Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes August 16, 2018
|
|
Attending
|
Names
|
|
Public |
Isabel Huff, Kennon McClintock |
|
Planning & Zoning |
Caleb Davis (Chairman), Tim Heenan, MarciaVee Cossette, John Cranor, Rob Woywod, Scott Fuller, Wade Purdom (Co-Chair) |
|
Absent |
Counselor Tevis Hull, Adam Isaac, Ron Self |
|
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, introduced the Commission members and presented the evening agenda. Davis .
Davis asked the Commission if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the July 19, 2018 workshop. There being none, Davis asked for a motion to approve the July 19 Minutes. Rob Woywod so moved, seconded by Tim Heenan, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Abstain, Scott Fuller - abstain, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Abstain, Adam Isaac - Absent, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Absent, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (4), Absent (2), Abstain (3)
The motion to approve the July 19 2018 workshop minutes was unanimous.
The Chairman announced the opening of the Zone Amendment Hearing regarding application 18-128 by Shem Johnson. This Hearing is to recommend a decision concerning a request to rezone land from Prime Forest to Agriculture Forestry .
Opening the hearing to accept comments on Application 18-128, Chairman Davis noted that in the absence of the applicant did Staff wish to make an opening statement?
Staff explained the nature of the request, to zone the parcel (RP65N01E310015A) in its entirety to Agriculture Forestry. The applicant wishes to replace the area in the parcel which is zoned Prime Forest with the zone designation Agriculture Forestry. Staff proceeded to describe the application per the Staff Report and Staff Analysis provided.
Chairman Davis asked if anyone had any questions they wanted to ask Staff and in response to questioning it became clear that the applicant had purchased the property zoned as it is, with two zones defining the parcel; the eastern portion (roughly 2/3's) zoned Prime Forest and the western 1/3 zoned Agriculture Forestry. Staff said, as per the analysis provided, the ordinance allows for ownership of Prime Forestry to be State or Federal in nature; the minimum parcel size for Prime Forest being 160 acres.
Chairman Davis then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of the requested rezone application. With no response, Davis then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak neutral to the requested rezone application.
Kennon McClintock said he had a few comments to make, and asked when did the land get zoned as Prime Forest? He said this seemed relatively recent, since he was not aware of this area of the county being zoned Prime Forest. Staff replied that the Comprehensive Plan Map in use in 2008 carried this definition, but just when the land was zoned Prime Forest he didn't know (but could do some research to answer the question). McClintock said he remembered going through the Comp Plan Map discussion in the late 1900's and early 2000's but could not recall how this particular area of the county was zoned. Staff said that it had to have been owned by the Forest Service since that would account for the zoning (required ownership of a State or Federal agency). Isabel Huff said that she knows nothing about the Forest Service being involved, that the land was owned by John Devore(sp?) before Shem Johnson. She said she is the neighbor to the north of this parcel, and has been aware of the property for many years and knows nothing about Forest Service involvement. McClintock said the possibility of a Homestead Act grant might explain the original ownership, and Staff said that however it happened, however the zone came about, the relationship now is the applicant owns property zoned Prime Forest. Huff expressed interest in the Planning and Zoning proceedings and said she is in favor of the rezone since this seems appropriate zoning.
Kennon McClintock said he would like to introduce some concern regarding Forestland in Boundary County. His concern relates to how the minimum parcel size relates to the timber industry in the county, and specifically how important the available supply of logs to the local lumber mills. He said that 80% of the logs sent to these mills comes from private forestlands and in Boundary County we have a finite number of acres of private forestland. While perhaps 25% of these forestlands may be considered industrial, 90% of this 75% private forestlands are NOT managed for maximum timber production. As forestlands become smaller and smaller with an increase in population they become less viable as forestlands and once the acreage becomes 10 acres or less these lands drop from the resource base. In order to protect our local economy intact we must protect and maintain wooded acreage. The vehicle given to accomplish this is minimum acreage size. Providing for a 10 acre minimum size also provides a way of losing our timber resource.
Davis thanked McClintock for providing the perspective, then asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak opposed to the application. There being none, Davis closed the hearing to public testimony and asked the Commission to discuss the application.
Woywod said it makes sense to expand the Ag/Forest zone to include the entire parcel. After looking at the zone map,Purdom asked about the other parcels nearby which are also zoned Prime Forest; are these under private ownership also? Staff explained that some are, and that he had attempted to contact the neighbor to the south to inform him of the meeting but was unable to make contact. He also said that there is no easy way to query all lands zoned Prime Forest in an effort to determine how much of this is privately owned. Davis asked if this application is similar to the rezoning hearing held recently and Staff replied yes, exactly the same situation, where land zoned Prime Forest was owned by a timber management company who had purchased the land from the Forest Service and the zone had not changed. Cranor asked if that request had been approved, as he recalled that it had been. Staff said a recommendation of approval had been made to the County Commissioners. Planning and Zoning Commission Co-chair Wade Purdom moved to recommend approval of Application 18-128. Tim Heenan seconded the motion and voting was as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Aye, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Adam Isaac - Absent, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Absent, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (7), Abstain (0), Absent (2)
The motion to recommend for approval Application 18-128, a request to rezone parcel RP65N01E310015A entirely as Agriculture Forestry, was unanimous.
Chairman Davis referred to the Agenda and reminded the Commission that they had, in the last meeting, finalized the details in proposing amendments to Ordinance 9B18LOV1, specifically (in 18-119) changes related to the definitions of Setback, Structure, Enforcement of setback distance, and (in 18-120) the duration of a Variance plus the correction of a few typographical errors in Section 12 (variance). He reminded everyone that these hearings were publicized in accordance with Idaho Code 67-6509 and Ordinance 9B18LOV1 Section 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTIFICATION, and that subsequent to these hearings related to amending Ordinance 9B18LOV1 recommendations for approval of these changes would be scheduled for a County Commissioners hearing pursuant to Section 18.2.3.2.2.4.2. Recommend Approval as Amended.
The Planning and Zoning Commission were encouraged by Chairman Davis to review the minutes from the last meeting, and to ask questions about details where clarification was needed. Davis read from the Staff Report for applications 18-119 and 18-120 and the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed (again) on the substance of these changes as being reasonable and necessary
Planning and Zoning Commission Co-chair Wade Purdom moved to recommend approval of Application 18-119, a request to amend Ordinance 9B18LOV1: "Section 2 (Definitions); 2.57 Setback, 2.62 Structure; and Section 4 (Enforcement): 4.1.3.1 remove reference to flood plain in failure to comply with setback distance". Tim Heenan seconded the motion and voting was as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Aye, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Adam Isaac - Absent, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Absent, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (7), Abstain (0), Absent (2)
The motion to recommend for approval Application 18-119, a request to amend Ordinance 9B18LOV1: "Section 2 (Definitions); 2.57 Setback, 2.62 Structure; and Section 4 (Enforcement): 4.1.3.1 remove reference to flood plain in failure to comply with setback distance", was unanimous.
Planning and Zoning Commission member Rob Woywod moved to recommend for approval of Application 18-120, a request to amend Ordinance 9B18LOV1: "Section 12 (Variance) to establish duration as runs with the land, plus 3 specific typographical errors". John Cranor seconded the motion and voting was as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Aye, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Adam Isaac - Absent, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Absent, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (7), Abstain (0), Absent (2)
The motion to recommend for approval Application 18-120, a request to amend Ordinance 9B18LOV1: "Section 12 (Variance) to establish duration as runs with the land, plus 3 specific typographical errors" was unanimous.
Next, Chairman Davis reminded the Commission that there are three proposed changes to the Ordinance but that due to time and scheduling constraints only two applications had been scheduled for public hearing, which was completed this evening. A third proposal (18-130) involves changes related to the definitions of the term for a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Davis said that 18-130 changes had been presented at a time when it woulod have been inconvenient to discuss them due to a need for a quorum, and that this evening the discussion and decision could be made to share the proposal at a (later) publicized public hearing. He reminded everyone that to have a hearing concerning any change to the ordinance there had to be a review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, a suggested amendment or proposal for change, perhaps a review by the County Attorney, and if all is in accord the proposal for change is to be published in accordance with Idaho Code 67-6509 and Ordinance 9B18LOV1 Section 19 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTIFICATION. At this point, said Davis, we can consider the term limits as stated in the ordinance and if a change is desired, schedule the necessary public hearing to discuss any change proposal.
Chairman Davis asked Staff for the application 18-130 Staff Report and Staff Analysis.
Staff said that the existing term limit of 2 terms (eight years) provides a reasonable length of time for someone to serve in the capacity of a Planning and Zoning Commissioner, but that to limit the time of service to eight years denies the county of the expertise gained in serving the county through a myriad of hearings and applications after the two terms have expired. An alternative approach would be to offer a Commission member the opportunity to serve longer, if the person wishes to do so, and thus be able to retain the experience this individual has in dealing with land use problems. The Staff Analysis reveals that the State of Idaho code provides for such an extension, provided the majority of the governing body concur in extending another term to an individual.
Davis thanked Staff and suggested that a review of the proposed changes will reveal that both the individual and the county can benefit from extended service. He then said that the proposed change does not promote serving less or more time but rather the option to serve longer, more than 2 terms, if the member wishes to do so. Then he asked for discussion and thoughts from the Commission members.
Heenan asked if this applies to us in the current term? Davis said no, it would depend on the ordinance in effect at the time a member's term expired. Staff said that concerning timing it would be best to present all changes to the ordinance at one time, holding applications 18-119 and 18-120 to be presented to the County Commissioners at one time.
Fuller asked if we were voting on the extension of terms, not the existing term? Davis - right - whatever the ordinance says when a term ends (yours, mine, whoever) will determine the option to serve longer or not.
Staff said that what we have proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission is Section 3.6.3. and the suggestion is that this be expanded to sub-sections 3.6.3.1. through 3.6.3.5.; the proposed change will retain most of 3.6.3. but would provide the opportunity for a member to serve a consecutive term if more than 2/3 of the members vote to retain the member - provided the member has expressed an interest in continuing to serve. Cranor asked about the 2/3 majority and after a lot of discussion this was recommended to be a simple majority. Davis stated that the proposed change would provide for two levels of approving retention: first, the Planning and Zoning members would need to vote a simple majority to retain a member. Second, the proposal would be sent to the County Commissioners as a recommended vote to retain and then the County Commissioners, by a 2/3 majority vote, can accept the recommendation or deny it, thus extending or terminating a member's service.
Planning and Zoning Commission member Wade Purdom moved to recommend for approval of Application 18-130, a request to amend Ordinance 9B18LOV1: "Section 3.6.3. (Term of Office) to provide for an elective continued term". (see below for the complete proposed text of Section 3.6.3., current and proposed.) John Cranor seconded the motion and voting was as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Aye, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Adam Isaac - Absent, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Absent, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (7), Abstain (0), Absent (2)
The motion to recommend for approval Application 18-130, a request to amend Ordinance 9B18LOV1: "Section 3.6.3. (Term of Office) to provide for an elective continued term" was unanimous.
Current (9B18LOV1)
3.6.3. Appointment/Term of Office/Qualification of Members: Members of the planning and zoning commission will be appointed by resolution of the board of county commissioners and will meet the residency requirements established at IC-67-6504. County commissioners may, at their discretion, also include area of residence within the county as an additional criterion so as to assure balanced representation. The appointing resolution will specify the effective date of appointment as well as the expiration of the term of appointment. Terms will be staggered so that no more than five terms expire within any two-year period. The term of office for members of the planning and zoning commission will be four years. Where a new member is appointed to fill a vacancy created by an expiring term, that member will be appointed to a full term. Where a new member is appointed to fill a vacancy created by resignation, that member will be appointed to complete the remainder of the term vacated. Membership shall be limited to not more than two full terms. (Highlights above represent bullet items 3.6.3.1., 3.6.3.2., and 3.6.3.3. below.)Proposed (9B18LOV2)
3.6.3. Appointment/Term of Office/Qualification of Members: Members of the planning and zoning commission will be appointed by resolution of the board of county commissioners and will meet the residency requirements established at IC-67-6504. County commissioners may, at their discretion, also include area of residence within the county as an additional criterion so as to assure balanced representation. The appointing resolution will specify the effective date of appointment as well as the expiration of the term of appointment.
3.6.3.1. Terms will be staggered so that no more than five terms expire within any two-year period. The term of office for members of the planning and zoning commission will be four years.
3.6.3.2. Where a new member is appointed to fill a vacancy created by an expiring term, that member will be appointed to a full term. Where a new member is appointed to fill a vacancy created by resignation, that member will be appointed to complete the remainder of the term vacated.
3.6.3.3. Prior to the completion of the fourth year of a member’s term (in October of that year) a letter of intent to serve a subsequent (consecutive) term will be submitted to the Administrator and/or Chairman.
3.6.3.4. No member shall serve more than two (2) consecutive terms without specific Concurrence by a simple majority of the Planning and Zoning Commission adopted by motion and added to the minutes.
3.6.3.5. Upon review and presentation by interviewed applicants, the Planning and Zoning Commission may either direct Staff to seek additional letters of interest and table the review or forward to County Commissioners a recommendation as to who should fill any vacancy, made by motion and majority vote (see 3.6.3.4. above). The Administrator will forward the recommendation, along with all letters of interest submitted, to County Commissioners and set a date on the County Commissioners agenda for initial review. County Commissioners may:
- make final decision based on the merits of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation and the content of the letter of interest, or
- table a decision to allow for interviews with prospective members, or
- direct the Administrator to seek additional letters of interest for consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Wade Purdom moved to adjourn, Rob Woywod seconded, approved unanimously at 8:30 pm.
Transcribed by: John B. Moss