Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes July 18, 2019
|
|
Attending
|
Names
|
|
Public |
Janice Rudeen, David Nicholis, Pamela Jacobs, Jay Jacobs, Steve Ballard, James Harless |
|
Planning & Zoning |
John Cranor, Adam Isaac, Caleb Davis (Chair), Tim Heenan, Rob Woywod, Wade Purdom (Co-Chair) |
|
Absent |
Ron Self, Scott Fuller, David Hollabaugh, Counselor Tevis Hull |
|
Staff |
John Moss |
[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.]
At 6:00PM Chairman Caleb Davis identified the presence of a quorum, opened the Meeting, and asked the Commission if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the June 20, 2019 Meeting. There being none, Davis asked for a motion to approve the June 20 Minutes. John Cranor so moved, seconded by Rob Woywod, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Abstain, Scott Fuller - Absent , David Hollabaugh - Absent, Wade Purdom -Abstain, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Caleb Davis - Aye, Ron Self - Absent
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (4), Absent (3), Abstain (2)
The motion to approve the June 20, 2019 Meeting minutes was approved.
Chairman Caleb Davis opened the meeting by saying there is a visitor who has a question for the Planning and Zoning Commission. In the interests of time Davis said he would like the visitor to introduce himself and ask his question.
First, a reminder: "Topics are condensed, eliminating verbatim comment in order to condense the material. Key points are included in this extraction..."
James Harless, after introducing himself, asked about having to rezone in order to have a Mobile Home Park - Caleb Davis cautioned that the Planning and Zoning Commission could make no opinion/decision since there is no application to consider.
Mr. Harless said he has property on Pot Hole Rd and that the structure there has a mold problem that makes consideration of alternate use a requirement to save his investment - he said he wants to create an RV park with some dry cabins, and has heard that he needs to rezone as commercial per ordinance for mobile home parks. He said he will be on location, and wants to provide security for such an operation.
Caleb asked Staff for any response, and Staff said that the ordinance requires that a mobile home park be in a Rural Community Commercial zone per Section 15.13.5.7. - the only zone specifically allowing a Mobile Home Park as a Conditional Use. Thus the comment, suggesting a rezone is required, is correct. In order to establish an RV Park, the County Commissioners must approve a rezone for this purpose, and THEN the Planning and Zoning Commission needs to approve a Conditional Use permit as per 15.13.5.7. - probably a sure thing if the rezoning for this purpose is recommended for approval by the County Commissioners and they subsequently approve the rezone.
Discussion circulated concerning the location and not wishing to spot zone. Spot zoning was described. Caleb pointed out that after the rezoning has been approved, the applicant must still be approved for a conditional use permit and the scope of considerations regarding a conditional use should also be part of the application process. Wade suggested that examples of existing Rural Community Commercial zones might be used as an argument concerning the need for rezoning to handle an RV Park.
Adam Isaac asked if the establishment of supporting services had been considered, such as water, electricity, sewage and space for infrastructure requirements for each parking space or stall or turnaround areas needed to navigate the park. He said these were questions that would be asked at the time application is made, but if not considered in advance then even though a rezone were to be granted the inability to provide adequate service would be problematic in approving a conditional use. Caleb agreed and said there are more areas to consider; he mentioned ITD concerns related to highway access, Panhandle Health related to septic concerns, local fire district in terms of EMT access and emergency support, and said it is important to look at the big picture.
Mr. Harless asked what the chances are of being approved. Davis responded by saying he could not answer that question but that the applicant should talk to the Administrator to determine the history of similar requests if there were any.
A question was asked, concerning the cabinet shop on Pot Hole Road, if there was a conditional use permit involved. Staff responded by saying that yes, a Conditional Use permit had been issued for the cabinet shop but that the ownership had changed and that if the use changed in any way, that permit has lapsed and a new permit must be applied for. He said no such communication has taken place. Therefor, the questioner continued, why can't the RV park do the same thing, get a conditional use permit going through the same procedure? Staff replied that the Mobile Home Park described in Section 10 of the ordinance is only allowed as a conditional use in a Rural Community Commercial zone, and that Pot Hole Rd and surrounding land is all in an Agriculture/Forestry zone, for which a conditional use permit is not an option. James Harness thanked the Commission for their time and suggestions and left the meeting.
The first item on the published agenda was the discussion of junkyards; their definition (Section 2), their Use and terminating their Use (Section 10), and enforcement provisions (Section 4). Several aspects of all of these areas were discussed. Chairman Caleb Davis then asked Staff to describe where this junkyard review stands.
Staff said he would like to recap what has been said up to this point, and in summary this was
- remove the distinction of Commercial versus Non-Commercial junkyards
- Commercial junkyards are prohibited in all zones but Commercial / Industrial zones
- Removing the distinction between Commercial and Non-Commercial would make this a significant change
- Removing the distinction and prohibiting junkyards in all zones are two major changes
- All junkyards should require a conditional use permit
- separate distinction between refuse (noun) and derelict automobiles
- there is not a way to terminate a conditional use
- needed: failure to comply with terms should result in loss of permit
Davis said this is a good place to pause and consider.
He suggested that after reviewing the discussions held thus far it seems that things are made simpler if the distinction between commercial and non-commercial junkyards is removed: a junkyard is a junkyard. This is not an area where a variance would be allowed, but rather a conditional use in any zone where a junkyard might be tolerated. For example, it may be reasonable to continue to prohibit any kind of junkyard in most zones (residential, suburban, for example) but enable the conditional use in other zones, other than Industrial and Commercial/Light Industrial. It is easier to discuss which zones, if any, when we don't have to worry about whether a junkyard is commercial or non-commercial.Staff said that the ordinance is silent when referencing non-commercial junkyards. Where most zones prohibit Commercial junkyards, the only zone specifically dealing with non-commercial junkyards is the residential zone, where in fact non-commercial AND commercial junkyards are prohibited. The planning and zoning commission is going to have to resolve just how a 'non-commercial junkyard' (whatever that means, in the absence of a distinction between commercial and non-commercial), just how to regulate the presence of a junkyard. One suggestion might be to only allow a junkyard in any zone provided it has an approved conditional use permit. Read 'any zone' to mean a zone in which you decide this is permissible. The first attempt to distinguish such zones might be to consider Agriculture/Forestry, Rural Community Commercial and Commercial/Light Industrial as the only zones not prohibiting Junkyards AND requiring a conditional use permit. (Leaving the Industrial zone as it is, not prohibiting junkyards and not requiring a conditional use permit for a junkyard; establish junkyards as prohibited in all other zones.)
Davis said that it seems cleaner to prohibit junkyards in certain zones, like Residential, and use the Terms and Conditions facility when establishing or recognizing a junkyard in those zones where a junkyard is allowed. By using a Conditional Use to handle adverse conditions, we can establish Terms and Conditions to manage those adversities. Tim Heenan said that is sound like there are certain standard standards and then we can impose select standards too. Davis asked for clarification, and Heenan said that Section 10 already deals with standards for junkyards, line of sight, fencing, security, weed control, etc. Davis said that's right, and additional conditions can be established such as crushing requirements, hours of operation, dust and noise control, and more, as the situation warrants.
A question arose: "Why would you consider the Agriculture/Forestry zone one in which you would allow a junkyard?" Davis replied and said that there are several properties in the county which lie in the Agriculture/Forestry zone which might match the definition of a junkyard. There are a limited number of properties zoned to enable having junkyards so allowing for continued use of existing properties that meet the junkyard description can limit the regulatory impact on such use. Owners of those properties might not consider themselves to have a junkyard, but in the event their property matches the description of a junkyard it would be helpful to be able to provide terms and conditions such that although the presence of a junkyard is recognized the owner would have the ability to meet conditions that would match the standards requirement for a junkyard.
Another question: "Who is going to be able to inspect and determine whether or not someone is in compliance with those Terms and Conditions?" Davis replied that that would be outside the purview of the Commission to determine, that would be the responsibility of the Administrator, the County Commissioners and the Sheriff. "You are not hearing me! Conditional Use permits grant permission to have a junkyard, Terms and Conditions are not enforceable, and junkyards in the Ag/Forest zone should be prohibited!"This discussion wove in and out of who would police the activity, why not disallow junkyards period? After all, people either obey the speed limit or they don't, sometimes they get caught and often they don't, why not just prohibit them and when they're caught, deal with that?
David Nicholis spoke up and pointed to the existing ordinance, that allows people to keep their personal property stored in an unregulated status regardless of what zone or where they are if they have less that 1/2 acre of their property out of public view? If they move up to a light use category they may have the same thing, personal property out of view up to 1 acre in size. He said the ordinance already provides for personal property in this manner, and what someone might call derelict automobiles someone else might claim them to be antiques. Why does it matter what they are or what they're called as long as they are out of sight? All this talk about junk yards, definitions, how many, etc. flies in the face of the existing ordinance. Check out 15.2.11, 15.3.4, 15.4.6. - and maybe, if you need a space of more than two acres to store this type of personal property, you can write your ordinance to broaden the scope of what is already being considered - all without regulatory challenge.
John Cranor thinks we would not be successful in trying to regulate people. Davis said that's true, and what we are trying to do is make it easy to maintain our personal property without impacting others.
Purdom said we don't want to regulate individual people and what they have hidden on their property, but when we observe mounds of cars or material stacked up like a storage facility containing many containers - then that is obviously not personal property but a business and perhaps this is what we need to regulate.
Nicholis again said that the ordinance is quite clear and preserving the right, unregulated, to store personal property, up to 1/2 acre in size, in any zone whatsoever. He said he enjoys clear language and the ordinance is quire clear on this subject. Davis interjected that he understands the point and again thanked Mr. Nicholis for making it. He said there is more business to be discussed, following the agenda, and that this portion of the agenda having to do with junkyards, needs to be tabled.
Staff spoke up to point out that this is just a workshop, one of several that have been held and possibly several more to follow. However, he pointed out, this is not a hearing. Any changes proposed to the ordinance must be presented in a public hearing and, as in tonight's case, the public is free to speak for or against any proposed change. Following such a hearing, where a recommendation would be made by the Planning and Zoning Commission to approve such change(s) to the Boundary County Commissioners, there would be another hearing, before the County Commissioners, to again discuss what is being proposed and to gather public input before the County Commissioners would make a final decision. Each of these hearings would be preceded by at least 15 days notice in the legal section of the local paper. This means there would be no surprise, everyone has the opportunity to participate and share their concerns and we're not there yet. As of tonight, this is still a workshop and unless and until the Planning and Zoning Commission decides to make a change to the ordinance the status quo will remain exactly as it is today - no surprises, no changes.
Chairman Davis moved on to the remaining items on the agenda - the creation of a Utilities Placement permit, the need to improve the Conditional Use (and Variance) processes to provide the ability to revoke the permit if Terms and Conditions are not met, typographical errors in the ordinance itself, and possible modifications to the Comprehensive Plan.The general discussion which took place did not resolve any of these areas into something formal and Staff agreed to summarize the ideas in the packet to be used for the next workshop meeting in August.
Wade Purdom moved to adjourn, John Cranor seconded, approved unanimously at 7:55 pm.
Transcribed by: John B. Moss