Addthis

Email, Print, send to Twitter, send to Facebook, and more

Planning

Pages tagged with this Department can only be created or edited by those with appropriate permissions. Tagged pages are automatically included in certain site menus, feeds, and notifications.

Opening - Planning and Zoning Commission

This is an exciting time and you have an exciting opportunity to be a part of the Boundary County community! There is an opening on the Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission. With this opening in mind, and since most people in Boundary County are unaware of the responsibilities and duties of a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission, please check out Section 3. Administration of the Land Use Ordinance; refer to Sections 3.6.

Vacancy needs to be filled on Boundary County P&Z Commission

Boundary County Commissioners are seeking letters of interest from individuals who have lived in Boundary County for at least two years who are interested in filling a vacant position on the Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission.

Member Kim Peterson, who served on the commission since March 2014 has tendered her resignation. Kim has mentored the current Chairman this year as well as having served as Chairman in prior years. Boundary County Commissioners extend their appreciation to Ms. Peterson for her service to the community.

Dynamite Cleared

The Spokane Bomb Squad successfully cleared the dynamite from Forest Service Road #633 (Myrtle Creek Road) on the Bonners Ferry Ranger District. Two cases of dynamite were discovered April 9, 2017 in a section of road that had been washed out. The dynamite appeared to have been buried for some time. The Spokane Bomb Squad assessed the situation with assistance from Forest Service Law Enforcement Officers, Boundary County Sheriff’s Office, and the Boundary County Office of Emergency Management.

Planning & Zoning Agenda - Oct 19th


MEETING AGENDA: October 19, 2017; 5:30PM

  1. Establish quorum; Open meeting
  2. Reading and approval of September 21 minutes.
  3. Discuss status of Application 17-135 Comprehensive Plan
    • Plan
    • Plan Map
    • Rename Plan, Ordinances (Land Use, Airport, Flood)
    • Public Comment (Open)
  4. Adjourn

All Planning and Zoning Commission meetings are open to the public; anyone requiring special accommodation due to disability should contact the planning and zoning office, (208) 267-7212, at least two days prior to the scheduled meeting so that accommodations can be arranged.

Written comment should be addressed to Planning and Zoning, PO Box 419, Bonners Ferry, ID 83805; faxed to (208) 267-7814 or e-mailed to planning@boundarycountyid.org and must be received by 12 noon Thursday, 1 week prior to the scheduled hearing date.

Both written and oral testimony is accepted during public hearing and everyone interested is encouraged to attend and provide comment.

P&Z Minutes Sep 21, 2017

Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission

Minutes DRAFT September 21, 2017

Agenda
  1. Establish quorum; Open meeting
  2. Reading and approval of August 17 minutes.
  3. Public Hearing regarding Conditional Use application 17-139
    1. Request by Matt Philbrook
    2. Public Comment
    3. Planning and Zoning Deliberation
  4. Status of Comprehensive Plan Review
  5. Adjourn
Statistics
Attending
Names

Public

Rick Beck, Matt Philbrook

Planning & Zoning

Caleb Davis (Chairman), Wade Purdom (Co-Chair),
Marciavee Cossette, John Cranor, Scott Fuller, Tim Heenan, Adam Isaac, Ron Self, Rob Woywod

Absent

Counselor Tevis Hull

Staff

John Moss

At 5:30 pm Chairman Caleb Davis opened the meeting and presented the evening agenda. After identifying the presence of a quorum Davis asked if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the August 17 2017 meeting. There being none, Davis asked for a motion to approve the August 17 minutes. Wade Purdom 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 - Aye, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Aye, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Recused (not present), Caleb Davis - (tie-breaker);

Tally: Nay (0), Recused (1), Aye (7), Absent (0)

The motion to approve the August 17 minutes was unanimous.

[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.]

Next on the agenda was a presentation made by Matt Philbrook concerning Application 17-139, a request for a Conditional Use Permit authorizing the placement of a multi-plex structure (6 units) on parcel RP62N01E346141A. Chairman Davis read the scripts for general procedures regarding public hearings and specifically the Quasi-Judicial Script for Application 17-139, a Conditional Use regarding the placement of multiple structures in a residential zone (Section 15.12.5.). Adam Isaac asked to be recused from the discussion and voting based on having a personal relationship with the applicant. Mr. Davis asked Mr. Philbrook for an opening statement.

Mr. Philbrook explained that he installed a 4-plex on the subject property in approximately 2005-2007. He said there is a need for affordable rental housing in the location adjacent to the Safeway store on Main Street, more in fact than is currently available including his 4-plex installed more than ten years ago. He said there is adequate room for parking, including the estimated space requirements for both complexes.

After the opening statement, Davis asked for a Staff Report. Staff said the applicant had requested a Residential Placement Permit (17-138) in order to place a 6-plex structure on the parcel in question. Because this parcel is in a residential zone, a Conditional Use Permit is required in addition to the Residential Placement Permit. (If the Conditional Use is approved, the Residential Placement Permit would also be approved, containing in that approval any terms and conditions established by the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the Conditional Use.)

In the Staff Analysis it was pointed out that the property lies in the Area of Impact of Bonners Ferry. Bonners Ferry has submitted a letter which addresses city concerns about being able to provide service, including:

  1. an additional upgraded water service
  2. water and sewer application would require consent to annexation
  3. upgrades to the city sewer collection system
  4. applicant subject to the City's Facility Extension Policy
  5. preferred access from Walker Lane as opposed to Tamarack Drive

Staff also pointed out that a Special Use Permit issued to Mr. Philbrook in 2005 specifically stated the following terms and conditions: "Two additional parking spaces be developed in addition to those depicted on the site plan, and that no further residential development on this parcel shall be allowed.". Staff pointed out that times change and that issues present in 2005 may or may not be in place today. It is up to the Planning and Zoning Commission to determine the relevant facts concerning this application and decide accordingly. Staff pointed out that while posting the sign on the property announcing the scheduled hearing he could not help but notice that access to the parcel via Walker Lane was prohibitive, because the driveway space would consume a large portion of the available land. In contrast, access from Tamarack Drive provided driveway and parking spaces consistent with the existing layout of one structure (4-plex) plus the newly proposed 6-plex structure, including what appeared to be sufficient space for turnaround maneuvering plus outside parking for perhaps 12 to 14 vehicles. This concluded the Staff Report. Davis asked if there were any questions for Staff regarding the report. There being none, Davis pointed out that in addition to the letter from the City Of Bonners Ferry there is a letter from Katherine Shively Allen, a neighbor, objecting to the request. In addition to objecting to what seems unreasonable regarding the number of people and traffic involved, Ms. Allen also expresses concern regarding any subsequent desire to build on her own property if Mr. Philbrook's request were to max out the water, sewer and electricity available due to his request.

Davis asked if there were anyone present wishing to speak regarding the application for a Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Rick Beck of Beck's Furniture Store wished to comment in favor of the proposal, agreeing the need exists for such housing and stating that many customers of his furniture store asked if there were rentals in the area. Mr. Beck expressed his thanks for being able to share his point of view in support of Mr. Philbrook's request. Mr. Beck left the meeting.

There being nobody from the public but the applicant left to speak, Davis asked Mr. Philbrook if he would like to make a closing statement. Mr. Philbrook said that he is pursuing his request in two courts, County and City. First he needs to get approval from the County but he must also meet with the City regarding his request. He said he appreciated the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewing his application. Chairman Davis thanked Mr. Philbrook and said he may be asked for more specific details if the Planning and Zoning Commission had questions. Davis closed the hearing to public comment and asked the Commission to deliberate.

Ron Self said that obviously the City was in control of what happens here. If they say "no" then what does it matter what the Planning and Zoning Commission says? Davis said that if we think of the request as coming from anyone anywhere in the county, NOT in the Bonners Ferry Area of Impact, would this have a different impact on the considerations being made? Tim Heenan said that was just the point: that the decision should be made based on County residency, not on how close or dependent the applicant is to the City. John Cranor concurred, saying that Mr. Philbrook's issues with the City were not related to the placement of a structure for multiple residences on the parcel; the ordinance allows this consideration in the residential zone.

Rob Woywod questioned the parking spaces available for existing tenants as well as for the new units. His concern related to outside as well as covered parking, since it appeared the existing tenants all parked outside; if one presumed 2 spaces for each unit, which would amount to 20 parking spaces required, and how was this being accommodated? After asking for and receiving permission to get answers from the applicant, Mr. Philbrook responded by saying there were 3 of the four existing tenants having but one vehicle, so the immediate need was for less than 8 parking spaces. However, there are 6 spaces proposed to be covered for each of the six proposed units and the remaining 14 required spaces (outdoors) fits the available space requirements. Purdom stated the space calculations he was able to make in estimating from a Google Earth projection on his laptop confirmed what appeared to be available space. Woywod said the number of spaces was referred to in the previous terms and conditions and was curious as to how things mapped out in the current projection.

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Planning
Back to Top