Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

Minutes, July 16, 2009

 

Members present: Doug Reoch, Jan Christenson, Henry McMahon, Bruce Behrman, Matt Morgan, Matt Cossalman. Members absent: Jake Negley, Rod Barcklay, Steve Shelman. Staff present: Mike Weland

 

  1. Reoch called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m., introduced members in attendance and called for reading of the June minutes. McMahon made motion to waive reading and adopt the minutes as presented, Morgan seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
  2. Reoch read the hearing procedure and opened public hearing on application 09-033. No member cited conflict of interest. No one representing the applicant was in attendance. Staff reported that the applicant had notified the office of a possible schedule conflict and that the applicant requested that the hearing proceed without the applicant present. Staff report was given and a letter from Dave Parker of the airport was read.
    1. Reoch called for public comment in favor of the application. Bruce Martins, Bench Road and an adjoining property owner, said he would normally be against dividing property, but said he felt the owners should be able to do what they wanted with their land; he stated that one of their sons, Josh, already lives on the property and he felt it appropriate that another son, Morgan, who is an Iraq veteran, should be allowed to build on the property. He stated that he felt both sons would continue to be good neighbors.
    2. Reoch called for public comment from those uncommitted. Terry Capurso, Moyie Springs, asked why the applicant didn’t create one five acre parcel with a 4.05-acre remainder rather than divide the parcel into two non-conforming parcels.
    3. Reoch called for testimony from those against the proposal, there was none.
  3. Staff explained the surrounding zoning, and said that the area under consideration had been identified as suburban in the new comprehensive land use map, which would allow higher density. Christenson made motion to approve the application as presented based on the comprehensive plan map designation, Cossalman seconded and the motion carried unanimously.
  4. Reoch opened public hearing on application 09-013, and noted that because this was a legislative matter, conflict of interest issues did not apply. Staff read the proposed ordinance. Cossalman asked if it would be possible to require that buyers be notified prior to the sale of land whether or not taxes were due; staff stated that most real estate transactions went through a Realtor with title guarantees, but that the county did not get involved in private sales negotiations and could not enforce such a requirement. Staff said that the amendment proposed would not necessarily preclude a person facing financial distress from being able to sell a portion of their property, but would require that they bring taxes up to date before an instrument of conveyance was recorded. He stated that the exemption for obtaining financing on a portion of a parcel remained in place.
    1. Reoch called for public testimony from those in favor of the application, there was none.
    2. Reoch called for testimony from those uncommitted, there was none.
    3. Reoch called for testimony from those opposed to the proposal. Jeff Ennis, Lions Den Road, said that he was concerned for those in the community who found themselves unable to afford their property taxes, and that the proposal, if approved, would hinder their ability to sell off a portion of their property to pay their taxes. He stated that the proposal would take away people’s ability to do with their land what they wished. He stated that though most other Idaho counties had this provision requiring taxes be paid prior to division, it doesn’t mean Boundary County had to follow suit.
      He stated that it appeared that only one person is causing the problem; he said it was not right to penalize everyone else.
    4. Terry Capurso, Moyie Springs, read a letter into the record and submitted a copy for inclusion in the application file. Cossalman asked for clarification on his comments that failure to inform a buyer of taxes due constituted fraud; Capurso said that failure to disclose relevant facts did constitute fraud, either civil or criminal, and stated that such cases should be handled judicially, not by executive action. Christenson asked what happened if a title company guaranteeing title inadvertently overlooked taxes owed, Capurso stated that should that happen, the title company would pay those taxes. He stated that there are already enough laws on the books regarding tax collection to ensure that the county would not lose property tax revenues. He said that the problem leading to the proposed amendment was minor, and would be better remedied judicially. He said that almost everyone who buys real property gets title insurance, not because the want to, but because it’s the prudent thing to do. He stated that even without title insurance, a prospective buyer could easily check to see if taxes were current, saying that was part of due diligence.
    5. Steve Tanner, Boundary County, noted that this was the third time he’d attended a meeting on this issue and the first time he was allowed to speak. He stated that the treasurer should have been in attendance to state why the amendment was needed rather than relying on staff to speak on her behalf. He stated that no new laws were needed, that Boundary County had recourse to collect unpaid property taxes up to and including repossession of the land. He stated his objection to the phrase “peril to the welfare” in the proposed amendment, and said that passage of such amendment would imperil more people than it would help. He concurred that it was up to the buyer of property to be diligent and responsible when making a purchase of real property.
  5. There being no further public testimony, Reoch called for discussion among members, and asked staff what options they had in addressing concerns. Staff stated that the commission could recommend approval or denial, or recommend that it be considered with changes.
    1. Cossalman stated that the current unemployment rate in Boundary County was 10%, meaning that one in ten could face problems paying property taxes. He said it was hard to see how the proposed amendment would protect county citizens, saying it would likely hurt more than it would help.
    2. Behrman said that his grandparents lost property in Boundary County due to unpaid taxes in the 1930s, and said they were able to walk away and start over. He said that taxes and the cost of living were constantly going up while incomes stagnate, and said it’s going to reach the point where no one can afford taxes. He said it was reaching the point where you can’t do anything without getting a permit, saying we should be getting rid of laws rather than adding more.
    3. Reoch said he understood the rationale of the proposed amendment, but said he was concerned that it would stand in the way of someone on the verge of losing their property, making them unable to sell a portion.
    4. Christenson said that the county has experts to address the issues the amendment seeks to answer, be it the treasurer or in the courts. He said there are civil and legal remedies currently in place to correct the problems.
    5. Morgan said he saw merit in the proposal, and at first wavered toward its approval, but that after hearing the testimony, he came down on the side of “buyer beware.” He said he didn’t feel the county should do anything to impede a property owner’s ability to sell property. He said that buyers should exercise due diligence, and that such diligence was not the responsibility of the county.
  6. With no further discussion, Cossalman made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that, because of the fact the proposed amendment will cause more problems than it would resolve, application 09-013 be disapproved. Morgan seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.
  7. There being no further business before the commission, Behrman made motion to adjourn, McMahon seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 7 p.m.