Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes December 20, 2018
|
|
Attending
|
Names
|
|
Public |
Clark Fairchild, Terry Spencer, Michael Cormily, Doug Dyke, David Hollabaugh, Jimmy Ball, Justin Holladay |
|
Planning & Zoning |
Caleb Davis (Chairman), MarciaVee Cossette, Rob Woywod, John Cranor, Wade Purdom (Co-Chair), Adam Isaac, Ron Self, Scott Fuller |
|
Absent |
Counselor Tevis Hull, Tim Heenan |
|
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 workshop agenda.
Davis asked the Commission if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the October 11, 2018 workshop. There being none, Davis asked for a motion to approve the October 11 Minutes. Wade Purdom so moved, seconded by Rob Woywod, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:
John Cranor - Abstain, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom -Aye, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Aye, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (7), Absent (1), Abstain (1)
The motion to approve the October 11 2018 workshop minutes was unanimous.
Chairman Caleb Davis then read the General Procedures script, followed by a Quasi-Judicial script regarding Application 19-023. No members of the Commission had a conflict of interest and Davis asked the applicant for an opening statement. Clark Fairchild responded by saying that the property in question adjoins the 9.5 acre parcel he currently lives on. He further explained that he wasn’t sure he wanted to retain this 9.5 acre parcel, but would like to explore living in the eastern adjoining parcel which is 39.5 acres in size.
He went on to explain that the larger parcel he owns, next to the 9.5 acre parcel, has a house situated on the sw corner of the 39.5 acre parcel. He said he would like to split off this house, with 5 acres, but that the zone for the 39.5 acre parcel is Agriculture Forestry, which has a density of 10 acres. He said that since his 9.5 acre parcel is zoned Rural Residential (with a density of 5 acres), he would not have to be here if the 39.5 acres were zoned Rural Residential, since the 5 acre division necessary to separate the house off the 39.5 acres would meet density requirements for the zone.
Fairchild further elaborated that in the future he would like to give his 3 children 5 acres to develop for themselves, but this is not possible in the current zoning situation. He added that there is sufficient water and available electricity, plus the soil perks very well making septic also available. He said that to the east the property is zoned Agriculture Forestry, but some of those parcels right next to his are less than 10 acres while everything west of his property is Rural Residential (including the 9.5 acre parcel he currently resides on). Finally, Fairchild pointed out that since the property fronts Smith Lake Rd, a county road, there would be no issues regarding infrastructure and accessibility should there be future development in the parcel.
Davis asked if there were letters from power or water companies indicating they would support this development? Fairchild responded by saying he has no written letters, but that he is on the board of the Beeline Water Company and that Owen Beachy has assured him that there was adequate water to serve the area. He said that since he was right on the county road, and extremely close to Highway 95, he could not imagine that power availability would ever be an issue.
Ron Self asked if the plan was to give his children their own lots in the future? Fairchild replied that this was an option he wanted to consider when the time came. Self explained that the reason for the question is that if so desired this would constitute creating a subdivision and there are many considerations that would take place when and if that happened and he wondered if Fairchild had considered this in his plans? Fairchild said that was exactly why he wanted to go with a 5 acre density.
Adam Isaac asked if Beeline could supply up to 8 hookups to that property, since the math enables that number of lots to be created. Fairchild replied by saying that recently there had been an upgrade to the water facility at Camp Nine and water availability as a result of increase in capacity makes the assurance of delivery possible. He said that of course there is a dependency on line size but with larger pipes there would be no problem getting water. Isaac asked again if there would be a problem given the existing line size or had the upgrade considered this and are now using larger line sizes? Fairchild replied by saying that the existing 2-1/2” pipe size may be questioned but that since his property is only ½ mile from the Camp Nine facility he didn’t think there would be an issue.
Davis said that all of this discussion was interesting but that a letter from Beeline indicating that service was available would resolve the question. Fairchild replied by saying that if every parcel in the area needed water it would be impossible to provide; he said that water is delivered on a case by case basis and that when requested Beeline would resolve the question on the specifics of the request. Because of this, Fairchild said this is really a non-issue, beyond having the immediate assurance that if he made a request for water now, it would be available.
There being no further questions of the applicant, Davis asked if there was a Staff Report? Staff responded by saying the application speaks for itself and that the definitions for Agriculture Forestry in the Comprehensive Plan versus the definition for Rural Residential was quite similar. The uses for each zone were the same. Rob Woywod asked if the basic difference was the lot size? Staff said that yes, the basic difference in the Comprehensive Plan was the density (parcel size minimum) of the zone. He pointed out that the adjoining parcels to the west are Rural Residential and that there are some parcels on the immediate east of the subject parcel which, although they are in an Agriculture Forestry zone, have less than the 10 acre minimum required by that zone. Staff said that the similarity of both zones coupled with the limits on parcel size makes it apparent that as growth occurs the need for smaller parcel sizes will also occur; the availability of needed resources should be considered.
Staff said the applicant was making his request based on the ordinance statement in Section 18.1.2. which states “Applicability: All Boundary County property owners have the right to make application for a zone map amendment subject to the standards established herein so as to amend the zoning of individual parcels or lots to allow subsequent establishment of a proposed use which would not conform to existing zoning; and all citizens of Boundary County have the right to make application for a zone map amendment affecting a specific area or region in which no specific use is identified but wherein such zone amendment would better serve those property owners affected.”
Staff said that there was also a comment supplied in an email from the mapper, Olivia Drake, which states in part “As noted on the application, the property borders Rural Residential and therefore would not be considered spot zoning. There are existing parcels to the West and East which are below 10 acres.
With a typical parcel layout, between two and four 5-acre parcels would be able to front the County road. Between four and six 5-acre parcels would not have frontage, and access could be limited by topography. (Under the existing zoning, between two and four 10-acre parcels would have County road frontage, and up to two parcels would not).
The application states that there is access to Bee Line water. A can-serve letter from Bee Line would help determine if the association has the ability to serve the additional parcels in this area.
There was no development plan submitted with the application, therefore it is hard to determine the full impact or the ability to provide services such as approach permits from the County road.
P.S. realizing that this may not be able to be considered on this application, I feel that the community would be better served if the ordinance had provisions for planned developments as opposed to blanket zoning changes. Planned developments allow parcels below zoning minimums while preserving the total intended density, mitigating impact, and increasing the ability to provide adequate services in the future.”
Davis interjected a desire to clarify the surrounding area zoning, to gain a better understanding of how the area zoning was mapped. Purdom brought the locale up on his laptop and everyone could see the zones of the parcels in the surrounding area. Davis thanked him and asked if there were any questions for Staff?
Davis asked if anyone could see any ‘red flags’, such as difficulty in acquiring EMT or fire service or any other hardship associated with resource availability? Staff pointed out that the Mapper had addressed the possibility of inaccessibility to the lots being carved from the rear of the parcel. But there again, Staff said, the issue would occur, if there is an issue, when the lot(s) were to be created. Self said that he is familiar with the property, having been through the area when involved in logging operations, and asked if there wasn’t a road already there, running through the back of the parcel? Fairchild said no, that the road you’re thinking of accesses forest land but isn’t on the parcel. However, he said there is a drainage area between the forest land and the area he would like to clear and put a house on, and yes, there is access to this clearing from Smith Lake Rd.
Davis asked Staff if perhaps the future development of a subdivision should be presented as a plan which the Commission might stipulate be followed as a condition of approval? Staff replied that a conditional regulation based on what might happen creates an unrealistic situation for the applicant. He said he (Staff) has no experience with such a requirement, but that since the future is so tenuous it would be hard to hold someone accountable for plans that are not now solid enough to base such a requirement upon.
Davis then asked about the provision in Section 18.1.4. - Development Agreements? Staff responded by saying that the provision for such an agreement is that it be for a specific purpose and for a length of time (5 years). The applicant is asking for no such purpose and does not have a time frame in mind. The Development Agreement is available for purposes other than what the applicant is seeking. In fact, consistent with Section 18.1.2., he is asking ‘for no specific use but wherein such zone amendment would better serve’ himself.
Davis asked if there were more questions for Staff and there being none, asked if anyone from the public wished to speak in favor of the application?
Jimmy Ball introduced himself and said that the applicant was only asking for the potential to do what his neighbors in the Rural Residential zone can do. He said it would be overbearing of the Commissioners to deny this request. Ball said the applicant is not creating a subdivision, just wanting to do with his land the same thing his neighbors can do. He said that there is nothing in the application to suggest otherwise, and to deny the request would be overbearing. He finished by saying he thinks the application should be approved.
David Hollabaugh spoke to say he thought the issue was brought to a head when the applicant wanted to divide off 5 acres from his parcel and found that he could not do that because of the zone density restriction of 10 acre minimum. He said that much is clear, and if the only recourse is to rezone then this seems a bit like using a hammer to swat a fly – but the request is also consistent with neighboring land and he thinks the application should be approved.
There being no further input from members of the public in favor of the application, and none who were neutral or opposed, Davis asked the applicant if he wished to make a closing statement? Fairchild said that in response to the Mapper’s question, he does have a Road & Bridge permit giving access to his rear parcel area off Smith Lake Rd. He said that this allows him to get back to the portion of land he is thinking about clearing, but he is not aware of any difficulty providing a way to get into the rear portion of his property, since it is all pretty level and no unusual topography is involved. He said this would be a non-issue when the time came to consider more development.
Clark Fairchild said in closing he thanked the Commission for considering his request as being no different from anyone else in the same position, given the same circumstances. After giving some answers to questions regarding existing access locations, Davis closed the hearing to public comment and asked the Commission members to discuss the application.
First, the area was scrutinized using Wade Purdom’s laptop. The various zones were identified including the Rural Residential zone that borders the subject parcel, and just south of the parcel on Highway 95 is a zone area identified as Rural Community Commercial. Using Google Earth, it could be seen there were a number of residences in the immediate area. Self said to verify there are a large number of smaller parcels in the area. Woywod said yes, there are a lot of smaller parcels in the area. But we have to consider whether or not you sell in the future and someone else inherits your land, someone who wouldn’t necessarily follow you thought process as to what they want to do with the land. However, the basis of my decision is not what might happen but whether the analysis is correct and this land is prime for development – the kind of development I see all around you. There are smaller parcels right next to you, and these are not a problem Personally, Woywod said, I see no problem with approving your application.
Marcia Vee Cossette asked “Olivia used the term ‘planned development’ as opposed to ‘blanket zoning’. What are we doing here? Purdom answered that we are doing blanket zoning, and Cossette asked what’s the difference? What is ‘planned development’? Davis said the question is a good one and perhaps we can talk to Olivia about this and get some feedback as to what we might consider if we were thinking about ‘planned development’, but this isn’t something we do in the county at this time.
Davis said that he wanted to clarify that we are or are not ‘spot zoning’. He said he doesn’t wish to create a problem by introducing spot zoning to the county. Is there a way we can articulate why we feel that approving this application does not fall into that category? We should not be introducing something we would not do for someone in a similar situation. I would like to say that ”This is not spot zoning because… “, so how do we make this statement? And not be creating a situation unique to an individual but common to everyone wishing to do as the applicant wishes?
Self said consistency, and Woywod said that’s a key word, and Isaac said yes, consistent with the surrounding land use, and through the babble of voices Davis said that Staff is writing this down so when Davis asked for a motion regarding application 19-023, Ron Self moved to recommend approval of Application 19-023 to the County Commissioners, based on the changed zone being consistent with adjoining parcels. The motion was seconded by Wade Purdom, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom -Aye, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Aye, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (8), Absent (1), Abstain (0)
The motion to recommend approval of Application 19-023 to the County Commissioners, based on the changed zone being consistent with adjoining parcels, was unanimous.
Davis read the Legislative script for application 18-119, where conflict of interest does not apply, and asked Staff for details regarding proposed changes to the Ordinance 9B18LOV1, as per application 18-119. Staff responded by providing a list of current code and proposed changes to code. These are attached to the Minutes as Appendix I.
The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the proposed changes, item by item, and made minor changes to the proposed updates. Most of these changes are typographical in nature, and the few substantive changes (e.g., Definition of Structure) were reviewed and approved.
Davis asked for a motion regarding application 18-119. Ron Self moved to recommend approval of Application 18-119 to the County Commissioners, based on the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the changes proposed. The motion was seconded by Wade Purdom, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom -Aye, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Aye, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (8), Absent (1), Abstain (0)
The motion to recommend approval of Application 18-119 to the County Commissioners, based on the Planning and Zoning Commission approval of the changes proposed, was unanimous.
Note: The changes identified as 18-119 are attached to the Minutes
as Appendix I – Application 18-119. (See below)
Due to time constraints, Wade Purdom moved to table the interviews of candidates for the Planning and Zoning Commission openings until the next meeting. The motion was seconded by Adam Isaac, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom -Aye, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Nay, Ron Self- Aye, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (1), Aye (7), Absent (1), Abstain (0)
The motion to table the interviews of candidates for the Planning and Zoning Commission openings until the next meeting passed.
Ron Self moved to adjourn, Wade Purdom seconded, approved unanimously at 8:45 pm.
============================ Appendix I =======(18-119)====================
Current code:
1.3. Purpose: The purpose of this ordinance is to establish fair, equitable and consistent land use regulations and guidelines so as to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of Boundary County and to set minimum and defined standards for land use, development and subdivision applicable to all equally, pursuant to the general guidelines established in the Boundary County Comprehensive Plan, adopted July 21, 2008.
Amended code:
1.3. Purpose: The purpose of this ordinance is to establish fair, equitable and consistent land use regulations and guidelines so as to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the people of Boundary County and to set minimum and defined standards for land use, development and subdivision applicable to all equally, pursuant to the general guidelines established in the Boundary County Comprehensive Plan (9B18CPV1), adopted December 11, 2017.
Current code:
1.4. Prior Land Use Ordinances Superseded: On the date of adoption, this ordinance will supersede Boundary County Ordinance 99-06 and all amendments thereto.
Amended code:
1.4. Prior Land Use Ordinances Superseded: On the date of adoption, this ordinance will supersede Boundary County Ordinance 9B18LOV1 and all amendments thereto.
Current code:
2.42.6. Parcel of Record: A parcel created by instrument of conveyance prior to the adoption of this ordinance in a manner conforming to ordinance provisions in effect at the time of the partition, but which do not meet the requirements established herein, or a parcel created by variance. A parcel of record enjoys the privileges of a parcel conforming to the provisions of the zone district in which it lies, subject to the availability of services and setback requirements.
Amended code:
2.42.6. Parcel of Record: A parcel created by instrument of conveyance prior to the adoption of this ordinance in a manner conforming to ordinance provisions in effect at the time of the partition, but which do not meet the requirements established herein. A parcel of record enjoys the privileges of a parcel conforming to the provisions of the zone district in which it lies, subject to the availability of services and setback requirements. [Removed: , or a parcel created by variance.]
Amended code:
2.65.2. Zone Map: county map depicting Use zones, said zones encompassing the lands of multiple property owners and which comprise multiple definable regions. The current map is available in the Planning & Zoning Administrator's office, and also available online at http://www2.boundarycountyid.org/node/66/ - select * Comprehensive Plan Map
New code:
2.46. Permanent: Intended to remain in place. *** Note that inserting 2.46 will force renumbering subsequent items
Current code:
2.57. Setback: Distance prescribed by zone limiting placement of any structure away from any parcel line or public road easement/rights of way.
Amended code:
2.57. Setback: Regardless of Use (15.2. – 15.15.), the distance prescribed by zone, limiting placement of any structure away from any parcel line or public road easement/rights of way.
Current code:
2.62. Structure:
2.62.1. Accessory Dwelling Unit: Not more than one detached structure, intended for human occupation, on a single parcel or lot where a primary residence exists or is to be built, not to exceed 1050 square feet of living space (external dimensions); or the living quarters of a business owner or caretaker on a commercial or industrial parcel or lot.
2.62.2. Accessory Structure: A detached structure, not intended for human occupation, on a single parcel or lot, which complements and is subordinate to the primary structure.
2.62.3. Primary Structure: An addressable structure establishing and defining the highest use of a lot or parcel, such as agricultural, residential, commercial or industrial. There can be more than one primary structure on a parcel or lot, and each may be supported by accessory structures, though each must be established by issuance of the appropriate county permit.
Amended code:
2.62. Structure: Man-made building intended for permanent placement on property.
2.62.1. Accessory Dwelling Unit: ...etc – remains the same
Current code:
3.2. Continuation of Offices: At the time of adoption of this ordinance, all offices, employees and officers established by Boundary County Ordinance 99-06 will continue forward without interruption or disruption, subject to the provisions established herein.
Amended code:
3.2. Continuation of Offices: At the time of adoption of this ordinance, all offices, employees and officers established by the current Boundary County Ordinance will continue forward without interruption or disruption, subject to the provisions established herein. [Removed: 99-06 ]
Current code:
3.7.1. Comprehensive Plan: The planning and zoning commission has the duty to conduct the comprehensive planning process for Boundary County in conformance with the provisions of IC 67-6507 and IC 67-6508, pursuant to the provisions of Section 20.2.
Amended code:
3.7.1. Comprehensive Plan: The planning and zoning commission has the duty to conduct the comprehensive planning process for Boundary County in conformance with the provisions of IC 67-6507 and IC 67-6508, pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.2.
Current code:
4.1.3. Misdemeanors: A crime punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 per occurrence. As annotated in this ordinance, misdemeanor violations include:
4.1.3.1. Failure to comply with structure placement requirements of the flood plain overlay (Section 16.1.5).
Amended code:
4.1.3. Misdemeanors: A crime punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 per occurrence. As annotated in this ordinance, misdemeanor volations include:
4.1.3.1. Failure to comply with structure placement requirements.
Current code:
7.6.1. Applicant: It is the responsibility of the applicant, on forms provided by the administrator and based on the specific provisions of the zone district in which the use is proposed, to provide, at the time application is made, sufficient information, detail, data and documentation so as to demonstrate to the planning and zoning commission that the specific proposal meets those provisions and that the use proposed can be carried out without imposing undue adverse effects on established uses in the area.
Amended code:
7.6.1. Applicant: It is the responsibility of the applicant, on forms provided by the administrator and based on the specific provisions of the zone district in which the use is proposed, to provide, at the time application is made, sufficient information (detail, data and documentation*), so as to demonstrate to the planning and zoning commission that the specific proposal meets those provisions and that the use proposed can be carried out without imposing undue adverse effects on established uses in the area. *This request to be accompanied by a ‘will serve’ letter, signed by the utility provider(s).
Current code:
10.3.1. Applicability: The provisions of this sub-section apply to all freestanding advertising signs placed within the jurisdiction of Boundary County.
Amended code:
10.3.1. Applicability: The provisions of this sub-section apply to all freestanding advertising signs placed within the jurisdiction of Boundary County. All sign placement is subject to State (ITD) regulation and all signs are to be placed on property outside of easement/rights-of-way related to county roads and/or state highways.
Current code:
10.5.3.5. Prior to final approval of a development permit application to establish a junkyard, a noxious weeds analysis will be conducted of the site and, if necessary, a plan approved by the Boundary County Weed Control Superintendent will be submitted and implemented so as to prevent their spread.
Amended code:
10.5.3.5. Prior to final approval of a development permit application to establish a junkyard, Boundary County Weed Control will inspect the site and establish a plan requiring final approval by the Boundary County Weed Control Superintendent before said permit may be issued.
Current code:
12.2. Applicability: A variance is a modification of the bulk and placement requirements of this ordinance as to lot size, front yard, side yard, and/or rear yard setbacks, parking space, structure height, or other provisions herein affecting the size of a structure or the placement of the structure on lots or parcels.
Amended code:
12.2. Applicability: A variance is a modification of the bulk and placement requirements of this ordinance as to front yard, side yard, and/or rear yard setbacks, parking space, structure height, or other provisions herein affecting the size of a structure or the placement of the structure on lots or parcels. [Removed: lot size, ]
Current code:
15.7.1. Applicability: All designated lands lying within the jurisdiction of Boundary County owned or managed by agencies of state or federal government.
Amended code:
15.7.1. Applicability: All designated lands lying within the jurisdiction of Boundary County owned or managed by agencies of state or federal government.
5.7.1.1. Acquisition of Prime Forestry land by other than State or Federal agency will mandate a rezone of the parcel to an appropriate zone (I.e., Agriculture Forestry).
Current code:
17.2.1.1. In any zone district, where a parcel or tract of land can be verified to have been lawfully partitioned prior to the effective date of this ordinance, or to have been partitioned prior to January 27, 1999, and such parcel or tract is smaller than the minimum parcel size required for the zone district in which it lies, a parcel of record shall be deemed to exist.
Amended code:
17.2.1.1. In any zone district, where a parcel or tract of land can be verified to have been lawfully partitioned prior to the effective date of this ordinance and such parcel or tract is smaller than the minimum parcel size required for the zone district in which it lies, a parcel of record shall be deemed to exist. [Removed: , or to have been partitioned prior to January 27, 1999, ]
Current code:
17.2.3.1. In any zone district, where a building or structure can be verified to have been lawfully built prior to the effective date of this ordinance or to have been in existence prior to January 27, 1999, and which does not meet the provisions established herein due to its physical character or its placement on a parcel, lot or tract of land, a structure of record shall be deemed to exist.
Amended code:
17.2.3.1. In any zone district, where a building or structure can be verified to have been lawfully built prior to the effective date of this ordinance and which does not meet the provisions established herein due to its physical character or its placement on a parcel, lot or tract of land, a structure of record shall be deemed to exist. [Removed: or to have been in existence prior to January 27, 1999, ]
Current code:
17.2.4.1. In any zone district, where a use of land and/or structures can be verified to have been lawfully established prior to the effective date of this ordinance, or established prior to January 27, 1999, that are not in conformance with the provisions established herein, a use of record will be deemed to exist.
Amended code:
17.2.4.1. In any zone district, where a use of land and/or structures can be verified to have been lawfully established prior to the effective date of this ordinance that are not in conformance with the provisions established herein, a use of record will be deemed to exist. [Removed: , or established prior to January 27, 1999, ]
Current code:
18.2.4.2. Applicability: Legislative amendments to the Zone District Map may be initiated by the board of county commissioners, the planning and zoning commission, the administrator or by any interested citizen by petition as specified in Section 18.3, however, the planning and zoning commission will bear the responsibility of determining whether the proposed amendment meets the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and serves the public interest.
Amended code:
18.2.4.2. Applicability: Legislative amendments to the Zone District Map may be initiated by the board of county commissioners, the planning and zoning commission, the administrator or by any interested citizen by petition as specified in Section 18.1.3., however, the planning and zoning commission will bear the responsibility of determining whether the proposed amendment meets the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan and serves the public interest.
Current code:
19.3.4. Lack of quorum or absence of staff: In the event of a lack or quorum or absence of staff, scheduled public hearings will be opened and tabled to a set date and time, with no additional public notice required.
Amended code:
19.3.4. Lack of quorum or absence of staff: In the event of a lack of quorum or absence of staff, scheduled public hearings will be opened and tabled to a set date and time, with no additional public notice required.
Current code:
20.4.1. Parcel Line Adjustment: A change in the legal description of a line dividing unplatted parcels where no additional parcels are created. It is available by permit approved by the administrator. Criteria for approval are based on how the changing parcel sizes impact the zone density minimums. Approval is indicated when the resulting parcels meet or exceed the density within that zone, and no additional parcel is created; or if on balance, the parcel line adjustment reduces the non-conformity of an existing legally created parcel of record. If a parcel line adjustment does increase non-conformity, the administrator must verify that the adjustment is not intended to create an additionalnew parcel and circumvent minimum zone density acreages.
Amended code:
20.4.1. Parcel Line Adjustment: A change in the legal description of a line dividing unplatted parcels where no additional parcels are created. It is available by permit approved by the administrator. Criteria for approval are based on how the changing parcel sizes impact the zone density minimums. Approval is indicated when the resulting parcels each have an approved driveway approach from a county road or state highway displayed on a record of survey and each meet or exceed the density within that zone, and no additional parcel is created; or if on balance, the parcel line adjustment reduces the non-conformity of an existing legally created parcel of record. If a parcel line adjustment does increase non-conformity, the administrator must verify that the adjustment is not intended to create an additional parcel and circumvent minimum zone density acreages. If a parcel line adjustment is approved and a subsequent application is made by the same owner for further parcel line adjustments of the original parcels, then platting will be required and must include any unsold parcels previously adjusted by a parcel line adjustment.
Current code:
20.5.3. Consideration: The administrator will consider the following when reviewing an application for a simple parcel division:
Amended code:
20.5.3. Consideration: The administrator will consider the following when reviewing an application for a parcel line adjustment:
Current code:
20.6.3.2. Did the application meets the requirements of County Road and Bridge or the Idaho Transportation Department for driveway access?
Amended code:
20.6.3.2. Did the application meet the requirements of County Road and Bridge or the Idaho Transportation Department for driveway access?
Current code:
20.7.3. Consideration: The administrator will consider the following when reviewing an application for primitive parcel division:
Amended code:
20.7.3. Consideration: The administrator will consider the following when reviewing an application for a primitive parcel division:
============================ End of Appendix I =========(18-119)=============
Transcribed by: John B. Moss