Minutes

Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

September 21, 2006

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

1. Hollingsworth opened the meeting, introduced new member Bruce Behrman and the rest of the cast, and called for reading of the August minutes. Schnuerle made motion to waive reading and adopt the minutes as presented, McMahon seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Hollingsworth reviewed the public hearing procedure and opened public hearing VAR 0604. Applicant Dean Haagenson introduced surveyor John Marquette as his representative. Marquette explained that the variance proposed would separate a house and existing field from a wooded area. Haagenson stated that the land was his grandfather’s home place and was currently being used as a rental, and that he would like to be able to sell the house with the field so as to allow retention of the timbered land. He stated the break between the field and the trees was the natural dividing point. Davis asked how long the parcel had been in the family, Haagenson stated since 1937. No staff report was given. Hollingsworth called for testimony in favor; there was none. He called for comment uncommitted. Chuck Guthrie, a property owner on Fawn Lane, stated that he knew the family well and had no problem with the sale of 6 ½ acres, but stated he did not want to see the remaining acreage subdivided below the 10-acre zone minimum. Hollingsworth called for comment from those opposed. Tim Swillen, an adjoining property owner, stated that he owns 19 ½ acres and that he enjoys the privacy it affords. He asked if the variance were granted, what would keep others from going below the minimum parcel size. He stated that the applicant owned sufficient acreage to remain in compliance with zone ordinance standards. Hollingsworth called for rebuttal from the applicant. Haagenson stated that he understands the sentiment, that he loves the land and doesn’t want to see it split up. He stated that the proposal would not alter the appearance of what is already in place, would not impose adverse impact and that he had no intention of further subdividing the remainder of his property. There being no further comment, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Barcklay said he had no issue with the proposal, but that he was concerned that once the commission started allowing variances, it would set a precedent. He said he felt the applicant should stay with the 10-acre zone district minimum. McMahon stated that he had yet to hear a good reason not to remain with a 10-acre parcel. Haagenson stated that part of the reason for the proposal was access from U.S. 95. Discussion was held on access and on the aerial map. There being no further discussion, Hollingsworth called for a motion. Schnuerle made motion to approve the application as presented, Davis seconded. The motion failed, with three members voting “aye,” three voting “nay.” Chairman Hollingsworth broke the tie by voting “nay,” saying that passage on the basis presented would cause problems down the road and that there was no overriding reason to deviate from the 10-acre minimum parcel size.
3. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on application VAR0605. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicant John Kirk, Moyie Springs, stated he owns 13 acres and that he wanted to give a three acre portion of the parcel, which holds a house and is situated on a plateau overlooking the remainder of the parcel, to his son. Hollingsworth asked if any there was any development on the 10-acre portion, Kirk said there was not. McMahon asked if he had other children, Kirk stated he did, but that the area was off the grid and after growing up there and moving away, his son is the only one who wants to come home. He stated the home operates on solar and hydro power. Staff report was given. Hollingsworth called for testimony in favor of the application; there was none, nor any to his call for comment from those uncommitted. Speaking opposed, Jacob Epstein questioned the process, asking if it was proper to consider a variance for the purpose of gift deeding property. Staff stated that consideration could not be based on the applicant’s disposal of the property, but on the characteristics of the land. There was no closing statement from the applicant. Hollingsworth asked the applicant for more detail on the terrain. Kirk stated that the ten acres was mostly level, and rose sharply about 60’ and formed the three acre plateau. There being no further testimony, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion among members. Davis stated this case was a clear example of why the gift deed provisions should remain in place. Hollingsworth stated there was a difference between this application and the last; in the first case, there was sufficient land area to maintain minimum parcel size requirements, whereas that was not the case with this application. He stated that the three acre site appeared suited solely for use as a building site, and should not encumber the remaining ten acres. There being no further discussion, Hollingsworth called for a motion. Davis made motion to approve the proposal as presented, Schnuerle seconded. Five members voted “aye,” one member abstained and the motion carried. Discussion was held on the gift deed.
4. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on SUB 0604. Kevin Dirks and Alan Winkleseth were both in attendance. Dirks described the proposal and presented full size copies of the preliminary plat. He stated that the design of the proposal made the best use of the topography, which had many hillside areas. He stated CCRs and deed restrictions would be imposed to preclude further reduction in lot sizes. McMahon asked what the minimum home size requirements would be; Dirks said 1,800 square feet with attached garage, CCRs would further define building standards. Staff report was given and a letter submitted by the City of Bonners Ferry read into the record. Hollingsworth called for testimony from those in favor; there was none. He called for testimony from those uncommitted. J.T. Osborn, who owns property adjoining the proposed subdivision, said his prime concerns were further reductions in parcel size and the suitability of the soils for septic drainage. Bob Morris, who lives at the bottom below the proposed subdivision, said the proposal was laid out well, but that he was concerned about drainage, saying runoff from the property had long posed drainage problems. He stated that the entire 40-acres drains onto the county road and across to his property, and that the county had been trying to control the mud and water for 30 years but had been unsuccessful. He stated that development of the property would compound the problem through the creation of impervious surfaces. He stated there were also problems with flooding at the old high school, saying that floods in the past had affected the football field and the school, and stated that the new high school was likewise threatened and that nothing had been done in the design to prevent flooding. He recommended that before development begins, a qualified engineer approve the runoff and drainage plan. Cassandra Phillips, an adjoining property owner, asked if the smaller lots proposed had been approved for septic, saying that because of the soils, her drain field had to be large. Jim Graham, Paradise Valley, stated he was concerned over the traffic impact on existing county roads, and said that before a decision was rendered, the commission needed to know the existing rights of way, traffic counts and other data. He asked that if the increased traffic requires widening or realignment, who would be responsible for funding the improvements. He asked if there was sufficient water available for fire protection. He stated that with higher density, more safety issues would arise. Julie Schwan, an adjoining property owner, stated she moved here five months ago from Montana and spoke out against amending the zoning of the parcel, and stated that she wanted it on the record that she feels the outcome was preordained and that the citizens didn’t have a voice as the decision had already been made. There being no further comment, Hollingsworth called for rebuttal. Dirks stated they had been working with road and bridge and with DEQ on the fire hydrants, and two hydrants are proposed for the subdivision and DEQ had given preliminary approval for flows that could be established through Cabinet Mountain Water. He stated that in working with Jeff Gutshall, he had been informed that Shamrock Road has been slated for upgrade. He said the county needs planned growth, and that the place for higher density was adjacent to municipal residential areas, not in sparsely populated areas. He said the roads were being built to county standards, that a drainage plan had been developed and that CCRs would include drainage easements to preclude blocking or interfering with runoff. McMahon asked about the suitability for septic systems. Dirks said they have contacted Panhandle Health and the drain field specifications had been preliminarily established, and that prior to development each lot would be perk tested. He stated that if a lot would not perk, it would not be sold. There being no further comment, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Barcklay stated that it was a good plan and good for the county, but said he had concerns about runoff, stating he felt an engineering study needed done. Hollingsworth asked for more detail on fire protection, and Dirks stated that DEQ and Cabinet Mountain Water were working to adopt a fire flow standard of 250-gallons per minute at 40 PSI sustainable for two hours, and said that such flows were obtainable and DEQ had agreed it was sufficient. He stated the subdivision would be served by six-inch water mains. Discussion was held over CCR paragraph 5.7 regarding drainage easements. Hollingsworth stated that Paradise Valley Fire needed to examine and approve the proposed fire protection plan, and that conditions should include roads being built to county standard. Barcklay recommended forwarding to County Commissioners a recommendation that application SUB 0604 be approved with the conditions that approval of the fire protection plan be obtained from the Paradise Valley Fire Association; that roads be built and surfaced to Boundary County standards, that an engineer conduct a runoff assessment and drainage plan and that a road analysis should be conducted, at county expense, to determine if an upgrade is needed to accommodate the increased density. Hollingsworth stated that the proposal met parcel size requirements, with all lots larger than required, that the applicants have established strong covenants and restrictions, that the applicants had satisfactorily answered all questions, and stated that they had created a nice development that provides for good expansion from city limits. Barcklay made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation of approval with conditions as discussed, and staff re-read those conditions. Schnuerle stated he did not feel an engineer was needed to address drainage, saying road and bridge approval of placement of drainage culverts was sufficient. Barcklay said that increased runoff resulting from the establishment of impervious surfaces, including roads and roofs, might require the installation of dry wells or holding areas. Following discussion, Barcklay conceded and amended the motion to require road and bridge approval for placement of drainage culverts rather than an engineering study. Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously. As passed, that motion reads: “To forward to Boundary County Commissioners a recommendation that application SUB 0604 be approved, with the conditions that approval of the fire protection plan be approved by the Paradise Valley Fire Association; that roads be built and surfaced to Boundary County standards; that the placement of drainage culverts be approved by County Road and Bridge; and that Boundary County consider conducting a traffic study of roads serving the subdivision, at county expense, to determine if upgrade of county roads is needed to accommodate the additional density.” A five-minute recess was called.
5. Hollingsworth opened public hearing on AM0605. Applicant Chris Ketner stated that he owns property and lives on Brown Creek Road, and that his children moved out ten years ago. He said one recently moved back with his wife and three children, and that he wanted to get them out of the house. He stated that only that portion of his property, approximately 25 to 30 acres, lying between Brown Creek Road and US 95 was to be included in the amendment, and that the purpose of the amendment was to allow division of the property into five acres parcels to provide parcels for his children. He stated that area proposed for amendment was sloped and not suited for agriculture, but had access and utilities available to allow residential development. He stated that a number of parcels in the immediate vicinity had been divided below the 10-acre minimum. Barcklay asked why the children couldn’t receive 10-acres, Ketner stated he’d like to provide equal parcels to each child and said he was likewise concerned about the tax consequence of giving larger acreages. No staff report was given. Hollinsworth called for testimony from those in favor, uncommitted and opposed, and there was no public comment, nor a closing statement from the applicant. Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Further discussion was held on gift deed provisions. Barcklay said he again had no problem with this particular application, but felt that zone district integrity should be maintained. Schnuerle pointed at that this area along US 95 had been closely looked at by the commission in the past few years, and identified as an area conducive to commercial use. Behrman made motion to forward to commissioners a recommendation that application AM0605 be approved as presented, Schnuerle seconded. Hollingsworth called for a vote. Four members voted “aye,” two members voted “nay” and the motion carried.
6. Hollingsworth reopened hearing on application CUP 0602. Stan Christopherson, Pastor of the Church of the Nazarene, explained the lighting plan and diagrams submitted, both short term and long term. Schnuerle asked if particular lighting was intended only while church was in session, Christopherson stated it was. No staff report was given. Hollingsworth called for testimony from those in favor of the application. Gary Gage, a business owner and resident on Meadow Creek Road, stated that lighting of a church was necessary for safety and security, and cited some of the recent vandalism problems the church experienced. Hollingsworth called for testimony from those uncommitted on the proposal. John O’Connor, an adjoining property owner, said he had not seen the specific proposal. Staff provided him a copy of the proposal to review. He stated that it was his effort that resulted in the establishment of lighting conditions so that lighting would not shine into his home. Hollingsworth reviewed the church’s lighting proposal. While O’Connor reviewed the proposal, Hollingsworth called for additional testimony from those uncommitted. John Ruffo, an adjoining property owner to the north, stated that he didn’t see sufficient detail in the lighting proposal to assure that the lighting would not impose substantial adverse affect on surrounding properties, to include height and construction of the lighting poles or type of lighting to be used. He concurred that the church needed lights, but said he would like to see more detail. He stated that the proposal made a lot of progress, but was still too vague and left too many details up to the discretion of the church. Phil Lindaman, Paradise Valley and member of the church board, requested to speak in favor and Hollingsworth allowed comment. Lindaman said the church has worked for over a year attempting to appease concerns, and asked how many other churches were subject to lighting restrictions. He stated he felt the church was being discriminated against, and that the arguments were petty. He said the issue needed to be resolved. There being no further public comment, Hollingsworth called for rebuttal. Christopherson stated that the church wanted resolution, and that if the commission and the neighbors were willing to settle, the church was willing. Discussion was held on timed lights and on sports lighting proposed in the long term plan. There being no further public comment, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Schnuerle made motion to approve as conditions the short-term plan presented, adding the condition that a plywood baffle be erected for the sign and that two evergreen trees be planted to the north of the sign to further block reflective light; that parking lights be limited to the two most southerly lights as depicted on both the short term and long term proposal, and that parking lights be used only while church was in session. Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
7. There being no further business before the planning and zoning commission, the meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.