Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

Minutes July 19, 2018

[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 opened the Workshop and presented the evening agenda. Davis identified the presence of a quorum.

Davis asked the Commission if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the June 21, 2018 meeting. There being none, Davis asked for a motion to approve the June 21 Minutes. Rob Woywod so moved, seconded by John Cranor, 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, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Absent, Adam Isaac - Absent, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Absent, Caleb Davis - Aye

Tally: Nay (0), Aye (4), Absent (4), Abstain (1)

The motion to approve the June 21 2018 minutes was unanimous.

The Chairman requested Staff provide a synopsis of the workshop considerations and asked for a Staff Report concerning application 18-119. Staff responded by saying that 18-119 deals with two things: definitions of Setback and Structure, and clarification regarding enforcement of setback issues.

To begin with, said Staff, ‘Structure’ is not defined in the Definitions, Section 2 of the Ordinance. Although Setback is defined, the reference to placement away from a structure leaves room for arguing just what structure (regulated or unregulated) does the ordinance refer to. This can be clarified by stating ‘Regardless of use, setback is the distance prescribed...’.

The ordinance states that setback enforcement relates to the flood plain overlay, which is not incorrect but leaves open the question concerning all other setbacks, flood plain or no. Application 18-119 addresses all three points, clarifying what a setback is, how it relates to any/all structures, and how to enforce setback discrepancies. (This language has nothing to do with Variance considerations, except to make it easier to decide an issue regarding a variance application.)

One of the Variance questions asks “Is this a problem created by the applicant?” (and for which forgiveness is now sought). Or, did the problem become inherited because the setback issue was there when the land was purchased? The reason for a variance to be approved has to do with topography or grandfathering issues and the Planning and Zoning Commission can make an appropriate decision based on the facts. The problem here is both a matter of clearly defining what qualifies for setback consideration plus recognizing the absence of any enforcement procedures that may become necessary.

Discussion circulated and the motion to update the ordinance with the proposed changes (including the removal of the flood plain reference related to enforcement) was agreed upon for approval. However, Davis suggested waiting until the second application, 18-120, is reviewed. Staff described 18-120 as providing for a clear description of the length of time a Variance is in effect, as well as a few typographical errors that need to be corrected.

Conditional Use language in the Ordinance states that the Conditional Use duration runs with the land, while the Variance code makes no such statement. The purpose of 18-120 is to make this distinction, copying the same language and substituting the word Variance’ for ‘Conditional Use’. The resulting change would state ”12.3. Duration of Permit: Variance permits run with the land to which they attach, and continue in effect for the life of the use established.”

Planning and Zoning Commission member John Cranor moved to accept the proposed changes, specifically all of 18-120 and concerning the enforcement option (4.1.3.1.) to simply state 'Failure to comply with structure placement requirements' (eliminating the phrase 'of the flood plain overlay (Section 16.1.5)'). Tim Heenan seconded the motion and voting was as follows:

John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Aye, Scott Fuller - Absent, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Absent, Adam Isaac - Absent, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Absent, Caleb Davis - Aye

Tally: Nay (0), Aye (5), Abstain (0), Absent (4)

The motion to accept the proposed changes, specifically all of 18-120 and concerning the enforcement option (4.1.3.1.) to simply state 'Failure to comply with structure placement requirements' (eliminating the phrase 'of the flood plain overlay (Section 16.1.5)') passed unanimously.

Chairman Davis then asked for a motion to place these amendment proposals, 18-119 and 18-120, on the agenda for the next public meeting agenda. Rob Woywod so moved, seconded by Tim Heenan and the voting was as follows:

John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Aye, Scott Fuller - Absent, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Absent, Adam Isaac - Absent, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Absent, Caleb Davis - Aye

Tally: Nay (0), Aye (5), Abstain (0), Absent (4)

The motion to place these amendment proposals, 18-119 and 18-120, on the agenda for the next public meeting agenda, passed unanimously.

It was noted that when presenting the Boundary County Board of Commissioners with a request to update the Ordinance with three applications to Amend (18-119, 18-120, 18-130), the third application (18-130) still has to be made public by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the request for all changes must wait at least one more month.
With time running out and missing 4 members of the Commission, it was decided to defer discussion regarding the Comprehensive Plan Zone Map until the next meeting.

Rob Woywod moved to adjourn, Tim Heenan seconded, approved unanimously at 8:10 pm.

Transcribed by: John B. Moss