***Monday, April 22, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

9:00 a.m., County Civil Attorney Bill Wilson joined the meeting. Attorney Wilson reviewed the contract for the Restorium flooring project in relation to invoicing and project costs.

9:00 a.m., Emergency Manager Andrew O’Neel joined the meeting.

Mr. O’Neel presented commissioners with the Community Wildfire Protection Plan for signature.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Mr. O’Neel updated Commissioners on needing an extension for a grant.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Idaho Office of Emergency Management 2019 Grant Adjustment Notice for the 2019 Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

Mr. O’Neel left the meeting at 9:15 a.m.

Commissioner Cossairt mentioned needing to start the process again to establish an addressing system from the Kootenai River. Those present discussed mapping and GIS mapping involved.

Commissioners updated Attorney Wilson of topics that former County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull had been working on, such as changing the ordinance to allow for gas-powered boats on certain small lakes in Boundary County.

Attorney Wilson left the meeting at 9:43 a.m.

10:00 a.m., Assessor Olivia Drake joined the meeting to discuss quotes for carpeting the new Assessor’s Office building. Family Flooring had the lowest quote in the range of $20,000.00.

Family flooring will provide all materials and install the luxury vinyl plank (LVP), but Courthouse Maintenance will install the carpet.

Commissioner Robertson moved to accept quote from Family Flooring for Assessor’s Office, minus the sales tax. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Those present briefly discussed the status of the Assessor’s Office remodel project.

10:19 a.m., Chairman Bertling left the meeting to participate in a separate meeting at the landfill to discuss the proposed food waste recycling program.

Commissioner Robertson moved to appoint Commissioner Cossairt acting chairman in the absence of Chairman Bertling. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Assessor Drake left the meeting at 10:19 a.m.

10:30 a.m., Treasurer Jenny Economu joined the meeting.

Commissioners held a tax deed hearing for delinquent year 2020 property taxes. Present were: Acting Chairman Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, and Treasurer Jenny Economu. The hearing was recorded.

Treasurer Economu informed Commissioners that there are no properties that need to be tax deeded.

The tax deed hearing ended at 10:31 a.m.

Treasurer Economu reviewed her quarterly report of county accounts and associated interest rates.

Treasurer Economu informed Commissioners that her office is getting ready to send out reminder notices for the property tax payments.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to accept the Treasurer’s report of county accounts. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

The meeting with Treasurer Economu ended at 10:52 a.m.

Commissioners tended to administrative duties.

Commissioners recessed for lunch.

1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

1:30 p.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Brad Barton, and Road and Bridge Department Assistant Adam Ryals joined the meeting to give the department report. Mr. Barton reviewed the written report.

Attorney Bill Wilson joined the meeting via conference call.

Mr. Ryals said Road and Bridge is just wondering what the best way is to work with Attorney Wilson’s schedule for review of county documents. Ms. Nelson listed the various projects that former County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull had been working on that still need a determination. Attorney Wilson asked Road and Bridge to send him the information that he is to work on. Mr. Ryals asked what the schedule is to meet with Attorney Wilson in person? Attorney Wilson asked what the turn-around time is for the documents he needs to review and he said a week’s time frame is a good time to review information for the following week’s agenda, unless it is something of an urgent nature. Ms. Nelson said she was just trying to have a plan going forward.

Mr. Ryals and Attorney Wilson discussed the parameters of a public records request.

The call to Attorney Wilson ended.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve and sign the Findings and Decision Road Approach Variance Application #1-2024 for Terristy Rental Properties, Terry and Kristy Johnson. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.

Mr. Ryals updated commissioners on the status of work on the crusher.

Ms. Nelson said Road and Bridge received the funds associated with chip sealing Brown Creek Road.

The meeting with Road and Bridge ended at 2:00 p.m.

2:00 p.m., Susan Costa with the Wild Horse Trail Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR) met with commissioners to be presented with the Proclamation in Support of Boundary County’s Military Caregivers in Collaboration with Idaho’s DAR and Hidden Heroes.

The meeting with Ms. Costa ended at 2:05 p.m.

Commissioners tended to administrative duties.

2:30 p.m., Boundary Economic Development Council (EDC) Director David Sims stopped by the office to extend an invitation to commissioners to attend a meeting about the Porthill US Customs Border Office expansion project. Those present briefly discussed the urban renewal district.

Mr. Sims left the meeting.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve and sign the New Road Name Request Form for Magnolia Way. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.

There being no further business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow at 9:00 a.m.

***Tuesday, April 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session at the County Annex with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

9:00 a.m., Commissioners held an elected officials/department heads meeting. Present were: Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Veterans Service Officer Ron Self, Noxious Weed Department Superintendent Dave Wenk, Solid Waste Department Superintendent Richard Jenkins, University of Idaho Extension Educator Amy Robertson, Personnel Director Pam Barton, Treasurer Jenny Fessler, Assessor Olivia Drake, Chief Probation Officer Alisa Walker, Coroner Chad Workman, Sheriff Dave Kramer, Restorium Administrator Janay Smith, Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Brad Barton, Road and Bridge Department Assistant Adam Ryals, and IT Director Matt Hodges.

Commissioners went around the room for department updates.

Chairman Bertling expressed that Personnel Director Pam Barton needs a timely notification when an employee’s dependents no longer need insurance coverage.

The elected officials/department heads meeting ended at 9:25 a.m.

Ms. Nelson asked to meet with Commissioners this afternoon to discuss a matter pertaining to road work. Ms. Nelson, Mr. Barton and Mr. Ryals left the meeting.

9:30 a.m., Solid Waste Department Superintendent Richard Jenkins met with commissioners to discuss various matters.

Mr. Jenkins said one of his employees will be starting the commercial driver’s license course in May and he questioned if this employee needs to sign the agreement for this class. Commissioners said yes, an agreement needs to be signed.

Mr. Jenkins informed commissioners that he needs to determine the budget to allocate for the proposed food waste recycling program, but the Kootenai Tribe doesn’t expect to receive the grant letter from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) until June 1st. Karen Schumacher with the Kootenai Tribe has provided a spreadsheet for the entire three-year budget for this program, but Mr. Jenkins said he doesn’t know what to put into the solid waste budget for this next year and he’s not sure what to bill the Tribe for all of the training, hours, etc., for a not to exceed amount. The memorandum of understanding for this project is with the Tribe’ legal department currently and it won’t be available until the funding is in place, June 1st. After that, a feasibility study needs to be done, but the county may already be into its budget year. Clerk Poston said to plan the budget as per normal, then if the program meets its expectations, the county can adopt a resolution for receiving moneys. Mr. Jenkins, Clerk Poston and commissioners discussed payments, etc., and Clerk Poston explained that the county doesn’t have the ability to keep setting up different programs for a specialty group. It was said that the county will have to bill the Kootenai Tribe for the county’s labor and get reimbursed. Clerk Poston mentioned a contingency plan in case the costs overrun. Commissioner Robertson said you almost cannot budget for this. Clerk Poston agreed and said to assume that you’re not budgeting yet, until you know of an amount and that the project is proceeding, then the county will look at it.

Mr. Jenkins mentioned to commissioners that he would like to purchase a 14-foot heavy duty Grizzly rip rap screener for the concrete at the landfill that’s been buried with dirt and sand since the 1990s. Mr. Jenkins provided reasons for needing this equipment. The cost is $31,064.00, which does include transportation costs. Mr. Jenkins said he does have budget for this purchase and he would take funds from both the wood and tire removal expense accounts. Mr. Jenkins explained needing this equipment to help build a new road at the landfill and to assist with road base. Commissioner Robertson asked about a screen bucket and Mr. Jenkins said that wouldn’t work for what he needs. Chairman Bertling said he has no problem with it. Commissioners and Mr. Jenkins discussed the matter further and Commissioner Robertson said it would be nice if there is another screener available and to check and see if Road and Bridge has an extra one. Commissioner Robertson clarified that he is not opposed to purchasing this equipment, but it’s worth asking Road and Bridge first. Commissioners continued the meeting to this afternoon at 2:00 p.m.

The meeting with Mr. Jenkins ended at 10:08 a.m.

Commissioners continued their discussed the matter of concrete at the landfill amongst themselves.

Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the minutes of April 15 & 16, 2024. Commissioner Robertson second. Motion passed unanimously.
Clerk Poston left the meeting at 10:15 a.m.

10:20 a.m., Commissioners recessed until their afternoon meeting at 2:00 p.m.

2:00 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session in Commissioners’ Chambers with Chairman Tim Bertling, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Ben Robertson, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.

2:00 p.m.: Solid Waste Department Superintendent Richard Jenkins joined the meeting. Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Brad Barton, and Road and Bridge Department Assistant Adam Ryals also joined the meeting.

Ms. Nelson reminded Commissioners that Brown Creek Road is scheduled to have chip sealing done this year, so dust abatement cannot be applied to this road. There are some landowners that had planned on having dust abatement done, but can’t because if they do, the chip seal won’t adhere to the road. People are having dust abatement materials applied to portions of other county roads without providing notice to Road and Bridge. If someone puts oil on Brown Creek Road for some of the landowners, Road and Bridge will have to return the $100,000.00 it was awarded for chip sealing, because they won’t be able to do that work. You cannot mix these different chemicals in the same year. The project to chip seal Brown Creek Road is scheduled to start in the middle of May. Ms. Nelson discussed wanting to have the correct verbiage for a letter to send to the suppliers of dust abatement, as well as the landowners. People were supposed to let Road and Bridge know if they’re applying dust abatement, but it’s been sliding. Ms. Nelson spoke of having reached out to one company that provides dust abatement, but she has not gotten a call back and Road and Bridge wants to make sure they don’t put dust abatement on Brown Creek Road.

Those present discussed what to do if Road and Bridge receives an invoice for dust abatement work that has already been done. In the past, Road and Bridge has paid it, but going forward, people need to check with Road and Bridge first before having the work done. Road and Bridge needs to be notified about proposed road applications prior, because work on that particular road might already be in the plans. There needs to be communication to Road and Bridge.

Mr. Jenkins and Commissioners inquired if Road and Bridge has a static Grizzly rock screen. Ms. Nelson said Road and Bridge has more than one, but it’s possible that one of them is not being used right now, so they will look into that.

The meeting with Mr. Jenkins, Ms. Nelson, Mr. Barton, and Mr. Ryals ended at 2:19 p.m.

2:30 p.m. Boundary Economic Development Council (EDC) Director David Sims, Cory Trapp with Longwell+Trapp Architects, and Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) Brownsfield Analyst Steve Gill met with Commissioners to discuss the former Safeway building the county had recently purchased.

Mr. Gill spoke of having looked at the old Safeway building and potential remodel plans. Those present discussed the asbestos floor files and it was said the county is not liable for any of the cleanup. Mr. Gill explained that the Brownsfield Program is a program that allows for site cleanup and they can provide for abatement of asbestos and polychlorinated biphenyals (PCB) in ballasts. Mr. Gill commented that he also saw one thermostat that may have mercury in it. Mr. Gill said a clean-up grant could be applied for, which allows better flexibility for cleanup. Grant funds would be utilized for a DEQ contractor, who would complete a hazardous substance report and an engineering valuation cost analysis to provide for alternatives of what can be done with the building. Because this is federal money, the project would have to meet Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulations, information needs to be submitted to the Kootenai and Kalispell Tribe for cultural determination of the building and well as historical criteria. The county can do all of this, or commissioners can have Mr. Sims or the EDC act as the requesting agency. At the end of 45 days, a task order would be completed with the contractor and in the first part of July, the building would be surveyed and a report would be drafted. The county would apply for the grants for clean-up and DEQ would put the information together for the county. Mr. Gill said he thinks the county would have a good chance of getting the grant. The grants come out in September and then the study would be done in November. The grant award will be announced in April.

Commissioner Robertson said to him, the hang-up would be what the value is. Mr. Trapp commented that he heard the grant is just to do cleanup and Mr. Gill said the grant is not for new construction. We need to find out what commissioners’ needs are. Mr. Trapp said we need to identify how much asbestos and hazardous materials are there and what the grant amount is based on that cost. Mr. Gill spoke of the importance of having Mr. Trapp look at what the plans are and what other things can we ask for. Mr. Trapp said the roof probably has asbestos in it and comments were made about replacing the old roof with a new one and having the grant funds for the new roof. Mr. Sims mentioned the possibility of emergency efficiency related grants and Mr. Gill said that is a possibility. We could seek funds from the Land Revitalization fund.

Commissioner Robertson said because of it being a historical building, it might be possible to obtain those types of funds. Because the Courthouse is a historic structure and Safeway qualifies as being historic due to its age, since making renovations to Safeway saves work from being done to the courthouse, funds may be available for that. Mr. Trapp spoke of the possible timeline of events.

Those present discussed grants to cover the cost to refloor the Safeway building since the existing floor would need to be removed. Mr. Trapp said he could do a programming and schematic design for the county and he would need to know how many current employees there are and what is the anticipated growth of employees? Mr. Gill said he would engage the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now and see if they could put together a plan that is more than just asbestos abatement, such as energy efficiency, etc. Chairman Bertling said he would like to move forward with this project.

3:36 p.m., The meeting ended and Commissioner Cossairt, Commissioner Bertling, Mr. Gill, Mr. Sims, and Mr. Trapp took a tour of the former Safeway building.

3:36 p.m., There being no further business, the meeting recessed until Commissioners’ special meeting adjourned at 3:36 p.m.

Thursday, April 25, 2024, at 6:07 p.m., Commissioners met in special session at the County Annex with Planning and Zoning Commission members: Chairman Caleb Davis, Scott Fuller, Bill Benage, Rob Woywod, David Hollabaugh, Adam Isaac, Wade Purdom, Ron Self, and Jon Cranor; and Planning and Zoning Administrator Ben Jones, and Contract Planners Tessa Vogel and Clare Marley. The purpose of the meeting/workshop with the Planning and Zoning Commission is to discuss planning and zoning related ideas and feedback as it pertains to the Land Use Ordinance. The meeting was recorded.

Mr. Davis asked Commissioners what they would like to discuss or accomplish and Chairman Bertling said he was just hoping to have open dialogue, to get something positive going and to know where the Planning and Zoning Commission is coming from and discuss where county commissioners want to go. Ms. Marley provided Power Point slides showing the status of code work done to date and she provided a background. Almost one year has been spent on the subject of parcels that had never been zoned. Effective dates for the zoning map and non-conforming lands have been established in order to recognize these lots as lawful for permitting. The definition of a residence was determined, which came as a result of the Struggle Bear matter. That was adopted during the summer of last year. Ms. Marley also commented on code enforcement, the flood damage prevention hearing that is coming up, and the repeal of the overlay. Items the Planning and Zoning Commission has been working on is the overhaul of the subdivision ordinance and allowing placement permits to be transferred. There was mention of looking at RV, cabin and junk yard standards. Mr. Davis said there is a lot in the ordinance that needs work as it is ambiguous and subject to various interpretations. The Planning and Zoning Commission serves commissioners in an advisory capacity and they will not just rubber stamp applications. Mr. Davis said the Planning and Zoning Commission would like feedback on what is put onto commissioners and have specificity on that feedback. Those present reviewed slides on pending land use updates and Mr. Davis said the philosophy is not to grow government and we need to protect people’s property rights.

Chairman Bertling mentioned that the hearing on enforcement was tabled and continued and he, personally thinks we do have issues in the county that need to be addressed, but it won’t happen overnight. Due to having codes that are ambiguous, it’s human nature for someone to abuse that to their benefit and he wants to avoid that. Chairman Bertling commented that he likes addressing the matter of RV’s, cabins and recreation standards and working on having placement permits being transferrable. What if someone starts to build a home and then they either can no longer afford it and they want to transfer the permit or they find another buyer for the home in the process. Commissioner Robertson said he spoke strongly against code enforcement for the same reasons listed on the slide for pending updates, not that he would necessarily pursue it, but it would be to open the door for the next Board of Commissioners to make a misdemeanor violation not a criminal offense. There is a lot that would be considered a misdemeanor violation. Commissioner Robertson commented on how much money would end up being spent. Mr. Hollabaugh said it is more about giving teeth to the people who are absolutely violating code intentionally. It was said that Planning and Zoning receive a lot of complaints that aren’t about code enforcement; but just neighbors being impacted by other neighbors. Mr. Self said commissioners asks the Planning and Zoning Commission to do this job, but the ordinance doesn’t have any teeth. Most complaints come from neighbors, but the Planning and Zoning Commission needs backing. Mr. Davis said he’s looking for specificity and Chairman Bertling referred to misdemeanors. The old code says that misdemeanors can actually be pursued. It was questioned if the county’s goal is to entirely remove that or to pursue infractions, etc. What are commissioners looking for? Commissioner Robertson said he still doesn’t not have a good answer to that and he added that there isn’t anywhere that this is laid out perfectly. Mr. Woywod asked about looking to see what other counties are doing. Mr. Watts said yes, and they kept whittling it down for bare bones structure. The parts that were expanded was felt it to be protection for property owners, such as a notice of title, according to Mr. Davis. Mr. Hollabaugh questioned it being about the discretion of law enforcement to pursue criminal action and Ms. Marley mentioned it is the prosecutor. Commissioner Robertson said if have we have a law, we could end up with a prosecuting attorney that might be overly ambitious. Mr. Self said he doesn’t want to be known as the county where people built first and then asked for forgiveness later. If we don’t stop it now, it will just keep going. Commissioner Robertson said that is a fair point, but he’s not sure where to draw the line. Every rule and ordinance is an invasion of property rights as you’re being told what you can and cannot do on your property, according to Commissioner Robertson. Mr. Hollabaugh said the Planning and Zoning Commission has to come to a consensus of an infraction, etc., but commissioners would still be who pushes the action; not Planning and Zoning. So, there are many layers protecting an individual. A comment was made about people who violate the ordinance egregiously. Mr. Purdom said when you think about junkyards, Chapter 10.5.3.1, states that all junk yards are to be screened, but we don’t require that because it states that. Mr. Purdom added that for example, in reality we don’t care, why do we have section and why not wipe it out since it is an unenforceable code? Mr. Purdom said he has a serious problem with this in the ordinance. It’s a junk yard and nobody will do anything about it.

Mr. Hollabaugh commented on someone wanting to sell their property, but if there is a visible junk yard, it decreases values, so it still affects someone’s ability to get equity, which impacts the neighbors who are in compliance, but nobody else follows the rules. Mr. Purdom said to get rid of that whole ordinance. The other side is that he doesn’t want parcels right next to his house or a subdivision with ¼ lots. We, as a county have to decide as a whole, what we want. Mr. Self said the word pertains to gravel pits, junkyards, etc. Chairman Bertling said junkyards are so out there, one person could be restoring cars that are all lined up while another person could have their cars parked haphazardly. Mr. Davis asked what are the goals? Commissioner Robertson said he’s one of three commissioners, so his opinion may differ and there might not be a consensus. Commissioner Cossairt added that the commissioners don’t always agree. Mr. Purdom said he would like commissioners’ point of view. What is each commissioner looking for? Mr. Hollabaugh said they could have two commissioners who agree on something and one who doesn’t and that information could still be presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Bertling said we need to look at finding areas that are close to town that can be reduced down to one-acre lots for starter homes for young families, but they need to be on a water system. Mr. Isaac added they need to have infrastructure It was said the state doesn’t want to address putting holes in the ground in relation to water. Mr. Davis asked if this is about wanting to create a different zone or modifying a current zone for density? Chairman Bertling said he would want to go the easiest way that cannot be manipulated. Mr. Self said you have to have water. Mr. Isaac said there are already areas that have one-acre lots near Three Mile. Mr. Isaac said what we’re bringing to commissioners is what the Planning and Zoning Commission is hearing from the public. Commissioner Robertson said commissioners hear from the loud minority; but not the quiet majority.

Commissioner Robertson commented about flag lots and he said they’re a poor use of land. If you need to make use of an odd piece of land, sure, but don’t do it just because you want to. Discussion was held about flag lots in relation to water district requirements. Mr. Woywod said the water company doesn’t recognize easements, so are they being stubborn? Ms. Vogel said Three Mile Water District has stated that they don’t like easements because they’re messy. Three Mile Water District has said if the county changes its regulations that would no longer allow the 15 or 20-foot strip sections, the water district will need to look at changing as well and look at easements, but they’ve taken a hard line on that, according to Ms. Vogel.

Chairman Bertling commented about having Prime Agriculture and Prime Forestry zones where they can go down to acre lots, but cannot subdivide below 30-acre lots. For example, if Prime Ag and Forestry cannot go down to 10 acres and they have to be 30 acres. Chairman Bertling said he can see alfalfa fields getting chopped up and he questioned how to keep the population in those one-acre spots. Ms. Marley asked Chairman Bertling if he means he wanted larger lots. Chairman Bertling gave an example of someone having 500 acres and gives 30 acres to their son or daughter, you can put them in quarter acre lots while they’re still in production. Ms. Marley spoke of a project where someone preferred to have forest on one side and agriculture on the other with a cluster of homes in the middle. The Planning and Zoning Commission is working on that. It was said that timber management aspects go out the window when you go down to 10 acres. Mr. Isaac said we would need to create new zone and map those areas out in the county. Mr. Woywod said it is more like commercial forestry. Mr. Davis said hypothetically, you look at alfalfa fields and rezone them. Chairman Bertling said you can’t do the entire county, but can do some areas and he mentioned what is happening on Chisholm Hill Road and the Smith Lake area. There has been a ripple effect in relation to Smith Lake. Commissioner Robertson said he may not disagree and he added that he feels there is a tool to fix that with larger land sizes and more of a cluster division. Commissioner Robertson said what kills a farmer is having 30 acres and taking 10 acres out of a hayfield and he gave an example of having a 10-acre zone and splitting off 2 acres and keeping the rest. Ms. Marley asked if the county has ever done a cluster subdivision and the answer was no.

Mr. Woywod asked about the family exemption and Commissioner Cossairt explained how that exemption had been abused. Mr. Isaac said years ago, he had reached out to about five or six farmers in the valley and he asked them how large of an acreage they would want to go and they said they would be fine with 20 acre lots, but no bigger, was the consensus. Mr. Hollabaugh asked to bring this subject in with the Planning and Zoning Commission.

Commissioner Robertson said we have public hearings and the whole purpose is for people to complain, but commissioners have had no legal means to deny the application, so it’s a waste of time. Mr. Davis asked if commissioners feel that should be an administrative decision and Commissioner Robertson said yes. In a recent hearing for a subdivision, not one thing was out of the ordinance, so why have a public hearing on that? Ms. Marley explained that the application had met code. Chairman Bertling added that the application met everything in the ordinance and there were no grounds to deny. Commissioner Robertson said why are we there for that type of hearing? If it’s to be a sounding board for the community, that’s fine, but it’s inefficient. Mr. Hollabaugh spoke of having to look at the comprehensive plan and the ordinance as the comprehensive plan gives them subjectivity. Ms. Vogel said this is a conversation this Planning and Zoning Board has had and she spoke of certain land divisions of certain sizes. If a division of land is under a certain number, then no board hears it, but if more than four lots are split, both boards have a hearing on the application. That question was raised last August, if a split was between five and 10 acres, it would be heard before Planning and Zoning, but if a split was over 10 lots, both boards would address it. Another question is going to just a subdivision or a record of survey. Ms. Marley said for authority, state law doesn’t require hearings for subdivisions but it’s the ability to be heard. Chairman Bertling spoke of the public being heard, but as a board, if commissioners don’t have the tools to say an application is to be denied and they deny it, the county is going to get sued. Commissioners want to just streamline the process. Commissioner Robertson said currently, commissioners cannot say no to certain things and maybe it’s something they need to say no to, but then it can become arbitrary. Mr. Hollabaugh said it sounds like we need a formalized response. Commissioner Robertson said the Planning and Zoning Commission is an advisory board and they’re professional and he asked them to please advise commissioners. If commissioners want to do something, but the Planning and Zoning Commission doesn’t like it, it might not necessarily be the right direction to go.

Commissioner Cossairt spoke of having discussed fines and penalties and he said he doesn’t want to see the fine that gets paid by the person, and then they can just keep doing what they’re doing. Mr. Benage said if the fine is monthly and ongoing, it will get the person’s attention.

Mr. Isaac discussed the matter of someone reporting something going on in their neighborhood and it involving the prosecutor. Ms. Marley explained that the first step is to verify the complaint and how a letter is mailed via regular mail to the person with the potential violation. If the person doesn’t respond or has not abated the confirmed violation, a second letter will be sent to them via certified mail and if there is no response, the matter will go to the Prosecutor’s Office.

Chairman Bertling asked to have another meeting/workshop in approximately four or five months. Mr. Purdom said that would be great. Commissioner Cossairt thanked the Planning and Zoning Commission for the work that they do.

The meeting ended at 7:02 p.m.

________________________________
TIM BERTLING, Chairman
ATTEST:

_____________________________
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy