Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
MINUTES
December 20, 2007
Members present: Tom Hollingsworth, Jake Negley, Jan
Christenson, Rod Barcklay, Barry Sanders, Henry McMahon. Members absence with
notice: Doug Reoch, John Kellogg. Members absent without notice: Bruce Behrman.
Staff present: Mike Weland.
- Hollingsworth opened the meeting and introduced
members in attendance and called for reading of the October minutes.
Barcklay moved to waive reading and approve as sent, Negley seconded and the
motion carried unanimously.
- Hollingsworth read the public hearing procedure and
opened public hearing on application 07-269 by Tom Barrows.
- Barrows stated that he purchased 4.77 acres from
Forest Capitol about June, 2005, with the intent of adding it to his
holdings, but said that in the intervening time, his circumstances had
changed and that he can no longer afford to retain the entire property.
He said that the grant of variance or a zone change would determine
whether he could remain in Boundary County.
- Hollingsworth read a portion of the staff report
for the benefit of those in attendance and sought clarification from the
applicant on the status of the three parcels he owned. Barrows said that
his home is on the 3.8-acre parcel and that neither the .88 acre nor the
subject 4.77 acre parcel were developed. He stated that it was his
desire to sell both the .88 acre parcel, which is grandfathered, and the
4.77 acre parcel.
- Staff explained that at the time of the partition,
a representative of Forest Capitol had contacted the office to explain
that the intent of the partition was to create a buffer between
productive forest land and residential land by selling two parcels to
existing property owners for consolidation with two non-conforming lots
of record. Because no new lots were proposed to be created and because
the effect of the transaction would reduce the non-conformity of two
parcels without creating any additional non-conforming parcels, Forest
Capitol was advised that no subdivision process was required. He said
that as regards this applicant, both the .88-acre and the 3.8-acre
parcels were buildable as they were created prior to the current zoning
ordinance, but that the 4.77-acre subject parcel would not be a
buildable parcel without grant of variance.
- Hollingsworth called for testimony from those in
favor of the application; there was none.
- Hollingsworth called for testimony from those
uncommitted. Ivan Wedel, an adjoining property owner to the north and
who had purchased the other portion of the property, explained that it
was the purchasers who approached Forest Capitol to initiate the sale as
the property was partitioned by a creek and sloped up to their holdings.
He stated the land wasn’t that suitable for logging and would provide a
buffer between their homes and logging operations. Wedel, using maps,
clarified the property layout and the location of his home.
- There being no further comment, Hollingsworth
called for a closing statement. Barrows stated that there were numerous
small parcels in that area surrounded by larger holdings, and said that
based on the map, he felt his proposal was reasonable.
- After consideration, Wayne Wiebel, who with his
sister owns 128 acres to the south of the Barrows property, chose to
speak in opposition, stating that he did not favor further subdivision
of properties.
- Barrows was again given the opportunity to rebut,
and he stated again that based on the configuration of properties in the
immediate vicinity, he did not feel his request was unreasonable.
- There being no further comment, Hollingsworth
closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among
members. Christenson stated that the ordinance provided criteria for
grant of variance, and said it was not apparent how the current
application met those criteria. Davis concurred, saying that while he
was an advocate of the rights of property owners, there were clear rules
in place that the application did not meet. He stated that this was a
ten acre zone district, and said grant of variance would be granting a
special privilege that would not be fair to neighbors. Barcklay said
that granting this application would establish a precedent that would be
inconsistent with the guidelines of the ordinance. McMahon concurred.
- There being no further discussion, Hollingsworth
called for a motion. Barcklay made motion to disapprove the application
as it did not meet the established criteria for a variance. Negley
seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Public hearing was closed.
- Staff announced that the public hearing on the
Comprehensive Plan, cancelled December 3 due to inclement weather, had been
rescheduled to 6 p.m. January 28.
- There being no further business before the commission,
Negley made motion to adjourn. Davis seconded and the motion carried
unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 6:05 p.m.