Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
MINUTES
June 17, 2010

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

 1.Barcklay opened the meeting, introduced members and called for reading of the May minutes. Shelton made motion to waive reading and approve as presented, Cossette seconded and the motion carried with three members voting “aye” and one member abstaining.

2.Barcklay read the public hearing procedure and opened hearing on application 10-025 by Boundary County. Staff gave report, citing the McNally application and the recent Supreme Court decision and introduced for consideration general standards for mines, surface mines and quarries developed during the drafting of the new ordinance. Pat Gardiner stated that consideration of those standards had not been part of the public notice and therefore could not be considered; staff stated he only brought them up for consideration should members feel establishing such standards were necessary, and that if recommended, they would be noticed prior to hearing for final decision before county commissioners or could be subject to an additional public hearing by planning and zoning. At Barcklay's recommendation, members discussed how public testimony would be taken and members concurred that input on each of the two amendments proposed would be taken separately. Barcklay opened the hearing for public testimony regarding the proposed addition of gravel pits and quarries to Chapter 7, Section 1D.

a. Don Jordan said the county needs gravel pits, but needs to be careful how they're approved. He said he felt having gravel pits as a conditional use was a good idea as it gave the planning and zoning commission approval and he felt that body was less politically motivated, but said the process for approval needed to be addressed.
b. Jacob Epstein, Copeland, said he was opposed to including quarries as a conditional use in the ag/forestry zone district as they were closer to an industrial activity rather than either agriculture or forestry. He agreed that quarries were necessary but if they were to be put in as conditional without standards they should be a special use because of the intensity of use. He said he was against establishing gravel pits and quarries as a conditional use without specific standards as to how they could be conditioned and remediated.
c. Rick Dinning, Bonners Ferry, said gravel pits occur where the source exists. Barcklay concurred but said they have seen the opposition to such use and the public needed a say. Dinning agreed that everyone should have a say, which is the way such applications have been for years. He said he was in support of including gravel pits and quarries as a conditional use. He stated that 14 pits have been established under our current ordinance which could be jeopardized. He said it was important that affordable rock, gravel and sand be made accessible close to where such material was needed.
d. Pat Gardiner, Porthill, said he was the plaintiff in the Supreme Court case and that in its ruling the court had determined that gravel pits and rock quarries are an industrial use. He said the current ordinance only allows commercial use related to agriculture and forestry in the ag/forestry zone district. He stated that Chapter 7, Section E (special use) was specifically declared void. He said that industrial use in the ag/forestry zone district would go against the goals established in the current comp plan. He stated that gravel pits are necessary, but must have careful planning. He suggested going back to the drawing board, saying that right now we don't have sufficient information to put the necessary provisions in place without study. He said we have bright people in the county who can find where the rock and gravel is located within the county so as to establish a mining district in those areas amenable to extraction. He stated that problems associated with gravel pits and quarries can be resolved, but not by dropping them in as proposed. He said we need to identify where rock is and zone those areas industrial. Cossalman asked if special uses had been struck down, Gardiner said no, only section E, which allows consideration without limit. Cossalman said there will be uses arise that can't currently be imagined, and said that we need the catch-all so as to consider novel uses. Gardiner agreed, but said you must also establish prohibited uses within a zone district so that those property owners know what can't be done, and said you can draft ordinances in such a manner as to allow consideration of novel ideas. Shelton stated quarries must be identified and developed, that it was a simple matter to zone for commercial or industrial uses, but not quarries. Gardiner said you can identify where rock is mineable, as well as sand and gravel, but that currently there have been no studies.
e. Ada Gardiner, Porthill, said people live around many rock outcroppings and said that gravel pits brought on blight, devalued surrounding property values and had the potential to damage underground water. She said the purpose of a gravel pit is to destroy land to get to the gravel. She said that such pits should not be a conditional use in areas where there are farms, homes or businesses. Due to impact on water tables, she said hydrological studies should be required and that no pit should be situated within one mile of an existing home. She said that before adoption of this amendment, conditions for their approval should be considered as quarrying can have terrible effects.
f. Kevin McNally, District 2, said his family is in the ag/forestry industry, and that the work entailed in agriculture and forestry is loud, but there was a need to extract timber and natural resources. He said farming and timber were industries, that you had to avail those resources where you found them. He stated that agriculture nor forestry are pristine businesses, and that the reason gravel pits should be allowed in that zone district is because you want them away from housing and developed areas. He said that each application was considered on a case-by-case basis. He said the county should have really good guidelines, and said that conditions could always be established through the conditional use process.

3.With no further testimony, Barcklay called for discussion among members. Shelman stated that one of the products of a forest is gravel, he said there are enough protections in place. He recommended putting the amendment in as a special use. Barcklay said blasting can affect the water table, and that you had to be careful. Shelman made motion to recommend not to amend as proposed, but to add gravel pits and quarries to Chapter 7, Section 1E, Special Use, striking the existing special use language as it was ruled in violation of code. Cossalman seconded and Barcklay called for discussion of the motion, saying that he didn't feel ready to approve without further consideration as there was a lot to know and understand. Discussion was held on the various impacts of differing types of mining and mineral extraction operations as well as on the special use process, agreeing that terms and conditions could be established through either a special or conditional use. Barcklay reiterated that he did not feel ready to make a decision without allowing time for further study. Cossalman said he felt comfortable as the county needs gravel pits and that the commission would be looking at the issue in depth in the near future. Shelman said that gravel pits could be controversial, and said the decision should belong to elected officials. Barcklay called for a vote on the motion, and it carried with three members voting aye and one, Marcia Cossalman, voting “nay” as she preferred retaining the use as conditional.

4.After a break, Barcklay called for public comment on the amendment adding a definition for “guest house.” Cossalman asked staff about the term “or secondary,” and Weland stated that the definition was taken from the draft ordinance and that the phrase should be cut as the current ordinance made no reference to a secondary residence. Members agreed. Cossalman recommended adding the word “accessory” before “guest house” to clarify the use as accessory to residential use, members agreed

a. Dave Eccles, Good Grief, said he had plans to build a guest house and said that having a kitchen was important as many of his guests stayed for a week or two at a time, and it was more convenient for them to have a kitchen than to come into their house three times a day. An electrician, he said that by prohibiting a kitchen, we could inadvertently be creating a hazard, as wiring in a kitchen was of a heavier type than for other rooms, and he said that even with kitchens prohibited, people would put in portable burners, microwaves and other kitchen appliances, creating a potential fire hazard. In addition, he said that having an extra kitchen in the guest house was convenient even when there were no guests present for canning and baking. He said it would be better to reduce the allowed size of the structure rather than prohibit kitchens. Barcklay asked what kind of limits he would recommend, Eccles said he'd worked with codes where such structures could be no bigger than 400-square feet and situated not less than 10-feet from the primary structure nor further than 60-feet.
b. Jacob Epstein, Copeland, said he was concerned the language proposed could open the way for a “village” of guest houses because it didn't define how many were allowed. He said the proposal needs to be better defined.
c. Don Jordan said he was concerned how to define anything sufficiently to meet intent, saying that no matter how careful you were, people would find ways around it, citing the gift deed provisions that he said sounded good at the time and worked well until there was reason to abuse it. He concurred that allowing the kitchen was valid, and said perhaps limiting the size to 800' would be better than allowing 950 square feet.

5.There being no further public testimony, Barcklay called for discussion. Shelton said he worked under a lot of different codes and agreed with Jordan. He described one of the more successful provisions regarding guest houses, the “accessory dwelling unit.” He said provisions he'd seen and worked with allowed a bathroom and kitchen, but limited the structure to one bedroom and 800 square feet. He said 800 square feet provided sufficient room for this configuration and was fairly large and that 950 square feet provided room for a two-bedroom unit. Cossalman said he didn't realize how prevalent guest houses were until getting the amendment, when he counted 18 friends who have an extra home on their properties. He said he didn't want to stop people from being able to provide inexpensive rentals if that's what they wanted to do, and that, as a use by right, there was no way to monitor how such a structure was used, whether temporarily or year round. He said that limiting both the number and size allowed were sufficient. Barcklay said the initial purpose was to have safe structures and avoid overcrowding, and said he liked Shelton's title. He said he doesn't like prohibiting the kitchen but did like limiting the size. Cossalman agreed, but said they should be a permitted use rather than a use by right. Staff said that at present, we were only adding a definition and that residential accessory structures were uses by right in all zone districts but industrial, but that we'd be addressing that in the new ordinance. He stated that even though no county permit was required for an accessory structure, builders still had to comply with state requirements for electrical, plumbing and mechanical systems and septic. Discussion was held on reducing the size to 800 square feet; after discussion, 950 square feet was retained. After reworking the definition, Cossalman made motion to recommend to commissioners that the proposed definition to be added to Chapter 18 be amended to read; “Accessory dwelling unit: Not more than one structure not exceeding 950 square feet where a primary residence exists or is to be built on a single parcel or lot.” Shelman seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

6.Discussion was held on developing a new zoning and subdivision ordinance. Staff informed members that county commissioners had directed the planning and zoning commission to develop the draft and take it through public hearing prior to submitting the proposal to them. He stated P&Z could use the draft already developed or begin completely anew, that the only specific directive from county commissioners was that the draft meet Idaho Code and that it conform to the Comprehensive Plan as adopted. He said that it was up to the commission as to how they wanted to involve public input, saying that all workshops had to be held in open meeting but that it was up to members how such workshops would be advertised and whether or not to take unsolicited public comment during development or wait until the draft was finished and ready for public hearing. He said that members did not have to do their work in a vacuum, but could call upon experts in the community as needed to address areas of concern. He said that he had requested civil attorney Louis Marshall to attend the first workshop so as to explain the Supreme Court's recent ruling and to answer questions members had prior to beginning work on the draft. Following discussion, members agreed to hold a workshop at 5:30 p.m. on the first Thursday of each month, in the jury room, through the summer months and on the third Thursday if no public hearings were scheduled. It was agreed that the workshop schedule and progress on the draft would continue to be posted on the county web site so as to allow written comment from the public during the development process. Staff advised members that, as this was a legislative process, there was no prohibition against ex parte contact and that they could discuss issues with each other and members of the public and bring their findings to the other members in public workshop. Cossalman clarified that members could meet outside workshops provided a quorum was not constituted.

7.There being no further business, Cossalman made motion to adjourn and everyone seconded. The meeting adjourned at 8:30 p.m.