Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission
Minutes
April 15, 2010

Members present: Steve Shelman, Marciavee Cossette, Rod Barcklay, Matt Cossalman, Dan Studer.
Members absent: Jake Negley (called in), Bruce Behrman, Paul Shelton. Matt Morgan submitted letter of resignation on day of meeting.
Staff present: Mike Weland

Barcklay called the meeting to order and called for reading of the February and March minutes. Cossalman made motion to waive reading and adopt as mailed, Studer seconded and the motion carried unanimously. Barcklay introduced members and read hearing procedure.

Barcklay opened public hearing on application 10-005 by Mark Cowan. No member cited conflict of interest or ex parte contact. Staff said the applicant was not in attendance due to the distance; no member of the public was in attendance to speak regarding the application. Members discussed the application. Cossalman made motion to approve as presented, Studer seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Barckly opened public hearing on application 10-006 by Dennis Lamphere and read standards. No member cited conflict or ex parte contact. Applicant Dennis Lamphere, 340 Maas Loop, passed out photos and information about his business, talked about using styrofoam as siding and stated that he is currently building his home using this product. He stated that a recent windstorm with 73-mile-per-hour gusts lifted a bale of approximately 100 sheets and blew them off his property, breaking every sheet. He apologized to those neighbors onto whose property the sheets blew and showed pictures that had been submitted for the record showing an unkempt yard and stated that those pictures were actually taken on another neighbor's property. He stated that he was seeking commercial zoning on his property to allow him to sell the styrofoam siding and continue operation of his trucking business. Cossalman asked how far the commercial use of the property was from the commercial, Lamphere stated that the product currently in his yard was for construction of his own home and not for commercial use. Cossette asked him what he was doing to prevent the blow-off from recurring, Lamphere said the product is bundled, covered with plastic and that pallets are placed on top, but there was no way to contain the product 100%, saying that if there were a big wind, it could blow away. He stated that in the future, he would place some of the material in a building and cover other bundles with tarps. He said that there is currently no signage on his property and no current marketing for the product. He said he currently drives a semi to Seattle each week, picks up a load of the product and delivers it to home centers and contractors throughout the region. Shelman asked him how long he'd been conducting business at that property, Lamphere said he currently operated three corporations involving both the trucking and siding business. He stated that before he bought the property, he and his Realtor had visited staff who told them that the property had been identified as suitable for commercial use in the comprehensive plan and would likely be changed to commercial in the new ordinance. Cossalman asked about surrounding zoning and uses, staff outlined the surrounding zones. It was noted that a property owner adjoining to the west has operated a commercial use for many years and is grandfathered; another parcel abutting to the east on Highway 2 that's being used as a welding shop, which is also grandfathered.

With no further discussion or comment, Barcklay opened the hearing to public testimony. No one spoke in favor of or uncommitted to the application.

In opposition:
1.Ernie Lucero, Winchester Road, said he opposed any further commercialization of the area because of increased traffic, especially on Maas Loop. He said that if the property were rezoned, there was no telling what use could go in in the future, which would create more problems. He stated that pedestrians walk and people ride horseback on Maas Loop. He said the area should remain agricultural and residential.
2.Tim Waddell, a 40-year resident of the area, said he concurred with what Lucero said, and stated the county should retain what has been.
3.Linda Johnson, adjoining property owner, said she was the unfortunate neighbor on whose property the material blew onto, she presented pictures showing the scope of damage. She said allowing commercial use would affect property values, and said the type of business proposed does not belong in that area.
4.Judy Ross, Winchester Road, concurred with Lucero, saying that the area was predominantly residential and cited concerns over pedestrian safety.
5.Doreen Beck was not in attendance, so Barcklay read her comments from the previous meeting.
6.John Beck was not in attendance, so Barcklay read her comments from the previous meeting.
7.William Cohn, said the rezone would be a step in the wrong direction and the area should not be a business area. He stated he passes by the Lamphere property daily and it's a real mess, he said if it was going to be that way in the future, he was opposed. He said the community has been working to maintain its rural qualities.
8.Jim Shepper, 1148 Maas Loop, said he was concerned that styrofoam burns easy and burns hot and smoky, he said he was concerned that if this rezone were allowed, he didn't see why others in the area couldn't do the same thing. He said to maintain the area as it is.

On rebuttal, Lamphere asked members if they had any questions. Barcklay asked if he'd been using commercial trucks on Highway 2, Lamphere said yes, the access to Hwy 2 is wide enough to accommodate a semi turning on to the highway. Cossalman asked him to speak to Johnson's concern about pellets all over her yard, Lamphere stated that the high winds were an act of God. He said he went over to try to clean up the mess, but was ordered off her property. He said accidents happen, you can't be perfect, and that it was not a deliberate act. Barcklay noted that the commission could partially mitigate the concern through zoning laws, and said the area was apparently more rural than industrial. Shelman asked what he could do to prevent a recurrence in the future, Lamphere said that the material was personal, not commercial. He was asked about surrounding uses, and he described the uses of his neighbor's properties. Studer asked him where he stored the styrofoam, Lamphere said it was about 300 feet off Highway 2, extending about 100-feet to the north. Cossalman asked about the fire danger, Lamphere said the material does smoke but that it is not combustible as a fire retardant is used in the manufacture to allow certification for residential use. He stated the material was used to insulate furnace rooms, though it would ignite if exposed to an outside fire source. Matt asked if the business would provide any additional employment, Lamphere said it would.  Lamphere read from the introduction to the zoning ordinance regarding living up to a neighbor's standards.

There being no further comment, Barcklay closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion. He stated that everyone who'd testified was opposed. Cossette said she tried to put herself in his shoes, but felt it would be in his best interests to make the place look better. Shelman said he was curious what the reaction would have been had Lamphere been a better neighbor. Studer said that if the property could be split, he'd have an easier time approving that are adjacent to Highway 2.

There being no further discussion, Barcklay called for a motion. Studer made motion to recommend that application 10-006 be disapproved. That motion died for lack of second. Cossalman made motion to forward to commissioners a recommendation of approval, Shelman seconded. Cossalman and Shelman voted “aye,” Studer and Cossette “nay” and Barcklay voted “nay” to break the tie and the motion failed.

Barcklay opened public hearing on applications 10-008 and 10-009 by Thomas Bushnell and explained the process for the conduct of the hearings. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicant Bushnell requested that rather than be heard in a single hearing, both hearing be conducted separately. Barcklay agreed and comment was limited to the application for variance, application 10-009. Bushnell made a correction to the site map submitted and explained that he owned a nine acre parcel divided by a seasonal creek, which cut the property into two nearly equal halves and made it impractical to access one portion of the property from the other without driving on Meadow Creek Road. He stated that there were numerous parcels below five acres in the immediate vicinity. He stated that granting the variance would not be a substantial departure from minimum sizes, would not reduce nearby property values and would not be detrimental to the public welfare. Shelman asked why he was requesting a variance, Bushnell said it would afford a second home site on the property for his child.

Barcklay called for public comment from those in favor, there were none. He called for public comment from those not committed, there was none. He called for public comment from those opposed.
1.Ken Hunter stated that the parcels that were below minimum parcel size were grandfathered, and since the land was later zoned to five acre minimums, we should abide by that.
2.Kraig Peterson, 664 Meadow Creek Road, said granting such a variance would violate the rights of adjoining property owners, and said the parcel in questions was actually seven acres, not nine. Bushnell acceded the point. Peterson said that in developing his subdivision, Nelson Mast maintained the five acre minimums despite several seasonal creeks on that property. He said that Bushnell did not have to go on Meadow Creek to access that part of his property on the other side of the creek as Bushnell had built a road to provide access. He said the applicant built up a pond to control the flow of the creek.
3.Michelle Peterson, 664 Meadow Creek Road, said that if the intent was to split the property and build a home it wouldn't be that bad, but that the property is already being built on. She said the noise detracted from her enjoyment of her property, which they purchased for the peace and quiet.

On rebuttal, Bushnell said it is true that he can drive from one property to the other, but that the septic and pump tank make the road unsuitable for a driveway or to move equipment across. On the pond, he said the dam was existing when he purchased the property, but that he'd drained it because neighbors complained of mosquitoes. He said he rebuilt it later, building it up only slightly and making improvements for safety. He said that Nelson Mast, developer of Meadow Creek Estates, had never requested a variance. He said that a mobile home on the property in addition to his residence was an accessory structure used as an office for his wife's business and as a guest house when needed, and he agreed to take down a sign regarding his wife's home business if it would appease the neighbors. Michelle Peterson said it would. He further explained the site map and surrounding properties.

There being no further public comment, Barcklay closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion. Cossalman said the applicant made a cogent argument, that there was a topographical feature that impacted use of the parcel and that granting such variance would not infringe on adjoining property owner's rights. Cossalman made motion to approve application 10-009 as presented, Studer seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

Barcklay opened public hearing on application 10-008. Bushnell cited employment conditions in the county, and said his boys are building their second log shell and would like to do so commercially. He said the plan was to operate from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday working on one structure at a time. He said the operation uses two chainsaws simultaneously, which were the loudest part of the process. He said he has hired several people, most of them out of work, to help with the cabin and to teach his sons. He said the logs for the cabin were purchased locally. He referred to the map and pointed out people on surrounding parcels who cut firewood or otherwise used chainsaws and equipment. He said the chainsaws do not run all day long as they can only set four logs a day; he said the saws run for perhaps an hour and then work is done scribing, fitting, etc. He said that he had a letter in the packet from the closest neighbor, Aaron Rutherford, who cuts firewood, who is in favor of the proposal. He stated that cutting firewood in the area is common and allowed, so the use he was proposing would not be significantly more intrusive than uses already allowed in the zone district. He said he was looking for ways to add to the family income and enable his sons to remain in the area. He read from the comp plan regarding economic development. He said that the building site is approximately 400 feet from the property line, that brush had been cleared and there was water on site in the event of fire. He said that as far as heavy equipment, traffic would be about three rigs every three months.

Barcklay called for comment from those in favor, there was none. He called for testimony from those uncommitted, there was none. He called for comment from those opposed.
1.Ken Hunter, 602 Meadow Creek Road., said his shop has four-inch walls well insulated with no windows and he can hear the operation when it's going on. He said the project is an eyesore and that those who wrote in favor were renters and not property owners. He said allowing the establishment of an industrial use would open the way to more.
2.Kraig Petereson said he was opposed because of the noise and decreased property values. He said such use would devalue property. He said that the applicant had purchased the property in 2003 knowing it was zoned for rural residential use, not commercial or industrial. He said the applicant had built a shell last year and sold it, with chainsaws going from 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. He said the use of the chainsaws was loud and detracted from his enjoyment of property. He said the use of the crane blocks views and creates a hazard, saying it had hit a power line and knocked out power for about three hours. He said he didn't buy in a rural area to hear businesses operating. He said he has no objection to the home-based business being conducted on the property because they did not create noise. Cossalman asked if there were any conditions that could be placed that would mitigate his concerns, Peterson said there weren't, unless they would limit the operation to an hour a day.
3.Michelle Peterson concurred with what her husband said, saying she bought that property for the view and doesn't want business, industrial or commercial. She said she didn't want to see any signs as they were eyesores. Cossalman repeated the question, she had the same answer, cutting the time down to half an hour a day and asking that trees be planted to hide the use.

On rebuttal, Bushnell said he does have a crane and boom truck. He said that the Petersons' do a nice job landscaping and that it was a joy to live by them, but said the power outage cited was not caused by the crane or the boom truck. He said it is highly unlikely that the crane would tip, and if it did, there was sufficient room for it to fall. He said he was trying to help his son and help provide work so more young people can stay in the area. He agreed not to put up a sign, and said the commission could impose conditions, such as a specific length of time the operation could be on the property. He cited provisions of the new comprehensive plan that endorsed this type of economic development, and said that two chainsaws do not create substantial impact or deviate from allowed uses. Studer asked for clarification of the placement of neighbors homes; the applicant pointed them out with members and Peterson looking on. Discussion was held regarding whether current construction constituted a commercial use, staff said he had sent Bushnell a notice of violation, but had determined that because he was not required to obtain a state tax number or business ID, the use constituted a hobby. He said others had built similar structures as hobbies, even selling them or donating them to charities, he said it was large scale, but not that much different than building bird houses and selling them at a yard sale. Cossette asked how much land was required for the building process, Bushnell said about two acres. Cossalman read the zone district specifications and asked staff why the application was for a special use rather than a conditional under Chapter 7, Section 2D3, staff said that saw mills and similar activities had always been treated as special uses and that the commission could deem that the use fit that definition. Cossalman said that the issue to be considered was if the use proposed imposed substantial impacts to the Petersons, if it it, the commission should recommend disapproval, if not, they must recommend approval. He said there were ways the impact could be mitigated, Bushnell suggested a dirt berm that could deflect sound might be possible. Studer said the discrepancy was in the chainsaw use. Cossalman asked how much business Bushnell would have to do to be able to afford moving to a commercial area, Bushnell said they would have to sell four or more cabins a year and said they are not there yet.

Barcklay closed the hearing to public comment and opened for discussion among members. Barcklay stated that he believed in the planning process and said that those wishing to conduct commercial uses should find commercial zoning, he said that it would be setting a dangerous precedent to approve the application. He said an application for a sawmill on Oxford Loop was turned down; the business moved to a commercial area and was successful and neighbors were happy. Studer was concerned about what could come next, and said he opposed setting a precedent for that neighborhood.

Cossallman disagreed, saying the ordinance was written not to exclude log home building, as it fits well with what's allowed as a conditional use. He said the proposal was timber related, and by ordinance is expected within that zone. He said when weighing the comp plan for economic growth you had to balance that with noise complaints and distractions, he said it was traditional in Boundary County for people to earn their living off their land. Shelman concurred with Cossalman. Cossalman asked again if there could be some compromise; Studer said he couldn't see how the construction of log homes is related to silviculture or agriculture. He said such use may be permissible as a hobby, but sees where the applicant is looking forward to further sales. He cited concerns should the business become so successful that expansion were required it would be hard to limit that growth. Barcklay said he felt it was important to protect the rights of adjacent property owners, and called for a motion.

Cossette made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that the applicant not receive a special use permit; Studer seconded. Cossette and Studer voted “aye,” Shelman and Cossalman voted “nay” and Barcklay broke the tie, voting “nay” to carry the motion.

Barcklay opened public hearing on application 10-010 by Carbo Trading LLC. Heidi Borash, 242 Blue Lake Road and the daughter of owner Patrick Carson, spoke on behalf of the applicant, saying they are in the process of upgrading the park and are seeking to rezone the parcel to make property value improvements. She said she graduated from Bonners Ferry High School and went on to manage RV parks and now have their own. She said the park had 2,000 RVs visit last year and this year they are anticipating 4,000. She said they look forward to being there a long time and want to make the park the best it can be. Members asked about the improvements and she described work being done to build up the park, including expanding the available spaces and finishing an event center.

Barcklay called for comment in favor of the application, there was none. He called for comment uncommitted.
1.Adjoining property owner Paul Sandelin said he likes the park as they make great neighbors, and said he has stayed at the park, but said he was concerned about the lay of the land. He said he borders the property to the west side of the camp ground. He said the camp ground is currently confined behind a tree line to US 95, and said he was concerned about talk of developing cabins all the way down the property. He said if the business grows, it could affect his deeded access he uses for equipment. He showed the area of concern on a map, and said he did not see the need of a zone change that could open the way for unforeseen development.
2.Staff said he received a letter from Gary Neumeyer who could not attend and read that letter into the record.

On rebuttal, Borash said that the access road would never be paved and said she saw no reason to alter the road. Cossallman asked if there was any planned development, Borash said they planned to expand to the extent allowed but their main purpose was to improve property values to benefit that expansion. Staff said that the use was grandfathered and that he deemed no permit applications for the expansion were required because the foundation for the activity center had been in for years and the increase in the number of RV spaces was solely to reach the number of spaces approved by Panhandle Health when the system was initially installed. He said application had been made by Pat Carson, who said his main goal in amending the zoning was to improve property values so as to afford the financing necessary for the expansion.

There being no further comment, Barcklay closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion. Barcklay said he didn't see the need for zone amendment as expansion could be accomplished by conditional use permit. Cossallman said the applicant's two choices to allow expansion were conditional use or zone map amendment. Shelman said he supported the application as the applicants are the landowners and a zone amendment is in their best interests. Studer said he doesn't support zone map amendments when alternatives were available, but said he could support this request. Studer made motion to forward to county commissioners a recommendation that application 10-010 be approved, Shelman seconded and the motion carried with three members voting “aye,” one voting “nay.”

Discussion was held regarding conflict of interest and ex parte contact.

There being no further business, Cossalman made motion to adjourn, Studer seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting ended at 9:10 p.m.