Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission

MINUTES, January 7, 2009, special meeting

Members calling absence: Tom Hollingsworth, Henry McMahon. Members present: Jake Negley, Jan Christensen, Rod Barcklay, Matt Morgan, Bruce Behrman. Members absent: Doug Reoch, Barry Davis. Staff present: Mike Weland.

With no quorum at 5:30 p.m., staff announced a ten minute wait. Behrman arrived and the staff announced quorum. Due to lack of chair or vice chair, staff called for nomination of an acting chair. Christensen made motion to appoint senior member Rod Barcklay, Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

1.      Barcklay called the meeting to order and reopened hearing on application 08-160. Staff announced the reason for tabling the application as being to gain further information regarding traffic safety, and summarized the reports from ITD and county road and bridge, making copies available for those in attendance to review. Following brief discussion, the commission elected to reopen the hearing to public testimony based on the number of people in attendance. Staff announced the hearing procedure.

a.       Chris Clark, speaking on behalf of the applicants, reviewed the specifics of the application and stated that, on advice from the administrator, the applicant included in the application everything that could be built. He stated that the church would start small, with a single building, and grow as the congregation grew. He stated that the church dates from the time of Christ and has 252 congregations in the United States and 11 in Canada. He said the church would be an asset to the county and good neighbors to those residing in the area. Negley asked for specifics on the placement of the proposed sign; Clark stated it would be approximately ¼-mile off US 95 at the entrance to the church, and would be illuminated. Clark described the proposed cemetery and the addendum to the application, saying that the applicants had checked with the Idaho Department of Health, which said that there were no state requirements regarding cemeteries, nor were there local ordinances governing cemeteries.

b.      Barcklay called for testimony from those in favor of the application.

                                                   i.      Steve Tanner, Meadow Creek Road, stated he has been a resident of the county for 45 years and said the church existed before the state and the county, and neither should claim jurisdiction over the church. He said that if the church purchased the property, they had the right to use it as they see fit. He said that churches make good neighbors and should be encouraged.

                                                 ii.      Steve Iverson, owner of the building the church currently uses for services, said the church has been meeting in its current location for a year and a half with no problems. He stated the church was a great tenant and that he hated to lose them. He stated that because the denomination was new to the area, he felt it was receiving undue scrutiny that would not be there were it a more common denomination.

                                                iii.      Earl Matthews, Paradise Valley, said he’s been a member of the church for 15-years. He stated that the initial phase of the church would involve construction no larger than a typical residence. He stated that there was only one neighbor with a direct view of the property, and they were not in attendance.

                                               iv.      Katherine Miller, a member of the church, said she favored approving the application.

                                                 v.      Julia Schrom, a member of the church, stated that the closest church besides the local annex was located in Post Falls, and said that she would love to be able to worship in her own community and in her own church.

                                               vi.      Ed Sample, a nine-year resident of the county and not a member of the church, stated that he felt the church would make a good neighbor.

c.       Barcklay called for testimony from those uncommitted. Don Jordan, Paradise Valley, said he would like more information to better judge the proposal. Staff gave him the opportunity to view the application and site plan, and Jordan said he had no opposition to the proposal.

d.      Barcklay called for testimony from those opposed.

                                                   i.      Wally Barton, a 43-year resident, said there were eight homes within view of the proposed church. He said he was not opposed to the church itself, but to the traffic that would be generated. He said that while the church was currently small, the applicant had stated that there was a goal of growing to 150 members, and he said the current roads would not support that amount of traffic. He stated that there were properties better suited for a church, including properties at Three Mile that have been on the market since 1996. He stated his concern that the church would grow into a five-day a week operation, bringing more traffic than could be safely accommodated. Barcklay cited the ITD and road and bridge responses, Barton stated that with snow on the road for four months in a normal snow year, Pleasant Valley Loop was down to a single lane, with berms that obscured sight.

                                                 ii.      Elaine Atkins, owner of property across the road from the proposed church, stated that her family have been running about 80 head of cattle, and said that cattle make noise, methane gas and manure. She asked, “Will P&Z tell me I can’t farm a few years down the road because the farm is so noisy and dirty?” She stated that the area was also open range, meaning cattle didn’t have to be penned. “I don’t want to lose my farm,” she said.

                                                iii.      Judy Johns, Pleasant Valley Loop, asked if ITD had considered that with a church, all the vehicles arrived and left at once? She said the rural roads were not suited for so much traffic, especially in winter.

                                               iv.      Dan McLeish, a 30-year Pleasant Valley Loop resident, said he was concerned over the cemetery and psychological impacts it would have on his children. He stated that nine homes were visible from the church site, and said that a realtor reported 219 five to ten acre parcels for sale in Boundary County, saying one of those would surely be better suited. He said that, if the church was approved, he would prefer a cemetery not be allowed; or, if the cemetery was allowed, that it be reserved for members only, with no commercial sale of burial plots. He read a statement from Lowell Anderson, who was in the audience but unable to speak, on the affect of cemeteries on residential use. He cited Paradise Valley Cemetery, saying that despite being ideal residential ground, very few homes have built around the cemetery in 50-years.

                                                 v.      Susan McLeish, Pleasant Valley Loop, said that if the cemetery were allowed, that only flat markers be permitted so as to reduce the visual impact of upright headstones as well as reductions in property values.

                                               vi.      Mike Miller, Pleasant Valley Loop, said he is still concerned about traffic safety, and said his sons, ages 10 and 7, were scared of the idea of a cemetery. He said a 32-square foot lit sign would be a distraction, and said other, more suitable sites should be considered. He stated that some members of the congregation had a history of drug abuse and problems with the law. He said that if the church was allowed, it should not include a cemetery or lit sign.

e.       With no further public testimony, Barcklay called for a closing statement. Clark said the applicants understood the need to table the application over the traffic concerns, but said that the experts had been heard from. He stated that traditionally, cemeteries were typically found in church yards, and a perfectly normal part of the church. He stated that the Post Falls congregation had a cemetery with space for 110 plots, and that burials there average one a year. He stated that state water logs showed no nearby wells, and said that according to data from the comp plan, the water table in that area was approximately 300-feet. He said the cemetery plots were a benefit of membership in the church, and that the cemetery would be available only to members and their immediate families. Applicant Father Horton stated that the congregation currently totaled 20 members, and he said that none of those members were any hurry to take advantage of the benefit. Clark said that there were many ways to reduce the visual impact through landscaping and placement. He said also that the church had scoured the county for a suitable parcel that was south of town and flat so as to reduce the cost of construction, and said that the parcel under consideration is the one that best meets their needs.

2.      There being no further public comment, Barcklay closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Christensen read those things to be considered from the staff report, and said that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act left few options. Behrman said there was no question but that it was a bad intersection but Jan countered that they did receive reports from the experts indicating that the access was capable of accommodating the increased traffic. Barcklay said that the commission had to accept the reports that the intersection in question was no more dangerous than others in the county, he said he saw no option but to approve the application, setting conditions. Discussion was held regarding suitable conditions. Following discussion, Barcklay called for a motion.

3.      Member Jan Christensen made motion to grant the conditional use permit with the following conditions:

a.       That minimal lighting be used to ensure safety, and that those lights be on motion sensors when church was not in session.

b.      That church signs only be illuminated while church was in session.

c.       That the cemetery be reserved for members and their families only and that no plots be sold.

d.      That all burials be conducted utilizing the services of a licensed mortician or funeral director.

e.       That all burials will require a state-issued burial permit.

f.        That all burials will require a cement liner.

g.       That the cemetery be screened by placement and vegetative shielding.

4.      Member Jake Negley seconded and Barcklay called for a vote. Members Christensen, Negley and Morgan voted aye, member Bruce Behrman voted nay, and the motion carried, 3-1.

5.      Due to the length of time spent in considering application 08-160, Barcklay asked for consideration, both from members as well as the public, of postponing the zone ordinance development session until the next scheduled meeting January 15. It was agreed to table the session.

6.      There being no further business, Barcklay made motion to adjourn, Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.