Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission
MINUTES
September 18, 2008
Members present: Henry McMahon, Jake Negley, Tom Hollingsworth, Jan Christenson, Bruce Behrman. Members absent: Rod Barcklay, Doug Reoch (both called), Barry Davis, Matt Morgan.
Hollingsworth opened the meeting at 5:30 p.m. and called for discussion of the procedure in an effort to make the process more expedient. Steve Tanner pointed at that information on the website called for the process to be citizen driven, and said that the procedure had changed so many times he felt the public was being excluded. Staff explained a recommendation made by Jacob Epstein in which the commission would proceed through the review without public input for a portion of the meeting, then take public comment at the conclusion prior to adjourning. After discussion, Hollingsworth said the commission would proceed without public comment until 7:15 p.m., then accept public comment until 8 p.m. Members concurred.
Staff advised that, as requested by the commission, the questions raised regarding Section 3 had been forwarded to county civil attorneys, but no response had been received. It was agreed to table continued discussion of Section 3 until response was received.
The commission reviewed Sections 4 through Section 5.1.5, then closed discussion to allow public comment.
Tanner reiterated that he didn’t feel the process for public input was effective, that he didn’t feel that the administrator could write and defend the draft without unduly steering the process, and stated that everything being proposed stripped away the rights of property ownership.
Christenson said he planned to meet with County Commissioners the following week to receive clarification and guidance on the process.
Because of concerns that not all members of the public in attendance would have the chance to speak due to questioning and discussion by the Commission, Hollingsworth stated that additional time would be allowed so as to hear all comments.
Steve Shelman discussed the application of laws on federal and state agencies, and staff explained that those agencies, as a matter of policy, typically followed local ordinances. Discussion was held on language that had been proposed for addition in the objective of the prime forestry zone district which could be construed to exempt those agencies, and after discussion, the language was stricken. Shelman questioned requiring other agency approvals, such as EPA stormwater and DWR wetland permits, prior to issuing a county permit, saying those agencies should be responsible for their own permits. Staff stated that this was a topic that had been questioned in the past and was an issue that needed addressed; is the county going to be the starting point on permits, advising applicants of other agency requirements and leaving it up to the applicant to comply, or would the county require those permits prior to issuing a permit. He stated that the former was the current thinking, but that some permits, such as those cited above, could subject the developer to considerable fine and could be met with assistance from the administrator when required. Discussion was held as to how the various overlays were known; staff explained that data was provided by the agencies in digital format for use with the county’s digital mapping system.
Wilma Wallace thanked the members of the P&Z Commission for their diligence and work, and indicated she favored the direction being taken. She stated that criticism of staff was unfounded as he was hired to do the job based on experience.
Don Vickaryous stated that everything thus far proposed directly violated Article I, Section I of the Idaho Constitution and was little less than socialism.
Jim Ball questioned tying addressing to differing types of uses and asked if those residential structures “grandfathered” would receive physical addresses. He said that nothing proposed protected a property owner from administrative errors, and recommended that all types of uses be brought before the commission so as to preclude to possibility of losing an investment due to staff error. On questioning from the commission, staff described those sections which attempted to address those concerns.
An individual who did not identify himself questioned the use of “public” and “private” in the draft, stating that the word “public” could refer to a single person, and should not be defined otherwise.
Tanner questioned why the meeting hadn’t adjourned at 8 p.m. as specified in the published agenda and stated that the procedure was flawed. He was advised that the chairman had announced the allowance of additional time earlier.
Members discussed October special meetings. Staff advised that there will be two public hearings on the next regular agenda, so two special meetings would be needed. Members set meetings for 5:30 p.m. October 8 and 5:30 p.m. October 22.
There being no further comment, the meeting adjourned at 8:20 p.m.