Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

MINUTES

June 15, 2006

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

1. Hollingsworth called the meeting to order and called for reading of the May minutes. McMahon made motion to waive reading and adopt the minutes as presented, Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Hollingsworth read the public hearing procedure.
3. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on AM0601, staff report was given. Hollingsworth called for comment from those in favor of the application, there was none. He called for comment from those neither in favor of nor opposed; there was none. He called for comment from those opposed. Julie Schram, RR1, Box 1640, Bonners Ferry, stated she lives adjacent to the old school property and was concerned about the hillside and increased density, citing concern regarding sewer or septic, possibility of mudslide, the loss of privacy and the safety of children. She stated she would prefer the forty acres remain zoned for 10-acres, but said she could live with five. Cassandra Phillips, County Road 21A, stated that when she purchased her property, she was told the school property was zoned agriculture/forestry, and the minimum acreage was what attracted her. She said she was concerned over increased density, too-rapid growth, lack of adequate roads, soil stability, and sewage. She stated that the soils there were heavy clay and did not drain well, which could affect groundwater. Kevin Northrupp, who said he was a neighbor, concurred with what had been said, and stated he moved there for the rural atmosphere. He stated he could live with five acre minimums, but opposed anything smaller. Kale Chouinnard stated traffic was already too heavy and said the five acre minimum should be retained. Stacy Chouinnard stated that roads needed to be upgraded before growth could occur. Maris Northrupp said she concurred with all said thus far. Cindy Vidmar concurred and stated five acre zoning was okay. Mike Kelley, County Road 21A, said that when he moved here in 1970, the zoning was 20 acres. He stated that due to septic, growth had to be controlled. He stated that several parcels had been created that can’t be built on because of lack of adequate drainage for septic. He stated five acres might be okay, but said he preferred 10. Jim Graham, County Road 21C, said transportation on 21A and 21B was not suitable for increased density and accessibility by emergency vehicles. He stated that until the comprehensive plan has been adopted and the infrastructure provided for, the zones shouldn’t change. There being no further comment, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Barcklay stated he was opposed to the inclusion of Area C in the area of impact as it was in a flood zone and prime agriculture land. Staff explained that the area of impact agreement had already been entered into and the question now regarded how those lands should be zoned. Reoch said he felt Area A should be one lot per 10 acres, and that at the very minimum, five. Hollingsworth said he felt it would be best to go with the city’s recommendation. There being no further discussion, he called for a motion. Reoch moved to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that the city’s proposal regarding AM0601 be accepted, and heavily recommended that Area A remain agriculture/suburban. Kellogg seconded and the motion carried, with five members voting “aye,” one “nay” and one abstention.
4. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on VAR 0603. Brad Booth explained that he built a shop nine years ago in accordance with property lines that had been agreed to at that time, and that a former fence had been relocated following a recent survey. Staff report was given. Hollingsworth opened the hearing to public comment in favor; there was none. He called for comment from those uncommitted, there was none. He called for comment opposed; there was none. Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony. Barcklay asked the applicant if he could complete removal of the portion of the structure encroaching on neighboring property by June 22, Booth said he could not, saying mid-July was a more reasonable time frame. Rhoda Burke, complainant, said she has waited for two years for something to be done, and that she would not wait until July 15. Discussion was held with members, the applicant and complainant, and both the applicant and complainant agree July 1 was a suitable deadline to complete removal of the encroachment. There being no further discussion, Reoch made motion to approve VAR0603 with the stipulation that the building be moved back by July 1 or the variance would be null. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
5. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application CUP0602. Pastor Stan Christopherson stated he is seeking to remove lighting restrictions placed on the original conditional use permit (CUP0102) allowing establishment of the church. He stated that he believed the condition did not reflect the intent cited in the initial discussion, saying that lighting limitations had only been meant for the church proper, and not for signage overlooking the highway. He stated that he and the church council have tried to mitigate concerns over the signage lighting, but that none of their efforts have satisfied the complainant. He stated that additional security lighting was needed at the church for parking and for public safety. Reoch said he recalled that the issue had been a significant one at the initial hearing; Christopherson said he was just seeking clarification as to what would be allowable. Staff report was presented. Hollingsworth opened the hearing to testimony from those in favor of the application. Will Hedrick, an area business owner and member of the church, stated that use along Highway 2 was predominantly commercial and residential, and he said many homes in the area have more lights than the church. He asked why the church sign couldn’t be lighted when they’re on a timer that shuts them off at 10 p.m. He stated that an adjacent farm is lit by mercury vapor lights that are much brighter than the church, with no complaint. He said the church and businesses need lighting, both for safety and for advertising. He stated that the signage lighting was not only on a timer, but on a photo sensor as well. McMahon asked how far away from the sign the complainant lived, Hedrick said about 300 yards across Meadow Creek Road. Hollingsworth called for testimony from those uncommitted. Gerald Higgs said the county needed an illumination ordinance to address just this issue. Hollingsworth called for comment opposed. John O’Connor, complainant, read prepared notes (included in the file), and added that the property in question is not commercially zoned, and while these aren’t the only lights, they are the brightest lights visible from his home. He stated that the church has tried to mitigate the adverse impact but their efforts have not been effective. He said that security is an issue, but not more so now than when the church was established. He said he has no objection to better lighting for safety around the building and for parking, stating that shoe-box type lighting could be used, but said the lights from the signs shine directly into his house. He said he was willing to compromise, but said he was opposed to a sweeping permit that would place no restrictions. Schnuerle asked what could be done to address the sign lighting; discussion was held of a tree buffer or baffles, and O’Connor said either one could work. He stated that a problem is that it’s a V-shaped sign, and not only did the direct lighting affect him, but also the reflected glow from the sign itself. There being no further comment, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Reoch said it would be beneficial to see an actual plan of the lighting proposed, and that he was not comfortable removing the restriction entirely. Hollingsworth stated the application could be tabled pending receipt of additional information. Schnuerle agreed with Reoch, that specifics were needed to render an informed decision. Barcklay made motion to table the application until such time the church comes up with a plan. Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
6. Hollingsworth opened review of the Boundary County Comprehensive Plan and consultant Marty Taylor went through each chapter through Economic Development, offering tips and ideas. It was agreed that an additional meeting was needed to complete the review, and it was agreed that a special meeting of the planning and zoning commission would be held at 5:30 p.m. Thursday, June 29, in the courtroom with the sole agenda item being review of the comprehensive plan.
7. There being no further business, Schnuerle made motion to adjourn. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m.