and bridge. The answer was not noted.
There being no further testimony, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Barcklay said he was not opposed, but was concerned with the availability of septic. Discussion was held of potential expansion of the city sewer system and staff said it was highly unlikely as a result of area of impact negotiations. Each component of the comprehensive plan was considered, and it was agreed that the proposal met its provisions. Reoch stated that the county road was the biggest issue, and stated that there was a fire department in the near vicinity, and that the location was close to the city and existing high-density zones. Negley stated he lived on the road, and while he didn’t necessarily like higher density, he stated the proposal made sense and fit rural residential zoning. Hollingsworth called for a motion.
McMahon made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation of approval. Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application SUP0602 by Jennifer and Kevin McLeish. Kevin McLeish stated he lived on County 21 and owned 80 acres he wanted to use for a gravel pit. He said that the availability for rock for road construction and other uses in the south part of the county was limited. He stated the proposed pit provided good quality rock suitable for road construction, and that such use made the best economic use of the property. He stated an agreement had been arranged for an easement across Forest Capitol land adjoining the parcel, which would route traffic away from existing residences. He state that there would be little public use along that road until it met County Road 4A.

Hollingsworth asked if any member had a conflict of interest; there was none. Barcklay asked what type rock would be quarried; McLeish stated there was granite, both lose and solid, bearing good density that met gradation standards for road use. Kellogg asked how the property has been used; McLeish stated that it had been heavily logged and mostly cleared of timber. Schnuerle asked the distance of the nearest neighbor to the proposed pit, McLeish said about ¼ mile. Discussion was held on the road. McMahon asked how many people lived along the existing road to the proposed pit; McLeish said two. Dennis McLeish, a county resident since 1953 and Kevin’s father, showed a map of the proposed pit that was put in as a logging road by the Pack River Company, and said it was not suitable for access. He stated that they had been working with Forest Capitol on building a suitable access road for both logging trucks and gravel trucks. He stated that the terrain on the proposed route was less steep. He stated that road improvements would be made. He stated that the pit location was on the northern part of the property, largely in a granite face. Kellogg asked about any other pits in the area, McLeish stated there were none. Discussion was held regarding blasting, McLeish said drilling and blasting would be necessary.
Hollingsworth called for a staff report. Weland stated that if the decision was to approve, such approval should be made conditional on approval of an approved application and reclamation plan through the Idaho Department of Lands.
Hollingsworth called for testimony in favor of the application, there was none.
Hollingsworth called for testimony from those uncommitted; Brian Johnson, Idaho Fish and Game, stated his concerns were the proximity of bald eagle and heron nesting sites in the vicinity of the proposed pit. He stated concerns over the height of the rock face, stating faces in excess of 15-feet posted hazards to big game. He stated that a storm water runoff plan and monitoring program should be imposed. Schnuerle asked what recommended such use should be from nesting sites, Johnson stated he was not qualified to say, but that he had been requested to note the concern. Hollingsworth asked if there were ways to mitigate concerns including blasting and sedimentation, again, Johnson stated he was not qualified to speak to those issues. He did state that blasting should be prohibited during nesting.
Hollingsworth called for testimony from those opposed. Scott Soults, adjoining property owner to the east, said he was concerned about additional traffic impacting a wildlife management agency that is home to grizzly bear, elk and deer; concerns over blasting impacting the movement of big game. He stated that the proposed site was at the top of White Mountain and was a solid granite face, and he expressed concern that any such activity would affect the groundwater. He stated most families in that area were served by shallow spring identified by the USGS as a seasonal spring; he stated his family obtained both water and power from the spring. He said a gravel pit would divert the spring with adverse affect down the entire slope. Without the spring, he said, his property would not be livable. He stated the road is not sufficient for heavy traffic. McMahon asked what the elevations were; Soults stated that his home was at about 2,500 feet, the proposed pit was above at about 2,800 to 2,900 feet. Tony Brown, who lives at the bottom of the road, stated that significant blasting would be required to upgrade the access road sufficiently to allow heavy trucks, and stated that the slopes traversed are highly erosive. He stated he was concerned about the increase in noise and dust as well as the increased traffic. He said he was concerned about impact to wildlife. Mike Brown, who lives about one mile from the site, stated that the shape of the Purcell Trench channels noise down, and stated that crushing, generators, motors and blasting would create considerable noise that, if allowed, should be subject to strict limitations. He stated that 60-days crushing per year was excessive, and that the use could generate as many as 40 to 50 truck trips per day, and if allowed, traffic restrictions should be imposed. He stated that there were herons nesting within ½ mile of the site which had just reestablished them in the area. He stated no blasting be allowed during nesting season. He stated the site was within view from McArthur and US 95, and screening should be required to mitigate degradation to sight lines. He stated there were significant endangered species act concerns. He stated that planned realignment of access roads as depicted would encroach into existing conservation easements established by deed. Reoch asked the nesting season of the herons, Brown said March through the end of June. Leon Brown, a lifelong resident of County Road 4A, said he lives at the bottom of the access road and was concerned about the safety of his children due to increased traffic, deterioration of roads, and the impact to wildlife. Connie Smith concurred with the quality of life and traffic impact issues. Dr. Wayne Stringfellow, County Road 4A, said he knows where eagles nest in proximity to the proposed pit and said he moved to the area for the quality of life afforded. Steve Lowe, White Mountain Road, said he moved to the area to enjoy the peace and tranquility. He stated he lives 1 ¼ mile from the proposed site, and that he was also concerned over road safety issues. Attorney Todd Reed stated he represented three parties; Richard Francis, the Millican’s and the Hancocks, and stated concern over code, location and access. He questioned whether the site plan was sufficient, and asked if blasting would be required immediately and would blasting be required to establish the road. He questioned whether there was sufficient land area, and cited concerns over threats to availability of water. He stated allowing such use would impose substantial adverse impact. He said this was a pristine and protected area which would be degraded by increased noise, traffic and dust. He cited concerns over encroachment on a deeded conservation easement. He stated this was a prime residential location, and questioned whether sufficient services would be available. He stated fire was not addressed, and said limited access was a problem. He stated it was clear that the majority of the major testimony was opposed, and stated their concerns were well placed. Stephanie Brown concurred with all prior testimony and added her concerns over reduced property values. Jackie Brown stated the roads could not accommodate such traffic, and would require pavement and realignment to make them safe. Tony Brown cited concerns over erosion and runoff and the impacts to taxpayers, and stated that the property was popular for hiking. Al Butcher, who lives at the intersection of 4 and 4A, said he was concerned about traffic, and stated a blind corner was a particular safety issue. Lisa Soults stated the proposed pit was in a viewshed, and showed photos of grizzly bear taken on the Hancock property about a mile away.
There being no further comment, Hollingsworth called for rebuttal. Jennifer McLeish stated that the granite face was over 200-feet in height and had never been fenced, and has to her knowledge caused no harm to wildlife. She stated that a properly built road would not cause harm or damage, and that the road would be built properly. She stated the road would not be a public access, but solely for logging and mineral extraction. She stated that at McArthur there were two railroad tracks and US 95, which impose greater adverse impact than a quarry. She stated that last winter a home adjacent to the proposed pit burned down because of lack of access. She stated that due to the topography, the pit site would not be seen from US 95. She stated that the property in question was privately owned and not open to public access. She stated that the blasting would not exceed two to three days per year, and was not expected to impact the watershed as the site was over 1,000 feet from any existing water. She stated this operation would have less impact than logging, and noise would be mitigated by existing timber. She stated that regardless of the outcome of the application, Forest Capitol would log and would improve the road. She stated the economic benefit of mineral extraction. Kevin McLeish stated he felt much of the argument against the proposed pit was the result of a misplaced sign.
There being no further testimony, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion among members. Discussion was held regarding the site plan, and it was agreed that for the proposed use, it provided sufficient detail. Reoch stated he was concerned about the conservation easement. Hollingsworth stated he was concerned over the impact to neighbors and to wildlife in a recognized conservation area. McMahon said US 95 would impact wildlife; discussion was held over the impact of a gravel pit versus residential development or logging. Reoch asked the difference between blasting one or two days a year as opposed to normal thunderstorms. Kellogg stated that when blasting was conducted for the US 95 realignment, the elk didn’t move too far away, so he didn’t think there was that critical an impact. Schnuerle said the crushing operation would have more impact on wildlife than blasting.
Barcklay made motion that, due to the substantial adverse impact, the opposition expressed on issues concerning traffic safety, wildlife, and water that a recommendation of disapproval of SUP 0602 be forwarded to county commissioners. Negley seconded and discussion was called. Reoch stated that he didn’t feel there were sufficient answers upon which to base a recommendation, and Scnhuerle agreed. Discussion was held of withdrawing the motion and making motion to table the application pending receipt of additional information; Barcklay refused to withdraw the motion and requested a vote to the motion on the table. Three members voted “aye,” no member voted “nay,” and three members abstained. The motion carried.

Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application SUP 0604 and no member cited conflict of interest.

Brian and Jodie Redding, Naples, stated that they own an additional ten acres adjoining the proposed gravel pit and their father-in-law owns a forty acre parcel adjoining to the east. Jodie stated the proposed quarry will not be visible from the county road, and that there will be no blasting in the operation of the quarry. She said there will be crushing and screening of existing gravel, with crushing to be done during three months of the year. No structures are proposed to accommodate the use. She stated road and bridge had been informed of the proposal and that the additional traffic will not pose a significant impact on County Road 3. She stated there will be no operations during spring breakup. She stated Forest Capitol is planning a logging operation near the proposed pit. The road from County Road 3 to the pit is a private road. She stated she had spoken with neighbors and none voiced objection. The nearest affected neighbor, she said, was approximately one-half mile away. Brian stated that he has worked a crusher for about 13 years, and stated that the noise generated is less than trains that run through the area. He stated that preliminary approval of a reclamation plan had been granted by the Idaho Department of Lands. He stated the pit would be designed to minimize noise, and anticipated the life of the pit at about ten years, and that water would be used on the access road to reduce dust. Barcklay asked about the character of the rock to be quarried; Brian stated it was glacial and good for road construction. Schnuerle asked what months crushing would take place and Brian said it would be during the summer.
There was no staff report.
Hollingsworth opened the hearing to public testimony from those in favor. Leon Brown, County Road 4A, said his driveway was built of rock from the Redding property and he stated it was good quality which would not take a lot of crushing. He said the pit location and access was good.
Hollingsworth called for testimony from those uncommitted; there was none. He called for testimony from those opposed. Wes Crane, Shiloh Road, stated he lived about ½ mile west of the access road serving the proposed pit. He stated that he was concerned about the environmental impact and run off, and the deterioration to the county road. He stated that the access onto the county road would have to be widened to accommodate truck traffic, and stated that dust and noise would be a problem. He stated that if the pit were approved, he would prefer hauling be done to the north as there were fewer homes that would be affected. Irene Crane, Shiloh Road, stated she is anti-industry and cited her concern over noise. Barcklay pointed out that gravel is a needed resource, and asked if anything could be done to mitigate her concerns; Irene said that the hours should be reduced during the best time to enjoy the outdoors.
There being no further comment, Hollingsworth called for rebuttal. Brian stated that the crusher would be 200-feet from his own residence, and he stated that the noise is not as loud as people think. He said the IDL would monitor the operation for excessive dust. Hollingsworth asked if the applicants would be willing to work limited hours; the applicant said he would.
There being no further comment, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and discussion was held on hours and months of operation. Schnuerle made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application SUP 0604 be approved with the conditions that crushing take place only between the months of September and April, not to exceed 90 days per year, that hours of operation be between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. daily, that there be no blasting, and that the applicant take steps to mitigate dust on the private access. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application SUP0605, no member cited conflict of interest. Holly Beaudet, 6231 Alder Street, stated she felt her application qualified as a conditional use as her proposal was to create a public park. She stated she was in the process of purchasing the old Meeker Machine shop in downtown Bonners Ferry to provide parking, from where horse buggy and shuttle bus service would be provided to transport people to the site. She stated tepees would be placed around the grounds as primitive camping sites, an espresso shop and hot dog stand would be operated to provide for the guests. She stated that a sewage digester would be used for disposal of waste. Barcklay asked about parking, Beaudet stated no more than 10 vehicles could park on site at a time. Negley asked about emergency access, citing the narrowness of Alder Street. Kellogg stated that some of the activities included in the proposal were regulated by other agencies, including Idaho Fish and Game. Barcklay cited concern over the danger of wildfire as a result of campfires; Beaudet stated campfires would be limited to established fire pits.

Hollingsworth called for staff report. Weland stated that Panhandle Health had reviewed the application and stated that any food or beverage operations would require their approval.
Hollingsworth called for public comment from those in favor of the application, there was none. He called for comment from those not committed, there was none. He called for comment from those opposed.
Kevin Forsythe, Alder Street, said he was concerned about traffic, pointing out that a bus stop serving 30 children was located nearby. He said he was concerned about odor, impact to wildlife and the lack of adequate land area to accommodate all the uses proposed. Gene Neumeyer stated that such an enterprise would adversely impact everyone in east Bonners Ferry, which is a dense residential zone. He stated access to the property was narrow, there was no available off-street parking, the water supply was insufficient for the proposed use. Alan Fessler, an adjoining property owner on Hemlock Street, stated that the topography was unsuited for the proposed use and that the parcel on which the use was proposed was surrounded by private property. He said he was concerned of trespassing resulting from offering hiking and horseback riding. A road mentioned in the use, he said, had been abandoned and was no longer in the public domain, and any use would constitute trespass. Melody Staples, an adjacent homeowner, stated the area was inappropriate for the proposed use. Jennifer Fessler, Hemlock Street, said the access road to the subject property was a dead end road with limited access. She cited concerns over sanitary facilities necessary for such a use, and said the proposed use would increase existing friction between the applicant and neighbors. Laura Snider, Alder Street, cited concern over sewage, campfires and resulting smoke, and cited concern over the danger of wildfire, saying fire would go straight up a steep slope and over the hill into a populated area. She stated that 200 people on the property would lead to trespassing, that available water was insufficient to accommodate that many people. George Burnett, an adjoining property owner, said his property was in the line of any fire that might spread from the property, and he stated the use posed a danger to his family and his neighbors. Keith Snider, Alder Street, said he had little to add, but that he agreed with all that had been said. He reiterated that the road mentioned in the application for use as hiking and riding trail had been deeded to property owners and was no longer accessible for public use.
There being no further testimony, Hollingsworth called for rebuttal. Beaudet stated that all the comments she’d heard were hypocritical and that she now understood why she didn’t get along with her neighbors. She said the proposal meets the standards of the zoning and subdivision ordinance. Schnuerle stated that some of the ideas she expressed were appropriate, such as a u-pick garden, but said he counted 52 separate uses. Beaudet said the proposal would benefit Bonners Ferry by providing transients a place to stay. Barcklay asked for clarification on land ownership, and she stated the property was owned by Charles Hoops.
There being no further testimony, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Schnuerle said he liked the idea of a garden, but couldn’t see the other uses proposed. Hollingsworth stated the proposal might fit well on 50 acres out of town, but not on five acres in town. He stated there wasn’t enough room for 1/3 of the proposal. Kellogg said the proposal created multiple problems, including fire, sewage and access, that could not be mitigated. Hollingsworth agreed that this constituted substantial adverse affect, adding that it also imposed noise, dust, excessive traffic, inadequate parking availability and inadequate public services to accommodate the use, including sewer and water. Barcklay made motion, based on all said and that the parcel was too small to accommodate the use proposed, to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application SUP0605 be denied. Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application AM0601. Prior to accepting public comment, staff reported that the City of Bonners Ferry had requested the application be tabled to allow review and recommendation. Members concurred with the recommendation and the application was tabled until the next regular meeting.
There being no further business, Kellogg made motion to adjourn, Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m.