Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission
MINUTES, August 21, 2008
Members present: Doug Reoch, Jan Christenson, Henry McMahon, Jake Negley, Matt Morgan. Members absent: Tom Hollingsworth (called), Rod Barcklay, Barry Davis, Bruce Behrman. Staff present: Mike Weland
Ball stated that he was seeking a zone map amendment so as to obtain permits to establish the development for which he purchased the five-acre property, stating that prior to the purchase, he was informed by the administrator that the parcel was zoned rural residential, and that subsequent to the purchase he was issued zoning certificates to place four manufactured homes on the property, which were later rescinded after it was discovered that the property had not been included in the Bonners Ferry area of impact agreement as initially proposed, nor had it been rezoned from agriculture/suburban zoning.
He stated that when notified of the error, he had already poured the foundation and had both halves of the first modular on site, and stated that financially, he had no choice but to finish placing that unit after being notified of the withdrawal of the permits. He stated that he appealed the county’s decision to the courts, and litigation was in progress.
He said that no other five acre parcel abutted his, and that a lot of people who want to retain the five-acre zoning live on these smaller parcels. He stated that the request was not out of line with the comprehensive plan. He stated that he expended considerable capital in creating the development, and would pursue all means available to see it through. He stated he had been working on engineering an on-site water system and has received state approval for two units to be served by a well on the property. McMahon asked him about availability of public water, Ball stated that Cabinet Mountain Water informed him that they were currently at capacity and could not provide hookups until the system is upgraded. He said that, at its lowest output, the existing well provides a flow of three gallons per minute.. Ball was asked when he purchased the property, and he said he bought it in January, 2008. He reiterated that when he purchased, he was told by the administrator that it was zoned rural residential, only to find out subsequent to purchase that it was not.
There was no staff report additional to the written report provided. Reoch
opened the hearing to public testimony, setting a five-minute time limit. No one spoke in favor of or uncommitted. At the request of a member of the audience, staff read the names and positions of those who had submitted written testimony prior to the hearing. Speaking in opposition:
Rosemary Garofalo, who read a letter and submitted it for the record. She stated she has lived in Boundary County 25 years, 10 years in Paradise Valley. She stated that there are already three subdivisions in that area and that another wasn’t wanted due to increased noise and traffic. She said that Shamrock is a deadend road, and that the commission needed to consider the long-term affects on existing property owners, who should be protected from developers. She cited concerns over noise, dust, light and air pollution and loss of property value. She said there was no justification to grant a rezone. Christenson asked her to point out her property on the map, and she pointed out a 2.8 acre parcel.
Jack Messick, 368 Shamrock, said the area is getting over-populated and that residents have grown accustomed to what they have now and don’t want to see smaller lots. He said the road is insufficient for the increase in traffic. He said that he lives on 2.8 acres.
Mike Kelley, 648 Shamrock, concurred with the earlier statements and said the Ball was spitting in the face of the county, that his permits were pulled but work continued. He said he doesn’t understand why the county keeps bending over.
J.T. Osborn, 532 Shamrock, said he was opposed, and said that Ball had been notified not to continue working until the issues were resolved, but he kept working. He questioned whether water from the well was sufficient. Jan asked the location of his property; he said he moved onto the one-acre parcel in 1999. Negley asked for more information on water systems, Osborn said that neither Cabinet Mountain or Paradise Valley water systems were connecting.
Leland Erickson, 408 Shamrock, said he’s lived in the county for 27 years, and said that he and his wife purchased five acres to get out of town and into the country. He said that since the purchase, he’s watched parcels being reduced through gift deed and other provisions, especially in the past five to ten years. He said that had people been able to oppose those splits when they happened, he did not think they would be where they’re at today.
Georgia Giuliani, 235 Shamrock, said she concurred with Garofalo and Kelley, and said that Ball doesn’t care about his neighbors, and should have to remove the modular since it was installed illegally. She said she owns 4 acres to the east of the Ball property and has been a resident for 10 year resident.
Cynthia Widmar, 126 Quail Drive, said a rezone would benefit an individual, but not the community. She stated she purchased 2.9 acres in 2005. She stated that she’d heard from a neighbor that the well on Ball’s property had been condemned. She stated that Ball was using a utility easement to access the development.
Denise Hettrick-Egge, 126 Quail Drive, stated that her family had purchased a $306,000 home with the intention of retiring there, and said that had they wanted to live next to a trailer park, they would have moved into town. She stated that in establishing the development, Ball pulled survey stakes, ran over her bushes, and used a private access illegally. She stated that his was disrespecting both his neighbors and the county. She cited concerns over loss of wildlife, light pollution, loss of quiet enjoyment of their property, and loss of value. She introduced photos for the record.
Joel Hugg, 290 Shamrock next door to Ball stated that he didn’t know Ball, but had heard other neighbors’ concerns. He said he lived at that address for one month, and appreciates Ball’s desire to earn a living, but said he should have picked a better place. He said he was concerned about urban blight, loss of wildlife and property devaluation. He stated he owns 2.8 acres.
Kevin Northrupp, 86 Quail Drive, stated that Quail Drive is a private drive. He said he and his family moved here from Arizona to fulfill their dreams, and said the area is zoned for five acres, but has been cut and cut and it needs to stop. He said he owns 2.8 acres. He said the commission needs to protect the existing lifestyle, and that this was not the place for rentals as the infrastructure is inadequate.
Marie Northrupp, 86 Quail Drive, said she was concerned about the roads, stating that there were small children and horses frequently on them. She said building rental units would compound the problem.
Jock Johnson, Paradise Valley Fire Association Chief, said he is uncommitted on the proposal, but said he was concerned that he hadn’t seen the plan to determine fire flow needs and ingress and egress for fire equipment. Reoch asked him what the recommended fire flow was, Johnson said the state requires 1,000 GPM, but that the Cabinet Mountain Water System had been allowed a flow of 250 GPM.
Stacy Chouinard stated that she had recently sold property in the area because her second-grade daughter had nearly been hit by a car. She stated that people drive too fast, and that it was increasing. She stated that she had lived on Shamrock road for six years, but moved to a 10-acre parcel in the country. She stated that placing trailers was not conducive to the area, asking what they would look like in ten years.
There being no further testimony, Reoch called on Ball for a closing statement. Ball said that the only reason he was developing was because he had been told prior to purchase that the property was zoned rural residential. He stated that he understands the concerns of the neighbors and agreed that there were road issues that needed to be addressed. He disagreed that his proposed development would devalue property, saying that an adjoining parcel that had been on the market for a considerable length of time sold after the first modular had been placed. He said expansion is the way of the world, and that someone has to provide affordable housing if we want our kids to be able to live in the county. He said he currently has 11 rental units, all filled, and that the tenants aren’t in apartments, but enjoying the rural lifestyle. He said he is going through this process in an effort to gain approval, to provide nice, affordable housing. He said the area was a nice place to live, and that kids starting out should have the ability to afford living in that area. He noted the proximity of Bonners Ferry city limits and nearby rural residential zoning, and said that much of the area so zoned was steeply sloped and unsuitable for development, but when development is proposed on land that is flat and suitable, people complain. He stated that he originally intended to access the development via Quail Drive, but upon learning it was private, he altered the plan. He said fire, water and sewer requirements are being met, and that he’s working with the different agencies to assure adequate services. He said that those people who live in his rentals are appreciative of the lifestyle and affordability. He said that if it’s ruled that the house has to go, it will go, but said he had too much invested to just abandon the project. Reoch asked him to specify what his ideal proposal would be, Ball said he would like to put four modular homes on the property, each on one acre. He said that he wasn’t installing trailers, but manufactured homes of 1,100 square feet, each on a full foundation.
There being no further testimony, Reoch closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion among members. Morgan stated that it was clear Ball was told when he purchased the property that it was zoned rural residential, but the fact that there was an error does not matter, and that he doesn’t see the need to change the lifestyle of the residents there. He said Ball did what he thought was right, but adjacent property owners also have rights.
McMahon concurred, saying Ball had recourse for the error through litigation. He admonished many in the audience for rude behavior, saying Mr. Ball had a right to fair hearing, and requested that in the future, people behave with civility.
Christenson said the commission had to deal with the rules that we have, and that they weren’t there to correct past mistakes, but to make decisions based on the laws as established. He said the area has been zoned agriculture/forestry since at least 1999, but we were still seeing divisions below minimum parcel size through established provisions that had since been amended. He said the commission couldn’t undo what is already done, but could apply the law to protect what is remaining.
Reoch noted that many who were opposed bought small lots, which completely surround the Ball property, all grandfathered or created by gift deed. He said he knows how people feel, but seeing those small lots is an indication of where the growth is. He said the town is moving that way, that the city had requested the area be included in their area of impact. He said that there’s a lot of animosity over what the commission does, and said he was paying attention to what people said, but on paper, the proposal made sense.
Staff said that because the request was for a zone map amendment, the commission shouldn’t look solely at the development proposed, but whether the zoning itself was suitable for the land to which it would attach and in accordance with the purpose of the zone district. He read the purpose for the agriculture/suburban zone district and for the rural residential; “To allow for the transition between rural and urban population densities and to allow development in areas especially well-suited for residential construction by virtue of geography and physiographic features.” He recommended that members consider the list of comp plan considerations in the staff report, but due to ambiguity, no definite consensus could be reached.
McMahon agreed that there were small lots existing in the area, but said that steps had been taken to prevent further fragmentation or increased density.
Christenson asked if, were the application granted, it would create an island of rural residential zoning within the agriculture/suburban zone district, staff said it would, though only by two three-acre lots.
With discussion ended, Morgan made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application 08-111 be disapproved. McMahon seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
Reoch called for a 10-minute recess.
After discussion, it was agreed that a special planning and zoning commission meeting would be held from 5:30 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, September 10, for the purpose of zone ordinance development. If no agenda items are scheduled for the next regular meeting, development would be agendized, if hearings are scheduled, a second special meeting is to be held from 5:30 to 8 p.m. Wednesday, September 24.