Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission
MINUTES
May 15, 2008
Members present: Jake Negley, Tom Hollingsworth, Rod
Barcklay, Jan Christensen, Bruce Behrman, Henry McMahon, Matt Morgan, Doug Reoch.
Members absent: Barry Davis. Staff present, Mike Weland.
- Hollingsworth opened the meeting, introduced members
and called for reading of the February minutes. Reoch made motion to waive
reading and accept as submitted, McMahon seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
- Hollingsworth stated that before starting on the
agenda, he wanted to discuss the issue of guest speakers, stating that two
meetings had been cancelled due to lack of agenda items while he was aware
that at least two people; Ken Brink and Tim Patton, had requested the
opportunity to address the commission but were ignored. He said he felt that
when such a request was made, the commission was obligated to meet so as to
hear their concerns. Christensen agreed, but that he had concerns about
overstepping the commission’s charter as established; staff read the powers
and duties of the planning and zoning commission and said that care needed
to be taken to avoid ex parte contact which might taint hearing processes.
Staff stated that no one had called to request time on the agenda; Brink
stated that he spoke to Toni Hollingsworth, not the administrator. Patton
stated that he and staff had discussed scheduling his presentation, and that
he agreed to withhold that presentation until there were agenda items
scheduled to preclude having members come in solely for the presentation. No
action was taken.
- Hollingsworth opened hearing on application 08-051 and
read the procedure. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicant Ed
Alvarado explained that he wanted to establish and operate a mini storage,
starting with one building and expanding as business increased. He stated
that he planned to keep the facility tidy and well kept, and that he had no
intention of creating an eyesore. He said the facility would be fenced, most
likely with chain link. He was asked about planned setback from the highway
and stated that the facility would be 55 to 60-feet back. He was asked about
lighting, and stated that initially there would be none, but that as the
business expanded security lighting, likely solar, would be installed for
safety. He stated that he currently leaves Boundary County in the winter to
work as a contractor because such work here is scarce, and that if approved,
he planned to stay year around to manage the enterprise. Concern was raised
about lighting and he stated that lights would be diffused and directed
inward. Staff report was as presented. Hollingsworth called for public
testimony in favor, there was none. He called for testimony from those
uncommitted. Tim Patton, Naples, said lighting was an important issue and
recommended consideration of using lights on motion sensors. Hollingsworth
called for testimony from those opposed. Vern Burdick, adjoining property
owner to the north, said the community was primarily agriculture and
residential with no commercial uses, and said commercial use does not fit
the neighborhood. He stated that because of the lot size, attempting to fit
ten units would be extremely cramped. He expressed concern regarding
drainage from the hill to the east. He expressed concern regarding access to
the highway, pointing out that this was a 60-mile-an-hour zone and that
having commercial traffic turning off could create a hazard. He stated that
he was concerned over lighting and setbacks, and recommended requiring a
survey to insure the planned fence was actually on the property line. Jay
Epstein, Copeland, said he did not feel the application met the definition
of the zone district designation, and said the county ordinance does not
meet the requirements of the Idaho Planning Act as only those uses
conditionally allowed could be considered as a special use. He cited the
recent decision in the Gardener law suit. There being no other public
testimony, Hollingsworth called on the applicant for rebuttal. Alvarado
reiterated that he was not planning to develop an eyesore, and stated that
he would have architectural and engineering plans prior to construction, but
said that he did not want to entail those expenses until he had county
approval. He said that motion lighting could be employed, and said that
there would be no electric lighting in the units themselves as hours of
operation would be daylight only and skylights would suffice. There being
nothing further, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and
called for discussion among members. Barcklay said he felt the proposal was
a great idea in the wrong place. He said it was necessary for the commission
to respect the criteria of the zone, saying people who bought property there
did so thinking the area was primarily agricultural. He stated he was
opposed to the proposal. Christensen said that in reviewing the criteria for
granting a special use, he felt the application fell short as there was
insufficient detail in the application to allow a decision as well as
questions regarding adverse impact to adjoining properties. He stated that
more detailed plans would be needed to allow reasoned consideration. Morgan
concurred. Reoch expressed concerns over safety on the highway, saying that
there was a dip that affected sight lines. He said he would like to see
something from ITD approving the proposed highway approach. McMahon
concurred at the need for additional detail in the application, but said
that in fairness to the applicant, they should specify what was requested.
Reoch agreed, but said the applicant would need to realize, too, that such a
request would not constitute approval. Behrman concurred. There being no
further discussion, Hollingsworth called for a motion. Reoch moved to
forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application be
disapproved on the grounds discussed. Negley seconded and the motion carried
by a vote of six to one.
- A five minute break was called. Afterward,
Hollingsworth opened the floor to Ken Brink. Brink outlined the history of
the Jim Ball development on Moon Shadow Road where two residential
structures had been placed on a five acre parcel. He outlined the history of
the development and said the criminal complaint initiated by the county had
been dismissed. George Elliott questioned a Highway 2 resident being able to
place five homes and maintain a junky yard on a five acre parcel while he
was denied approval of dividing his property below the minimum parcel size.
J.T. Osborn, Shamrock Road, stated that Ball was placing four rental homes
on a five acre parcel and questioned how he was allowed to do that with no
public notification or hearing. Sharon Meadows, Jim Dunnington, John Meadows
and Jack Juliana each stated complaints regarding Ball development. Staff
attempted to explain that he was required to follow the ordinance provisions
as currently in effect, and discussion was held regarding methods to abate
these concerns. Osburn asked what recourse the public has if they disagree
with actions by staff, and staff reviewed the administrative appeal process
and said it was available to all. Discussion was held on the emergency
ordinance procedure; staff stated that doing so would still require public
hearings and would take in excess of two months to implement. Discussion was
held on the ordinance amendment process, and staff stated that the
commission could make application, but questioned whether undergoing such an
amendment would interfere with the upcoming task of redrafting the entire
ordinance once the comp plan is adopted. He stated that he well understood
the concerns, and the preliminary draft ordinance he’d compiled would
address the concerns. He stated that creating an application to address
these specific terms would be relatively simple and would involve deleting
those provisions that allowed such development. Barcklay made motion to have
staff draft such an amendment proposal for review by members in time to hold
public hearing in June, Christensen seconded and the motion carried
unanimously.
- Tim Patton presented a Power Point presentation on
clustered development and design.
- Hollingsworth updated members on the latest
comprehensive workshop, and expressed concern that amendments made further
reduced the effectiveness of the plan. Members reviewed the changes made and
staff said that a public hearing would be scheduled prior to adoption.
- There being no further business before the commission,
Barcklay made motion to adjourn, Reoch seconded and the motion carried
unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 8:35 p.m.