Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

MINUTES – Special Meeting

August 3, 2006

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

1. Hollingsworth opened the meeting and reopened public hearing on application AM 0603, establishing an 8 p.m. deadline for the meeting, and reviewed the procedure to be followed. Staff gave a brief overview of the proposed comprehensive plan and the proposed comprehensive land use map. Hollingsworth reopened the hearing to public testimony, calling for testimony in favor of the proposed plan.
   1. Elsie Hollenbeck, Bonners Ferry, commended the committees that produced the plan and stated the proposed plan was a good resource for the community, providing a good source of information. She stated she was concerned over the section on the county landfill, saying she felt the plan should encourage recycling, and said she was disappointed that public schools weren’t afforded the credit they deserve.
   2. Don Jordan, Paradise Valley, stated that he was in favor of the proposed plan, saying it is a great improvement over the plan currently in place. He stated that the value of the land in the county is why we are here, and that the land deserves protection for future generations. He stated this plan provides a path for sensible growth.
   3. Lou Maring, Paradise Valley, stated that he favors the proposal, saying that we have to start somewhere and that this plan was a step in the right direction.
   4. Wilma Wallace, Blume Hill, said she was impressed by the plan, and cited concern over the recent damage to dikes as a result of the recent flooding and the danger posed by subsequent flooding. She favored retaining the 160-acre minimum lot size in the prime agriculture land.
   5. Scott Soults, White Mountain, said there were a lot of shortcomings in the plan but that it was a great start. He cited the flood potential in the valley and said the risk of flood was heightened. He recommended updating the plan when new data became available. Barcklay stated that he recently spoke with state FEMA coordinator Scott Van Hoff, who told him that over 50-miles of dike were damaged, and that unless repaired, much of the Kootenai River Valley could be added to the “A” flood zone. He stated that the estimated cost of repairing dikes was $1-million per mile, and said FEMA likely couldn’t provide funding.
   6. Rosemary Garafallo, Paradise Valley, said the county needs a good guide, and that a very diverse group of citizens worked on this plan. She said the proposed plan represents the community well, but said she was concerned that despite the provisions commissioners would still have the latitude to do what they want, citing the recent decision to rezone areas in the area of impact despite contrary recommendations from both county and city planning and zoning.
   7. Jason Thomas, County Road 12, said he favors the plan.
   8. Jim Marx, Bonners Ferry, said that the proposal was a very thorough and thoughtful document, and a great start.
   9. Gerald Higgs, Bonners Ferry, cited the petition that prompted the emergency ordinance signed by over 400 people as the impetus behind the comprehensive plan review, and said there are things incorporated into the proposal that he personally disagrees with but that it represents a very good compromise. He stated that what worked five years ago isn’t effective today, as people realize now that unless the get a handle on the future, the future will be decided by someone else. He stated that this is the community’s plan, and that a lot of heated discussion went into it to reach those compromises. He said the plan wasn’t “a plan in a can” as may be derived by having such plan developed by an engineering firm.
   10. Jim Graham, County Road 21C, said that in going through this process, we’ve developed a good compromise, and that to provide a balance, you needed restrictions.
   11. Clarence Jones, Highland Flats, said he spoke uncommitted on the plan at the opening hearing because he had concerns over ascertaining retention of minimum lot size, but that after discussion with the administrator, he was now in favor of the plan. He stated that no one will be 100-percent satisfied with it, but it would be pretty close.
   12. Bob DelGrosso, Deep Creek, said the plan was a good read, informational and factual, and that he was impressed. He stated that the restrictions imposed offer protections, and represent a good balance to protect resources and the quality of life.
2. Hollingsworth called for testimony from those uncommitted on the proposal.
   1. Andy Armes, Eastport, stated that the process might be made moot if the proposed Proposition 2 became law, as it had the potential to undermine or repeal land use planning and law throughout the state. He stated that a significant amount of money was being dedicated to pursuing passage of Proposition 2, and that the requisite signatures had been acquired to put the proposition to vote. He encouraged everyone to learn more about the proposition.
   2. Vern Burlingame, Paradise Valley, stated that he has been an advocate of private property rights, but after seeing what’s happened in the community and listening to the arguments through the comprehensive planning process, he now favors planning.
   3. Tim Patton, Highland Flats, stated that the plan was good but needed tweaking, to include provisions for transferred development rights. Questions were asked regarding TDRs, and staff stated that during hearings, they had been considered and were for a time included in earlier drafts, but following discussion in committee, it had been determined that TDRs not be incorporated. Patton stated that at the time, people did not understand the concept, and that he was convinced that they now did and supported them, and encouraged the commission to reconsider. Speaking in rebuttal, Bob DelGrosso stated that he had attended those meetings, and that TDRs and been heavily discussed, and that it was agreed that TDRs deserved study, but that there were too many concerns about their impact or affect to implement them at this time. Due to the length of time he had been speaking, Patton was granted an additional three minutes to conclude his testimony. Patton discussed conservation subdivision standards and greater protections for sensitive areas, to include riparian zones, and he encouraged the commission to reconsider their adoption.
3. Hollingsworth called for testimony from those opposed to the proposal.
   1. Phil Schnuerle, Bonners Ferry, said that the proposed plan takes away private property rights. He said that about 10 farmers owned most of the land in the Kootenai River valley, and stated that property owners don’t want to sell unless they have to, but wanted to retain the ability to sell.
   2. Craig Hubbard, District 2, asked if members knew where the cheapest land in the county was located, and stated that it was the prime agriculture land. He stated that imposing a 160-acre minimum capped the value of the land. If maintained, he supported adopting transferred development right provisions. Barcklay asked what minimum lot size would be suitable, Hubbard said he was against throwing the plan away, but that 160-acres was too much.
   3. George Elliott, Bonners Ferry, stated that over the course of his time in Boundary County, he has purchased properties as investment, and now he is not able to divide them.
   4. Roger Meyers, Copeland, said he can see the need of planning, but said it’s arrogant to try to control destiny. He said the plan is ahead of its time and too energetic.
   5. Scott Hutt stated he owns land in Boundary County but does not live here. He said the intent of the plan is good, but that it contains no accountability for government and public agencies, who would be able to deviate from the plan. He said public agencies should be held to the same standards as private landowners, and that land use decisions, such as the implementation of comprehensive plans and ordinances, should be subject to vote of affected property owners.
   6. Steve Tanner, Moyie Springs, said he’s totally against the plan and that he doesn’t agree with anything it contains. He said the conclusions reached were pre-set, with administrators Mike Weland and Marty Taylor directing the outcome from its onset. He stated both were paid to do planning so had a vested interest, and that the plan is not representative of the community, and that planning has not and will not work. He stated that he has no intention of coming to you (planning and zoning) to do something on his land as it is his own private property. He stated that the plan proposed takes property rights and he advocated allowing the free market to determine how the county progresses. He stated that the implementation component was too “green.”
   7. Frank Reichert, Naples, stated that through ownership of property, you have the right to enjoy it as you wish. He stated that the proposed plan will push the people who live here off their land and that it establishes too many limitations. He said allowing the free market to work was the best way to manage land use, and the minimum parcel size should be the size an owner wants to sell and the amount a person wants to purchase.
   8. Bruce Behrman, Moyie Springs, said the plan takes away property rights, and denies the right to leave land to your family. He stated that the plan was written by people who recently moved here and now want to shut the door behind them.
   9. Matt Meyers stated he was raised here and recently moved to Coeur d’Alene, and who owns lands which would be rezoned to primary agriculture. He stated that the 160-acre minimum parcel size denies property owners the right to maximize the value of their property, and stated the proposal would drive up land prices for available for residential use while decreasing the value of farmland.
   10. Rebecca Quarry, County Road 63, stated that planning and zoning was not qualified to propose regulations to control the use of land. She stated the proposed plan would create government watchdogs and undesired government control and would constitute a taking of land.
   11. A member of the Department of Homeland Security, name not noted, questioned the potential affect the proposal would have on plans to establish a Border Patrol station in Boundary County and staff explained the process for various zones.
4. There being no further testimony, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion among members. Schnuerle said he concurred with Tanner regarding the employment of consultant Marty Taylor, and said a recommendation should be made to commissioners to conclude the contract as the work was done and his services no longer needed. Barcklay stated that there was a fundamental difference of opinion regarding property rights, and the reason for implementing the plan was to balance these differences. He stated he felt it was a good plan, not perfect, but a good compromise. Schnurele stated he did not like the plan. He stated the parcel sizes were too big, and that a big part of the reason he chose to serve on the commission was to advocate property rights. He stated he still believes people should have the right to use their property as they see fit, and that the plan shuts the gate on their ability to do that. Davis said he, too, felt the plan was too restrictive on the property owner and would lead to too much regulation. He said that in his opinion, the old comprehensive plan was fine. He stated that imposing minimum parcel sizes of 20 acres and larger was ridiculous. Reoch stated that the plan was based on fact, but said he was opposed to the 160-acre parcel size proposed. Barcklay said that the predominant voice he heard through the process was that people want protection. Kellogg stated that he opposed the 160-acre size, and said that if passed, the commission would be spending much of its time hearing variance applications.
5. Barcklay made motion to reduce the 160-acre minimum lot sizes established in the prime agriculture and prime forestry zones to 80 and to forward a recommendation to county commissioners that application AM 0603 be approved. Negley seconded. Davis stated that he felt 80-acres was still too much. Vote was taken and the motion failed, with two members voting “aye” and five voting “nay.”
6. Davis made motion to adopt the existing comprehensive plan currently in place and amend the zoning and subdivision ordinance. Hollingsworth stated that the existing comprehensive plan was too vague. The motion died for lack of second.
7. McMahon said he agrees with the plan, but was concerned over the imposition of the 160-acre parcel minimum. Reoch said he felt it was wrong to tie the hands of a property owner by establishing such a restrictive lot size minimum.
8. McMahon made motion to reduce the 160-acre minimum lot sizes proposed to 20, and forward a recommendation to county commissioners that it be approved as amended. Reoch seconded. Kellogg stated that through both public hearings, the majority of people speaking either favored or were uncommitted on the proposal. Vote was taken and the motion carried, with five members voting “aye” and two members voting “nay.”
9. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m.