Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
MINUTES
July 20, 2006
Members present: Toby Schnuerle, Doug Reoch, Tom
Hollingsworth, Jake Negley, Henry McMahon, Barry Davis, Rod Barcklay, John
Kellogg. Member absent: Delton Amoth. Staff present: Mike Weland, Marty Taylor.
- Hollingsworth opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and
called for reading of the June minutes. Reoch made motion to waive reading
and approve the minutes as presented, Schnuerle seconded and the motion
carried unanimously.
- Hollingsworth read the public hearing procedure.
Weland announced that at the request of the applicant, application AM0602
would be tabled until the August meeting.
- Hardship Exemption:
- Hollingsworth opened public hearing on a hardship
exemption by Don Pemp.
- The applicant stated that he purchased the
property a few years ago with the primary intent to garden it, and
stated that the parcel was 100-feet wide by 500-feet long with water on
the property provided by Cabinet Mountain Water. He stated that he sold
the produce he grew to derive income to supplement Social Security. He
stated that he has macular degeneration, and his eyesight deteriorated
to the point he could no longer drive or read a newspaper. He said he
resides in Bonners Ferry, and because of his eyesight, he can no longer
drive. He stated he now wants to sell the property as he can no longer
use it. Schnuerle asked him if he knew when he purchased the property if
he knew he’d purchased a non-conforming lot, the applicant stated that
until recently, he didn’t know what a non-conforming lot was. He stated
that there had been a cabin on the property when he purchased, but that
it was too old to refurbish and said he had planned to tear it down, but
that he instead allowed it to be moved to another property.
- No staff report was given.
- Hollingsworth called for testimony from those in
favor of the application, there was none, nor any testimony uncommitted.
- Pat Yeager, and adjoining property owner, spoke in
opposition to the proposal, stating he’d purchased his property in 1999,
originally with the one acre in question included, but prior to
conclusion of the sale, the acre had been split out. He said he was
informed in 2004 by the owners, Kevin and Jennifer McLeish, that the
property was sold, he stated that had he known it was for sale, he’d
have attempted to purchase it. On May 12 this year, he stated two “For
Sale” signs appeared and he immediately called the Realtor, and was told
the parcel was being offered as buildable, and that the price asked was
too high. He stated that he made an offer for a non-buildable acre, but
was rejected. He stated that as water was brought to the property prior
to its partition, a portion of his water line lies in the one acre
parcel, and he said he suspected his septic drain field encroaches onto
that parcel as well. He stated that he made a fair offer on the property
as being non-buildable, and said the offer still stands. Schnuerle asked
for clarification on the water, and noted that if the application were
approved, a stipulation should be made to accommodate the expense of
relocating the line or to establish an easement. Yeager said he was
interested in the parcel to square up his lot. Schnuerle asked if Yeager
had proof of fair market value and Yeager presented an original copy of
an MLS listing.
- There being no further public comment,
Hollingsworth called for a closing statement from the applicant. Pemp
stated that the first time he met Yeager, Yeager was interested in who’d
purchased next door, and expressed concern that he’d feared someone
would move in an old mobile home and 18 kids. He stated he’s had offers
of $20,000 for the parcel as non-buildable compared to $60,000 were it a
buildable lot. He stated that he has no source of additional income, and
wanted to maximize his profit. Barcklay asked if the property was listed
at $55,000, Pemp stated it was. Negley asked what Pemp had initially
paid for the property and Pemp stated $17,500. McMahon asked if he would
still want to sell the property if not for his failing eyesight, Pemp
stated he would not. He stated that he attempted to start his garden
again this spring, but that his eyesight made maintaining it impossible.
He stated that the property had initially been deemed buildable by the
zoning administrator, and when it was discovered it hadn’t, the
applicant went to county commissioners and had been approved. Staff
explained the initial findings and stated that this was only the second
hardship hearing that had been processed since the adoption of the
provision, and the first time an application had proceeded through its
entirety. He stated that as a result of the initial hardship hearing, it
was determined that because of the personal nature of information
required at a hardship hearing, it had been determined that all future
hearings would be heard by county commissioners in closed session, which
was how the application had initially been processed. However, on review
by counsel, the ordinance provisions had never been amended to reflect
the change, and that the existing ordinance provisions had to be
followed, which entailed public hearings and a recommendation from
Planning and Zoning. Hollingsworth stated that in his opinion, this was
not a question of hardship, but a question of zoning. He stated that the
lot is not buildable. Schnuerle said that there was a 1 ¼ acre lot out
there that had once had a house on it, and that he knew the area and
felt it was suitable for homes. Pemp stated that while the parcel was
unbuildable, he could still park campers on it or raise pigs.
- There being no further public comment,
Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for
discussion among members. Barcklay stated that he didn’t see this as a
hardship case, stating that the applicant didn’t want to live on the
land in question. He stated that the applicant could sell the property
as non-buildable. Reoch stated that based on material submitted in the
record, the original owners had informed the applicant at the time of
purchase the lot was not buildable. Davis stated that the warranty deed
signed by Pemp clearly states that the deed was subject to restrictions
and zoning regulations. Hollingsworth stated that he felt it was
important to look at the legality, and not the hardship. Davis asked if
the commission could table the application for review by county civil
counsel, staff stated it could. Kellogg stated that rather than granting
an exception, the commission should maintain the zoning and allow the
applicant to sell the parcel as unbuildable.
- Schnuerle made motion to forward to commissioners
a recommendation of approval with the condition that the applicant
relocate the water and utilities or establish permanent easements for
utilities. The motion died for lack of second.
- Barcklay made motion to forward to commissioners a
recommendation of disapproval, Negley seconded. Davis stated that he
felt that the commission was acting with insufficient knowledge as to
what constituted a hardship, and stated that an answer was needed before
a decision could be made. Barcklay withdrew his motion.
- Davis made motion to table the application pending
receipt of a definition of a hardship and what actions could be taken.
Reoch seconded and the motion carried by a vote of four “aye” to three
“nay.” Hearing was tabled until August 17, 2006, and staff was
instructed to request guidance from county civil counsel.
- AM0602: Hollingsworth opened public hearing on
application AM 0602 by Dirks/Winkleseth, and Schnuerle made motion to table
the application until the August 17 meeting at the request of the applicant.
Kellogg seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
- AM0603:
- Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application
AM 0603, the comprehensive plan, and stated that because of the nature
of the application, a decision would not be rushed. He stated that
because the Planning and Zoning Commission was both the applicant and
the quasi-judicial body charged with forwarding a recommendation, this
would not be a routine public hearing. He stated that the hearing would
end no later than 9 p.m., and that if work had not been complete, a
special meeting would be called to continue the hearing at 5:30 p.m.
August 3. He stated that after that meeting, if work was still not
complete, the hearing would be continued until the commission was
satisfied that the public had conveyed to the commission what it wants
to see in land use planning for the next ten years.
- Hollingsworth opened the hearing to public
comment, and as applicant, stated that while the commission had been
involved throughout the process, it recognized that the application to
adopt the new comprehensive plan had entered its most critical phase,
and that it now had to withstand public criticism. He stated that the
board would remain open to warranted suggestions for improvement. He
stated the commission would not rush or be rushed in forwarding a
recommendation.
- Hollingsworth resumed the seat of chair and asked
Weland to give an overview of what went into the process of drafting the
proposed comprehensive plan. Weland introduced consultant Marty Taylor,
who gave an overview of the purpose of the comprehensive plan and his
role in the process. He stated that in his estimation, the draft
compiled was a very good document, based not on emotion or personal
opinion, but on fact, and that it would provide the foundation for
equitable and certain land use regulations.
- Weland asked for a show of hands of those in the
audience who had participated in the process of reviewing the
comprehensive plan, and thanked them for their work. He introduced Bob
DelGrosso, who gave an overview of the property rights component; Andy
Armes, Natural Resources, Julian Bucher, Hazardous Areas, Jim Graham,
Transportation, Carol Graham, Special Areas or Sites; Mary Peterson,
Economic Development, and stated that additionally, committees had
looked at Public Services, Facilities and Utilities, School Facilities
and Transportation, Recreation and Housing/Community Design. Steve
Tanner gave a summation of the Housing/Community Design Component, and
DelGrosso offered a contrasting point of view. Weland stated that as a
result of the work done on these components, the two final components,
Implementation, which set goals regarding each component, and Land Use,
which defined the various uses of land within the county. He stated that
if those interested didn’t care to read the entire document, they could
summarize everything by reading those two sections, which were the “meat
and potatoes” of the comprehensive plan. He pointed out the current
comprehensive land use map, the working draft developed by the
committees, and the final draft developed as a result of the findings on
land use.
- Hollingsworth opened the hearing to public
testimony, calling for comments in favor.
i.
Donna Standley, Porthill, stated she felt the comprehensive plan was a
big step in the right direction.
ii.
Jim Graham, County Road 21C, stated that he was in favor of the document,
though in his opinion it should be made even tighter. Despite his opinion,
however, he stated that you couldn’t stifle growth, and he felt that everyone
had done an excellent job and built on a sound factual basis.
iii.
Carolyn McNeill, Pleasant Valley, stated that she grew up here, left for
40 years, and when she returned, found things very different. She said it was
important to retain what this community values. She stated the plan used good
data, and said that people worked hard to create it.
iv.
Mary Dufur, Bonners Ferry, said she was very pleased with the outcome,
saying she had seen communities ruined by lack of planning.
v.
Bob DelGrosso, Deep Creek, stated that Boundary County needs to be
preserved and that we needed controlled, low-density growth. He stated that this
was a step in the right direction to retain Boundary County as a great place to
live.
vi.
Jacob Epstein, Copeland, stated that the document was well written, and
the best this county has seen to date. He stated that it gives substance to the
ideals the community is interested in, defines Boundary County and establishes
that those things we enjoy now have value, balancing property rights on both
sides of the line. He stated it provides predictability that will benefit
developers, residents and businesses alike. He stated that it’s a refreshing
change from what we had.
vii.
Jim Marx, Bonners Ferry, stated that this was the most dedicated group
he’d worked with in all his years here, and said the document was needed as we
need to know what can and can’t be done. He stated the plan will benefit the
landowner, and said it was a living document, amenable to changing conditions.
He stated that it was a logical and orderly document.
viii.
Julian Bucher, Porthill, said there were portions he’d like to see
changed, but such changes wouldn’t fit everyone. He stated it reflects the
community.
- Hollingsworth called for testimony from those
uncommitted on the proposal.
i.
Clarence Jones, Highland Flats, stated that it was a tremendous plan, but
that he was concerned that the Housing/Community Design component would allow
loopholes to defeat the stated purpose of retaining minimum parcel size
requirements. Weland stated that this was addressed in the Land Use and
Implementation Components.
ii.
Karen Martins, Naples, stated that it was a wonderful document, that
she’d read it and that it was well done. But she stated she was concerned that
it made no mention of moratoriums should uncontrolled growth occur in the
future. Staff explained that moratoriums could be invoked at any time under
Idaho Code.
iii.
Mac Schnuerle stated that he wasn’t opposed to a 160-acre minimum lot
size, but that it was important to stop the establishment of nature
conservancies.
iv.
Cassandra Phillips, Paradise Valley, stated that it seems to cover
everything, but expressed her concern regarding residential zoning.
v.
Wes Hubbard, County Road 38, said he was a farmer and landowner in the
Kootenai Valley, and he expressed concern over the proposed 160-acre zoning in
prime agriculture. He stated that farming was financially tough, and better uses
should be considered. He stated it wasn’t necessary to attempt to protect farm
land.
vi.
Andy Armes, Good Grief, said the county will grow regardless of the comp
plan, and that we need to understand reality.
vii.
Mary Peterson, Highland Flats, a Realtor, stated she’d recently completed
a market analysis and stated that upzoning was not a good idea. She stated that
currently, the market value of one acre of bare land was $17,000. On a ten acre
parcel, the per-acre value dropped to $6,900 per acre, and on a larger parcel
(total acreage not noted) the per-acre value dropped to $2,195. She stated that
establishing a minimum parcel size of 160-acres on prime agricultural land would
substantially reduce the net worth possessed by farmers as well as their ability
to obtain financing for tractors, seed, feed and other necessities. She stated
that before taking such a step, the question of whether such devaluation
constituted a taking should be considered.
viii.
Tim Patton, Highland Flats, stated that losses of valuation resulting
from establishing a 160-acre parcel size could be offset by offering transferred
development rights. He stated he had concerns over provisions for clustered
development, and that conservation subdivisions should be considered. He stated
that the proposed protective area around riparian zones was insufficient, and
recommended a buffer of at least 75’ from the center of all Class A streams.
ix.
Wilma Wallace stated that this is a critical time in our community if we
want to keep it the way it is.
x.
Regis McNeill spoke uncommitted, however, his comments weren’t noted in
the minutes.
- Hollingsworth called for testimony from those
opposed.
i.
Steve Tanner, Meadow Creek, stated that the comprehensive plan was
drafted mainly by retired people, and those who work did not have the time to
participate; as such, it was not a true reflection of the community. He stated
that it takes away property rights, and that through the involvement of planners
who had an interest in the outcome, the process was directed by them to achieve
this result. He stated he liked nothing about the proposal, and requested his
name be removed from the list of participants.
ii.
Bob Vickaryous, Porthill, stated that the proposed plan violates Article
I, Section 1 of the Idaho Constitution, that if you have to go to the planner
for permission to do what you want with your land, you have no property rights.
He stated that the 20 acre minimum lot size proposed would allow one home on 20
acres or a feed lot with 6,000 cattle. He stated the whole plan stinks.
iii.
Brian Wood, Curley Creek, stated he’d be in favor of the plan if
compliance was voluntary, and a matter of personal responsibility rather than
government intrusion. He stated he favored allowing people to use their land to
their own best ability. He stated that the wealthy and the astute would take
advantage, and urged the commission to scrap this plan and pursue a line of
thinking that favored personal responsibility.
iv.
Jan Christenson, Three Mile, stated that the proposal goes too far and
complicates things, as well as infringes on property rights. He said it will
make decision making harder rather than simpler and recommended paring the
document down both for simplicity and to preserve the rights of property owners.
- There being no further public comment,
Hollingsworth asked if there were any questions or further general
statements.
i.
Bob DelGrosso commended Tim Patton’s knowledge and stated that while
right now it was determined that the community wasn’t ready for some of his more
advanced concepts, such as transferred development rights, such tools deserved
study.
ii.
Steve Tanner said the county should promote free enterprise and let the
free market guide growth.
iii.
Bob Vickaryous stated the current proposal infringes on private property
rights.
iv.
Tim Patton said that some excellent points had been made, and encouraged
reconsideration of transferred development rights, conservation subdivisions and
additional protections for sensitive areas, as we didn’t want them to go away.
v.
Vern Burlingame posed a question on private property rights.
vi.
Bob DelGrosso, noting that reporter Elizabeth Cieppela was taking notes
from which to publish an article, recommended continuing the public hearing to
allow maximum public participation.
vii.
Bob Vickaryous read Article I, Section I of the Idaho Constitution and
said you didn’t have to like what your neighbors do on their property.
viii.
Clarence said common sense had to be used.
- There being no further public comment,
Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for
discussion among members. Discussion was held on establishing proposed
160-acre minimum parcel size zones.
i.
McMahon said he didn’t feel another public hearing was needed, as word on
the process had been published, and he didn’t feel participation would improve
through another publication.
ii.
Reoch stated that he’s been in the county since 1967, and said he felt we
should have shut the gate 30 years ago. He said he understands the county is
growing, but said it is being bought up by developers and exploited. He said the
whole idea is to find common ground. He said Boundary County is unique and
worthy of being preserved, and said the Comprehensive Plan was not designed to
try to step on anyone’s toes, but to establish guidelines.
iii.
Barcklay concurred with Reoch, and said he understands Steve Tanner,
saying he was 63 and he grew up with freedom. But he said the community is
filling up with people. He said people want consistency, and that the laissez
faire attitude toward planning gives the rich carte blanche to take advantage.
He said the current proposal, though it doesn’t satisfy everyone, does balance
power.
iv.
Schnuerle said that those who are concerned about what their neighbors
might do always have the right to buy more land.
v.
Barry asked why, if there was concern the proposal wouldn’t fly, changes
couldn’t be made. Staff stated the commission did have the authority to make
amendments deemed necessary or the option to return the plan to subcommittees
for further work.
vi.
Hollingsworth asked for advice from Taylor regarding the discussion, and
Taylor stated that the reasons provided for proposing minimum 160-acre parcel
sizes in the prime forestry zone were to retain forest and because of steep
slope; the 160-acres proposed in the prime/ag district was to preserve prime
farm ground and because most of the ground was in flood plain.
- There being no further discussion, Kellogg made
motion to table the hearing and set a special meeting August 3 to allow
additional public input. Schnuerle seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
- Weland requested comment on proposed amendment AM0604,
and members concurred with filing the application for public hearing at the
next regular planning and zoning commission meeting August 17.
- There being no further business, Kellogg made motion
to adjourn and everyone seconded and voted “aye.” The meeting adjourned at
9:05 p.m.