Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes
February 18, 2016 Regular Meeting
Attending: Kim Peterson, John Cranor, Caleb Davis, Marciavee Cossette, Scott Fuller, Tim Heenan, Wade Purdom, Matt Cossalman
Staff: John Moss. Absent: Ron Self, Tevis Hull
At 5:30 pm Chairman Kim Peterson opened the regular meeting and asked for an approval of the minutes from the January 21 meeting. Davis moved to accept. Purdom seconded, and the minutes were approved by all except Cossalman (absent Jan 21 meeting).
It was noted that the scheduled hearing for Sandaker (16-036, Urban Subdivision) had been canceled due to the need for a variance hearing prior to considering the urban subdivision request.
{ Planning & Zoning minutes are transcribed from the conversation that takes place during the meeting. Topics are condensed, eliminating verbatim comment in order to condense the material. Key points are included in this extraction and all votes taken are recorded.}
Chair Peterson then followed the agenda, suggesting that Staff introduce the material regarding Ordinance 2015-2 to be considered for change.
Staff listed some areas in the Land Use Ordinance 2015-2 to be considered:
Section 2. – Definitions
Section 11. – Typographical errors
Section 11.7. - Final plat
Section 11.8. - Final plat
Section 11.9. - Density Bonuses
Section 12.3.3. - Variance Considerations
Section 12.3.4.3. - Typographical error
Section 18. - Typographical errors
Section 20.3.2. - Simple Parcel Division, code error
Section 20. - Typographical errors
Staff shared an updated Definitions document, where the definitions had been restructured such that items, where applicable, were grouped by category. For example, the category 'Plat' would group sub-items “Final plat, Long plat, Preliminary plat, Short plat” together, instead of having to bounce around the descriptions alphabetically. This was also true of other categories, such as Density, Development, Line Adjustment, Parcel, Recreational, Residential, Structure, Subdivision and Transfer. Peterson suggested that the members review these changes and comment back at the next meeting regarding the Definitions.
Typographical errors were reviewed briefly throughout the ordinance (Sections 11., 12.3.4.3., 18., 20.) and based on obvious merits were accepted as presented.
Staff expressed concern that processing a final plat (Section 11.7.) proves to be problematic in that there seems to be no 'trigger' that causes a final plat to be recorded. He cited instances where a final plat procedure was not used, such that although hearings were held and (short) plats approved by the County Commissioners, nothing 'triggered' the final plat process.
One suggestion was made to add a time requirement to Section 11.7. (e.g., following approval of the preliminary plat, and prior to the sale or conveyance of any lot or block, the applicant shall have xxx days to draw a final plat in conformance with the terms and conditions established and with Title 50, Chapter 13, Idaho Code… bold italicized wording to replace cause to be drawn).
A related change suggested was to modify Section 11.8. (Penalties) as follows:
Change “11.8.2. Failure to Plat: When a subdivision requiring plat is created in violation of this ordinance, or when a lot is offered or conveyed prior to recording a final plat, the property owner will be guilty of a misdemeanor for each lot or parcel created pursuant to Section 4.1.3.8. In addition, penalties established at IC 50-1314 may be levied.”
to read “11.8.2. Failure to Plat: When a subdivision requiring plat is created in violation of this ordinance, or when a lot is offered or conveyed prior to recording a final plat, or time to draw a final plat has expired, the property owner will be guilty of a misdemeanor for each lot or parcel created pursuant to Section 4.1.3.8. In addition, penalties established at IC 50-1314 may be levied.”. Bold italicized wording indicates change proposed.
The P&Z Commissioners agreed that the scope of impact on making changes to final platting requires a review by the Commissioners. Cossalman suggested the situation be defined such that it would be clearly shown where the need exists. Staff said he would work on this.
Members of the Commission agreed that Section 11.9, Density Bonuses, should be removed from the ordinance. It was felt that the content is difficult to understand, management of a request would be problematic, there have been zero requests (or inquiries) into this process since its inception in 2008, and the intent of the section, to preserve our natural resources, is available in Boundary County through the implementation of a Conservation Easement. A vote to recommend to the County Commissioners to approve the removal of Section 11.9. was moved by Cossalman and seconded by Cranor and a vote was called for. Voting: John Cranor – Aye, Caleb Davis – Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Scott Fuller - Aye, Tim Heenan - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Matt Cossalman– Aye, Kim Peterson - Aye. Absent: Ron Self. The motion carried and the move to delete Section 11.9. was approved.
The P&Z Commission members reviewed proposed changes to Variance Considerations (Section 12.3.3.) and a lot of discussion regarding wording and content led to Chairman Peterson suggesting that the proposed changes be reviewed prior to the next meeting. The suggestions for change submitted by Davis were roughly drafted as:
12.3.4. Considerations: In considering an application for a variance, the planning and zoning commission should determine, at minimum:
12.3.4.1. THAT AN UNDUE HARDSHIP EXISTS BECAUSE OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, CONDITIONS OR CHARACTERISTICS PECULIAR TO THE PROPERTY.
12.3.4.2. THAT THE HARDSHIP IS NOT CREATED BY THE APPLICANT.
12.3.4.3. THAT THE VARIANCE IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO ALLEVIATE AN UNDUE HARDSHIP.
12.3.4.4. THAT THE VARIANCE MAKES POSSIBLE A REASONABLE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
12.3.4.5. THAT THE VARIANCE WILL BE IN HARMONY WITH THE GENERAL PURPOSE AND INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE.
12.3.4.6. THAT THE VARIANCE DOES NOT INFRINGE ON THE RIGHT OF NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
12.3.4.7. THAT THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFER ON THE PROPERTY SPECIAL PRIVILEGE THAT IS DENIED BY THIS ORDINANCE TO OTHER PROPERTIES SIMILARLY SITUATED.
12.3.4.8. THAT THE VARIANCE DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH THE GENERAL PUBLIC WELFARE OR CREATE A PUBLIC HAZARD.
12.3.4.9. THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT INJURIOUS TO PROPERTY OR IMPROVEMENTS IN BOUNDARY COUNTY.
The Commission was instructed by Peterson to review these changes and each member is to return to the next meeting with their edited version of this proposed change.
Before closing the meeting Peterson asked whether we can have a workshop before the next meeting. Cossalman suggested that because P&Z meetings are public, a notice to have a workshop regarding changes to the ordinance must be published; however, since this item was on the published agenda it is not likely a requirement (to be published now). Peterson asked whether we could have an off-site meeting (say, at Mugsys) and all agreed that Staff should have Counselor Hull answer that question before having any workshop meeting. The Commission members agreed unanimously (moved by Cossalman and seconded by Heenan and a vote was called for. Voting: John Cranor – Aye, Caleb Davis – Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Scott Fuller - Aye, Tim Heenan - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Matt Cossalman– Aye, Kim Peterson - Aye. Absent: Ron Self. The motion carried.) to meet in the Courthouse on March 3, 5:30 PM, for a workshop and asked Staff to get Counselor Hull's opinion on this.
Peterson thanked the Commissioners for their participation, and Cossalman moved to adjourn, Purdom seconded, approved unanimously at 8:35PM.
John B. Moss
Recorder
____________________________________ _________________
Kim Peterson, Chairman Date