MINUTES

Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

October 16, 2008

Members present: Jake Negley, Tom Hollingsworth, Henry McMahon, Doug Reoch, Bruce Behrman. Members absent: Jan Christenson, Rod Barcklay (both called), Barry Davis, Matt Morgan. Staff present: Mike Weland.

1. At 5:35 p.m., a quorum was reached and Hollingsworth called the meeting to order, introduced members and called for reading of the August and September minutes. Reoch made motion to waive reading and accept minutes as presented, McMahon seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
2. Hollingsworth read the public hearing procedure and opened public hearing on variance application 08-141. Applicant Manuel Dauber described the property, and stated that he was seeking the variance so that, in the future, he could provide a gift of land to his children. Discussion was held on the layout of the parcel; Dauber said that the parcel was bisected by Solomon Lake Road and had been at the time of purchase. He stated that the road makes a natural breaking point on the parcel because it marks the boundary of an upslope, leaving about ten acres on a lower level, accessed by Perkins Lake Road, and two acres on a higher level, which was only accessible by Solomon Lake Road.
3. No member of the public spoke in favor of or uncommitted to the proposal. Jacob Epstein, Copeland, spoke in opposition, saying the applicant knew the condition of the property at the time of purchase and knew of the 10 acre minimum parcel size. He stated that he saw nothing that precluded the full use of the property for single family residential use, and said that granting the variance would amount to spot zoning. He stated that he didn’t see any special circumstances of the property which would allow variance, and said he felt that granting the variance would be a grant of special privilege and undermine the integrity of the zone district. He stated he had not seen the property and did not know the applicants, but felt the proposal did not meet those conditions necessary to grant a variance.
4. There being no further public testimony, Hollingsworth called for rebuttal. Dauber stated that if it weren’t for the placement of the road, he would not consider partitioning the property, but because of the road, the upper two acres was an isolated portion of the property of no practical use. His wife, Maria, stated that because of the road, they were unable to improve the two acres without bringing in new utilities as they could not share their well and electrical utilities. Epstein said the owners purchased the property “warts and all,” knowing it was separated by the road. Manuel stated that the reason for requesting the variance was to allow him the option should he decide to provide property to his children so he wouldn’t have to go through the process later.
5. There being no further public comment, Hollingsworth closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Reoch stated that if it weren’t for the location of the road, he would disagree with allowing a variance, but said that the owners can’t change the road, and that the road created a natural break due to the topography. He stated that variances had been granted for similar circumstances in the past. McMahon said he didn’t believe that the road made the parcel unsuited for uses established within the zone district, but said the proposal did meet the conditions that similarly situated properties had been granted variance, thereby not creating a grant of special privilege, and that the variance requested would not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or surrounding properties. Discussion was held of placing a condition that the two-acre portion not be sold but solely be used to provide a gift of land to the applicant’s children, staff stated that he didn’t think such a condition would be binding as the variance could only be granted based on topographical considerations.
6. There being no further discussion, Reoch made motion to approve application 08-141 as presented, Behrman seconded and the motion carried by a vote of three “aye,” one “nay.”
7. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.