Minutes

Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

October 18, 2007

Members present: Jake Negley, Rod Barcklay, Henry McMahon, Bruce Behrman, Doug Reoch, Jan Christenson. Members absent: Tom Hollingsworth, vacation; John Kellogg, called; Barry Davis, unannounced. Staff present: Mike Weland

1. Reoch called the meeting to order, introduced members and called for reading of the September minutes. McMahon made motion to waive reading and approve as mailed, Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Reoch read the public hearing procedure despite there being none in attendance except applicants. He then opened public hearing on application 07-216. Applicant Ralph Byquist said he would like to split his three-acre parcel into a ¾-acre and a 2.25-acre parcel because of the characteristics of the property and the location of utility easement. He stated he’d started the process early in 2005, when the family split was still available, but moved to slow to complete the process before the emergency ordinance was passed. He stated that he had no intention to further split the 2.25 acre parcel, and would include this provision as a deed restriction if so required. He stated he had no intention of immediately selling the ¾-acre portion. Discussion was held on expanding the ¾-acre portion to meet the one-acre minimum parcel size; Byquist stated it couldn’t be done without requiring retaining an easement for the utility feeder lines, and that expanding away from that easement would place his house too close to the property line to meet setback requirements. Members and applicant conferred over maps and photos of the property. There being no further comment, Reoch closed the hearing public testimony and called for discussion. McMahon said he saw nothing that met the criteria established for grant of variance and said he felt that so granting would constitute a grant of special privilege. Behrman said he felt that granting the variance with the condition that the property not be further divided made sense as it would allow the parcel to fit the land and would actually reduce overall density on the three acres from three homes to two. There being no further discussion, Reoch called for motion. McMahon made motion to disapprove application 07-216 as no existing fact met the criteria necessary for granting a variance. Barcklay seconded. Three members voted “aye,” two “nay” and the motion carried. Byquist protested the decision, and staff told him he would be advised in writing of the appeals process.
3. Reoch opened hearing on application 07-218. Applicant Maurice Griggs, Ponderay, said he was seeking to divide the 17.1 acre parcel along both sides of the railroad right of way as the railroad ran through the middle of his property. He stated that he wished to retain the approximately seven acre portion, which was also split by county road and creek, but stated he was not seeking variance to further split that parcel. Barcklay asked if any portion of the approximately 9.8 acre portion is buildable, Griggs said most of it was steep, but it was possible to build. Discussion was held as to whether or not the 9.8-acre figure was accurate; staff advised that mapper Tom Ulappa assisted in determining the approximate acreages based on very preliminary data, and parcel size couldn’t be ascertained until actual legal descriptions were written. Rod said it was clear that the parcel was split as the railroad owned a 200-foot right-of-way through the property. He asked if the two parcels could be accessed short of the county road, Griggs stated there was a railroad and Northern Lights crossing, but he didn’t think it was for public use. There being no further comment, Reoch closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion. Behrman said the two pieces are not connected. Reoch stated that the total parcel size was 17.1-acres, not enough to allow two buildable parcels in the ag/forestry zone district. There being no further discussion, Reoch called for a motion. None was forthcoming. Reoch stated he felt the request for variance was valid, but felt a condition should be attached that the approximately seven acre portion should not be further split, even though it, too, was divided by county road and Deep Creek. Barcklay made motion that, because of special circumstances of the property as it was split by railroad right of way, that the application be approved with the condition that the approximately seven acre portion of the property be restricted from further division by deed restriction. McMahon seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Weland reminded members of the Monday joint workshop on the comprehensive plan and said the materials handed out were in preparation for that workshop.
5. There being no further business, Barcklay made motion to adjourn. Christenon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.