Minutes
Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission
May 20, 2010

Members present: Rod Barcklay, Jake Negley, Marciavee Cossette, Bruce Behrman, Paul Shelton, Steve Shelman, Dan Studer. Members absent (excused), Matt Cossalman. Staff present, Mike Weland.

 1.Barcklay called the meeting to order, introduced members and called for reading of the April minutes. Studer moved to waive reading and approve minutes as presented, Behrman seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

 2.Barcklay read the hearing procedure and opened public hearing on application 10-019. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicants Fred and Nadine Scharf said they were seeking a variance to enable them to sell a five acre portion of their property as it was the only portion of that property suitable for building as the remainder sloped to the river and was too rocky to build. Fred Scharf said that the property lines on the property had recently been adjusted, and explained that he owned a total of almost 40 contiguous acres on which they lived and conducted business. Negley and Shelman asked why, if they'd reconfigured the parcel lines, didn't they create a parcel that would meet the ten-acre minimum parcel size, Nadine Scharf stated that a five acre parcel would be more affordable. There being no further questions of the applicant, Barcklay opened the hearing to public testimony. There were no comments in favor of or uncommitted to the proposal. In opposition:

A. Morgan Draxlir, adjoining property owner, stated that he enjoyed country living, and stated that access to the parcel would have to cross three pieces of property, and that he wasn't granting an easement. He stated that he had concerns over access and traffic, saying there are currently approximately 20 vehicles per day.
B. Linda Draxlir, adjoining property owner, said she had concerns over safety, saying the access road into the property was steep and got icy in winter. She said she was concerned about littering and loss of privacy.
C. Norm Merz said he was opposed to granting a variance as it would set a precedent opening the way for additional splits below minimum parcel size. He said the parcel was recently re-configured and could have easily been made in compliance with the ordinance. He said if the applicants were to sell a 10-acre parcel, he'd have no problem with it.
D. Jim White, adjoining property owner, said there was a good reason to have rules and follow them, saying that land not useable for building a home was not a reason for granting a variance.

3.On rebuttal, Nadine Scharf said that the access road would not go through the Draxlir property. Barcklay closed the hearing to public comment and called for discussion among members. Shelman asked staff what effect granting the variance would have as far as building lots, staff said that if granted without restriction, granting a variance would allow two structures to be built, but said the commission could specify that the remainder of the parcel be non-buildable. Barcklay said that the preponderance of comment from the public is that people buy land knowing the minimum parcel size to maintain a rural quality of life, and said his vote would be to decline the application. Negley said the commission has granted variances in the past, but they were based on facts, he said he saw no special circumstance in this case that would warrant a variance. Shelton said that financial considerations were not a condition or circumstance listed to warrant a variance. Shelton made motion to deny application 10-019, Negley seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

4.Barcklay opened public hearing on application 10-020. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicant Mark Hall stated that he owned 20-acres he wished to split into parcels five and 15 acres in size on Lions Den Road. He said Snow Creek makes part of the parcel inaccessible by road and the west side of the property was steeply inclined. He said a cabin is situated nearly in the middle of the parcel, making it almost impossible to split into two ten acre parcels that would enable use of a building site on the five acre parcel. He stated his intention was to keep the five acres and sell the 15-acre portion with the cabin.

5.Barcklay called for public comment. There was no comment in favor of or uncommitted to the proposal. In opposition:

A. Mark Gores, who said that, as a community, it was decided this area should have a 10-acre minimum parcel size, and we need to keep it.
B. Robert Noel, concurred with maintaining the 10-acre minimums. He said others had tried to seek reduced minimum parcel sizes and were denied.

6.On rebuttal, Hall said the layout of the parcel does not make it conducive to being split into two ten-acre parcels. He said there are two building sites, whether it were divided into two tens or a five and a fifteen. Shelton asked if there were any way he could make it work, Hall said yes, but it would be a monstrosity.

7.There being no further comment, Barcklay closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Studer asked staff if the commission could restrict building, staff said there is already a house existing on the proposed 15 and the applicant's stated intent was to build on the five. Barcklay said the parcel could be split into two tens by any practical means. Behrman said that the parcel was already convoluted, and that splitting it into two tens would be possible. Shelton said the parcel could be split from east to west, retaining both building lots on parcels meeting minimum parcel size. There being no further discussion, Behrman made motion to deny application 10-020, Negley seconded and the motion carried by a vote of four “aye” to two “nay.”

8.Discussion was held regarding ex-parte contact and zone ordinance development.

9.There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7 p.m.