Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission

MINUTES, June 19, 2008

Members present: Tom Hollingsworth, Jake Negley, Doug Reoch, Jan Christenson, Henry McMahon, Rod Barcklay, Matt Morgan.

Members absent: Barry Davis, Bruce Behrman.

Staff Present: Mike Weland

1. Hollingsworth called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., introduced members and called for reading of the May minutes. Reoch made motion to waive reading and adopt as presented, Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Hollingsworth announced the purpose of the public hearing and read procedure, then opened public hearing on application AM 08-01. Discussion was held on item one of the proposed amendment, regarding establishing certificates of exemption for family residential units as conditional uses rather than permitted uses and limiting the family members for which the exemption might apply. Staff explained that at present, the exemption was a permitted use with no public notification and no limitations save setbacks; under the proposal, the exemption would be subject to public notification and hearing before the commission, which could set conditions regarding roads, utilities and placement. Discussion was held of eliminating the exemption entirely, and prior to further discussion Hollingsworth called for a hand count vote to see where the commission stood. Five members favored elimination, four were opposed. Discussion was held regarding the effect of elimination, and staff said that elimination could still allow consideration of such an exemption as a special use, but that without enunciating the intent of allowing the provision of providing residential accommodation for family members, there would be no basis for approving such an exemption. Christenson favored retaining the exemption as a conditional use, saying the provision was necessary to families, and that establishing the provision as a conditional use, neighbors would have the opportunity to air concerns and conditions could be imposed. Reoch said he was concerned about allowing the establishment of non-conforming structures and what happened to those houses once the family member moved away. Staff stated that those houses could then be used as rentals or whatever else the property owner desired, saying it would be a taking to permit the establishment and investment and then to require removal once the intended use ended. He stated that the house could even be sold, though the land under the home could not be divided. Discussion was held of only allowing temporary or mobile home and discussion ensued about how the provision was used; a mobile home for an elderly grandparent might be apt, but it might not work should a parent want to provide a home for a child. Staff said that eliminating provision D would allow the commission to use removal of a structure as a condition when appropriate. Following discussion, Hollingsworth called for public comment; Terry Capurso, Rim Drive, said he was against interfering with property rights, but understood the issues involved and said he felt that retaining the exemption as a conditional use brought the P&Z commission into the process so as to consider each case separately. Oz Osburn, Shamrock Road, said the decision to grant the exemption should not rest with the administrator. There being no further comment, Hollingsworth called for further discussion. There was none. Christenson made motion to amend proposed section one to eliminate paragraph D and forward to commissioners a recommendation that the proposal be approved as amended, McMahon seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
3. Hollingsworth opened discussion on part two of the proposal regarding elimination of the hardship exemption. Staff explained that the provision was vague, had seldom been used and had been found when used to contradict Idaho Code, and said other relief, including variance, provided more effective and defensible method. Capruso asked for the Idaho Code provision; staff stated that there was no specific provision, but that local code could exceed but not relax Idaho Land Use Planning Act standards, and the hardship exemption fell outside the scope of what Idaho Code allowed. There being no further discussion, Barcklay made motion to recommend to commissioners to strike Chapter 6, Section 3 as presented, Christenson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
4. Hollingsworth called for discussion of part three of the proposal and staff explained the effect of the amendments; to establish multiple homes on single parcels within the ag/forestry, ag/suburban, rural residential and residential zone districts as conditional rather than permitted uses, and to correct the plural in Section 2C1 to the singular. Discussion was held to clarify each item. There was no public comment, in favor, uncommitted or opposed. Barcklay made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that part three be approved as proposed, Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
5. Staff provided the commission and those in attendance an update on the comprehensive plan hearing, and said that he was reworking the draft of the ordinance and hoped to begin the ordinance writing process at the July P&Z meeting.
6. There being no further business, Christenson made motion to adjourn, Negley seconded and the motion passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.