Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes
June 16, 2016 Regular Meeting
Attending:
Public: Stephen Heisel, Lani Christiansen, Eric & Kelley Vogel, Sam Wray, Kennon McClintock
Planning & Zoning: Caleb Davis, Scott Fuller, Wade Purdom, Matt Cossalman, Tim Heenan
Staff: John Moss. Absent: Tevis Hull, Marciavee Cossette, Ron Self, John Cranor, Kim Peterson
At 5:30 pm Co-Chairman Caleb Davis opened the regular meeting and asked for an approval of the minutes from the May 19 meeting. There being no corrections noted, Purdom moved to accept; Scott seconded, and the minutes were approved by all.
{ 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.}
Co-Chair Davis then read the script for conduct of Public Hearings, reviewing the procedure to be followed for all official proceedings per Section 19 of the Boundary County Zoning and Land Use Ordinance 2015-2.
The first item on the agenda, application 16-094 by Vogel was announced and concerned an application for a Variance permit related to a setback of less than 25 feet in an Agriculture/Forestry zone. The criteria for reaching a decision was presented:
15.9. AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY
15.9.2. Structure Setbacks: Property line: 25 feet.
12.3.4. Considerations: In considering an application for a variance, the planning and zoning commission should determine, at minimum:
12.3.4.1. Whether special circumstances of the property, such as its shape, size or features, render the parcel unsuited for uses that would otherwise be allowed in the zone district.
12.3.4.2. Whether failure to grant variance would infringe on the rights of the property owner or would constitute a taking of private property rights.
12.3.4.3. Whether granting the variance would confer special privilege to the property owner, of if it would be granted to any property owner in similar circumstances.
12.3.4.4. Whether the grant of variance would be detrimental to the general public welfare, create a public hazard or be injurious to property or improvements in the immediate vicinity.
Eric & Kelley Vogel was asked to make an opening statement, and Eric explained that the request concerns a parcel purchased at auction, and that subsequent to purchase they got a local surveyor and discovered the structure on the property was 11 feet off the parcel line. They had purchased the lot with the foundation already laid, Further discussion revealed that the nearest home on Eileen Rd was over a mile away, and that the neighbor adjoining the property to the south (where the property boundary in question lies) absolutely was unwilling to make any property line adjustment to resolve the setback question.
Cossalman asked about the survey presented by the applicant as part of the Staff Report documentation,, said survey depicting ‘old markers’/ Vogel suggested this was an old property line and a parcel line adjustment moved the parcel line to where it is now. Cossalman asked about the nature of the property and Vogel explained the parcel has a bench at the top, a steep hill to a bench along the river, and that the structure on the top bench takes advantage of what level ground exists to enable a septic drain field.
Heenan asked about the land contour to the south, in the direction of the old property line. Vogel replied that it was flat, and that there was no history to explain the movement of the property line nor the timing of the laying of the foundation versus the movement of the property line. Cossalman explained that the questions concerning topography are related to the considerations that Planning & Zoning must make relative to being able to grant a variance (e.g., 12.3.4.1.).
Purdom asked how the property is accessed. Vogel explained that from Eileen Rd there is a forest service road that crosses the railroad tracks, and that a Union Pacific Railroad easement road lay along the tracks that separates the property from the railroad tracks on the west side of the property. Vogel explained that the USFS had granted easement (in writing) along the forest service road, and that UPRR approval for travel on the easement road was applied for and as of the hearing date had not been granted. The explanation was that the railroad approval takes time and there was nothing indicating there would be a problem acquiring approval to use this easement.
After closing the hearing to public testimony Davis asked for a Staff report and analysis. Staff told of visiting the property to post signs concerning the hearing date and time. He said the easement road required a four wheel drive and that there were no fences, nor signs of habitation, anywhere in the area. He said that anyone claiming encroachment due to a few feet of parcel line would have a problem identifying such a discrepancy, since property was unfenced and the easement road along the tracks gave no clue as to where the line existed.
There being no one present to contest or discuss the application, in their closing statement Fuller asked about the installation of a septic system. Vogel replied by saying this had not been requested yet since approval of the variance was the first step necessary to further develop the property. There was nothing in the appearance of the property to suggest a drain field would be a problem and that getting Panhandle Health to approve the septic was the next step. This concluded public testimony concerning application 16-094.
In discussion the Commission said that the topography leads to a decision in favor of the applicant. They recognized the pre-existing nature of the structure and the limits placed on moving the structure based on the topography. It was felt that there were no special privileges involved and that anyone in similar circumstances would be afforded the same considerations. Similar conditions had been presented to the Commission in the past, relating to pre-existing foundation being too close to the property line, and staff reminded that this was acceptable in that case as long as further development did not migrate the structure closer to the property line in the direction of the setback contention.
Heenan moved to approve the variance. Cossalman seconded, and the vote was as follows:
Cossalman – [Aye], Davis – [Aye], Cossette –[ ], Fuller – [Aye], Peterson – [ ], Purdom –[Aye], Self –[ ], Cranor - [ ], Heenan -[Aye]
Tally: Aye –5 ; Nay – 0 ; Absent - 4
The request for a Variance (Permit 16-094) was approved thereby allowing the Administrator to grant a Residential Placement Permit for parcel RP63N02E351400A, application 16-093.
The second item on the agenda, application 16-098 by Stephen Heisel was announced and concerned an application for a Variance related to a request to split a 5 acre parcel into 2 and 3 acre parcels in a Rural Residential zone where the minimum parcel size is 5 acres. The criteria for reaching a decision was presented:
15.10. RURAL RESIDENTIAL
15.10.1. Standard Net Residential Density: Five acres.
12.3.4. Considerations: In considering an application for a variance, the planning and zoning commission should determine, at minimum:
12.3.4.1. Whether special circumstances of the property, such as its shape, size or features, render the parcel unsuited for uses that would otherwise be allowed in the zone district.
12.3.4.2. Whether failure to grant variance would infringe on the rights of the property owner or would constitute a taking of private property rights.
12.3.4.3. Whether granting the variance would confer special privilege to the property owner, of if it would be granted to any property owner in similar circumstances.
12.3.4.4. Whether the grant of variance would be detrimental to the general public welfare, create a public hazard or be injurious to property or improvements in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. Stephen Heisel was asked to make an opening statement, and he explained that originally he had planned to split the subject property with a neighbor, but that agreement proved to be unworkable and so he purchased the 5 acres alone. He only wants to acquire a 2 acre buffer so as to keep neighbors at a distance (he didn’t want people building their home in his back yard) and his intent here is to sell the 3 acres in excess of his needs.
Cossalman suggested that this application lends itself to a parcel line adjustment, quoting the ordinance “20.4.3.3. If an adjusted parcel size increases nonconformity to zone acreage minimums, then approval is subject to establishing that the purpose of the Parcel Line Adjustment is not to create a new parcel and circumvent zone acreage minimums.”. Staff said this application was being considered as a parcel split, to which Cossalman clarified that the applicant owns both parcels, that no new parcel was being created and that a parcel line adjustment resolves the applicant’s need. Staff responded to say that the resulting parcel could then be any size, perhaps 1 acre, and Cossalman suggested that the ordinance be expanded to create considerations regarding parcel size, but that as it stands now the parcel line adjustment would satisfy this request.
Davis asked what procedure should be followed at this point, and Cossalman said that if the applicant withdraws his application and applies for a parcel split when the Planning & Zoning Office is open, nothing more need happen at this point; the hearing would be over.
Davis asked the applicant to make a closing statement. Mr. Heisel stated that he withdraws his application, and the hearing on application 16-098 was terminated. The request for a variance (Permit 16-098) was withdrawn allowing staff to proceed with an application to adjust the lot line connecting this new 5 acre parcel (RP60N01E054865A) such that the resulting size would be 3 acres.
The third item on the agenda, application 16-100 by Sam Wray was announced and concerned an application for a Conditional Use Permit related to placing an additional structure on a parcel in an Agriculture/Forestry zone. The criteria for reaching a recommendation/decision was presented:
15.9. AGRICULTURE/FORESTRY
15.9.5. Conditional Uses:
15.9.5.3. Duplex, multi-family or multi-structure residential.
7.7. Considerations: When considering a conditional use application, the planning and zoning commission should determine, at minimum:
7.7.1. Whether the application, site plan and additional documentation provided by the applicant sufficiently demonstrate the full scope of the use proposed.
7.7.2. Whether the proposed use conforms to all applicable standards established by this ordinance.
7.7.3. Whether there is sufficient land area to accommodate the use proposed, and whether development is so timed and arranged so as to minimize adverse effects on surrounding properties and uses.
7.7.4. How the impacts of the use proposed compare with the impacts of existing uses within the zone.
7.7.5. Whether concerns raised by other departments, agencies or by the providers of public services, including but not limited to road and bridge, water, electricity, fire protection, sewer or septic, can be adequately addressed.
7.7.6. The potential benefit to the community offered by the use proposed.
7.7.7. Whether specific concerns aired through the public hearing process have validity and whether those concerns can be adequately addressed.
7.7.8. Whether the use proposed would constitute a public nuisance, impose undue adverse impact to established surrounding land uses or infringe on the property rights of surrounding property owners, and whether terms or conditions could be imposed adequate to mitigate those effects.
7.7.9. Whether the use proposed would unfairly burden Boundary County taxpayers with costs not offset by the potential benefits of the proposed use.
property or improvements in the immediate vicinity.
Mr. Sam Wray was asked to make an opening statement, and he explained that he manages family property that consists of a ranch for boys. His intent is to build a new house for himself and his wife, and leave the existing structure for use by the boys.
Staff was asked for a Staff Report and analysis, and he said the large property is remote and had ample room to place multiple structures.
Davis called for anyone in opposition or non-committed to make a statement. There being no one wishing to speak, Davis asked the applicant to make a closing statement. Mr. Wray replied that he had nothing more to add.
Fuller asked about a septic permit, and Mr. Wray said one would be applied for after the hearing, saying it would be presumptive to have completed that step only to have the application denied. This concluded public testimony concerning application 16-100.
In discussion the Commission said the boys ranch was indeed a benefit to the community. Davis went over the list of considerations, and the Commission recognized that multiple structures are conditionally allowed in the Ag/Forest zone and that this was sufficient information in support of the request.
Fuller moved to approve the Conditional Use application, Purdom seconded and the vote was as follows:
Cossalman – [Aye], Davis – [Aye], Cossette –[ ], Fuller – [Aye], Peterson – [ ], Purdom –[Aye], Self –[ ], Cranor - [ ], Heenan -[Aye]
Tally: Aye –5 ; Nay – 0 ; Absent - 4
The request for a Conditional Use (Permit 16-100) was approved allowing staff to proceed with a Residential Placement Permit application for parcel RP62N03E042412A.
Next on the agenda was to consider the proposed changes to the ordinance.
Purdom moved to strike 7.8.8. Require proof of compliance with other county, state or federal regulations. Cossalman seconded the motion. The vote was as follows:
Cossalman – [Aye], Davis – [Aye], Cossette –[ ], Fuller – [Aye], Peterson – [ ], Purdom –[Aye], Self –[ ], Cranor - [ ], Heenan -[Aye]
Tally: Aye –5 ; Nay – 0 ; Absent - 4
Cossalman moved to submit application to amend the ordinance as agreed upon to this point. Motion seconded by Purdom. Cossalman suggested that staff prepare the application. Staff said such an amendment should be visible to the public, perhaps available on a web page, thus enabling review and printing hard copy as desired by the public. Cossalman asked if this were possible, and staff replied in the affirmative. Staff reminded everyone there would be no July meeting. Motion carried unanimously.
Cossalman moved and Purdom seconded that this material would be made available for review prior to August 18th giving everyone on the Commission time to respond at that meeting (should any changes need to be made).
There being nothing further to discuss, Purdom moved to adjourn, Heenan seconded, approved unanimously at 7:30PM.
John B. Moss
Recorder
____________________________________ _________________
Caleb Davis, Co-Chairman Date