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
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Reoch called for testimony from those against the
proposal, there was none.
- 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.
- 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.
- Reoch called for public testimony from those in
favor of the application, there was none.
- Reoch called for testimony from those uncommitted,
there was none.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.