***Monday, April 11, 2022, at 9:00 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Tim Bertling, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.
Commissioners gave the opening invocation and said the Pledge of Allegiance.
Marty Martinez joined the meeting.
9:00 a.m., Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris joined the meeting to give the department report. A written report was provided. Mr. Morris reviewed work listed in the report. Mr. Morris briefly commented on looking to see where certain roads might be opened back up. The sand storage from Junction 1 has been relocated to an area on Pywell Road.
Ms. Nelson informed Commissioners that the Fiscal Year 2023 Local Roads Improvement Program (LRIP) awarded Boundary County funding for the Brown Creek Road project. Road and Bridge will get $100,000.00 for purchasing oil to chip seal this road. This project ranked 25 out of 50 and the first 26 applications were awarded. Road and Bridge will start work on Brown Creek Road after October 1, 2022, and the area of the road that needs fixed first is where pavement needs replaced. The following year will be the placement of the first two coats of chip seal.
Ms. Nelson mentioned she would like to have a survey done for the Fitzpatrick/District 15 and Moyie pits as well as the adjoining property in Moyie in order to know where the property lines are. HMH Engineering has a surveying facility and they do this work for all of their projects. Ms. Nelson said she has talked with the local surveyors and their schedules had been a ways out, but she will check with the local surveyors again to see what their time frame might be. HMH Engineering’s cost for a survey of the District 15 pit is $6,500.00 and they would survey both pits in Moyie for $6,500.00. The cost for surveys was $3,000.00 to $4,000.00 locally a couple of years ago. HMH Engineering could start their surveys now and be completed within 90 days. Chairman Dinning suggested Road and Bridge contact a title company to run a title report.
County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull joined the meeting via telephone at 9:13 a.m.
Ms. Nelson said she wanted to discuss jurisdictional issues related to Planning and Zoning, Road and Bridge, etc., as it pertains to approaches. Road and Bridge issues the approach permits and they try to provide the least impact to the landowner and other county departments in this process.
Ms. Nelson reviewed her list explaining the process taken to issue an address, etc. Ms. Nelson spoke of parcel creations and she mentioned that Planning and Zoning’s direction to Road and Bridge is per the Land Use Ordinance. Ms. Nelson questioned who is to provide comment or direction pertaining to wetlands. Chairman Dinning said Road and Bridge’s responsibility for addressing and approaches is all within the county’s right-of-way. Chairman Dinning said if there is a new easement, he understands having an approach where the easement is. With the wetlands issue, is that even Road and Bridge’s responsibility as we’re dealing with the county’s right-of-way. Ms. Nelson explained that Road and Bridge has to get permits for bridges for rights-of-way if a wetland is involved.
Attorney Hull said the county grants the approach, but then it makes a comment or disclaimer that the county doesn’t make comment whether or not the landowner can have access through wetlands where the approach may be located. The landowner will have to deal with the wetlands issue. Ms. Nelson said when she met with Attorney Hull, Planning and Zoning stated their wetlands map showed the eastside of Brown Creek. Planning and Zoning had recommended Road and Bridge contact the Army Corps of Engineers and the parcel number was not requested unless the property owner or county filed for delineation. It was explained to the Army Corps of Engineers that the county road has a ditch and a road was to be constructed and it sounded like there would be no effect to the wetlands. Ms. Nelson questioned how she would even know this information. It was said if it’s within a right-of-way and if it’s a variance. Attorney Hull said the wetlands were on the other side of Brown Creek Road and Road and Bridge was going to just put the disclaimer in the document. Ms. Nelson spoke of various agencies she had to contact before someone was able to answer the one question. If Planning and Zoning had never made the comment about wetlands, Road and Bridge would not even have known so how do we deal with this going forward. Commissioner Cossairt said it’s not the county’s responsibility; it’s the property owner’s responsibility to do their work. Mr. Morris said the property owners just end up driving where they want and cause issues to the county road.
Chairman Dinning said Road and Bridge is referencing that the parcel has wetlands; not the county road, so the county is covering their side with the wetlands issue. It is the responsibility of the landowner to contact the Army Corps of Engineers. The county can say it appears to be wetlands, but it’s the property owner’s responsibility. Ms. Nelson asked if county roads are exempt from wetlands. Attorney Hull said if Ms. Nelson is asking if a right-of-way is within the wetlands itself and Ms. Nelson said yes, as she’s trying to determine that the approach was not in wetlands. It was said it’s not certain if the wetlands shown on the map are only shown on the one side of Brown Creek or if it was also on the other side, so how do we know whether or not an approach is in wetlands or is that not for Road and Bridge to worry about? Attorney Hull said he thinks what can happen in those cases, is to say that the landowner is authorized to have an approach permit provided they have a wetlands remediation plan with Army Corps of Engineers in place before they can begin construction. It’s then up to property owner to do that. Chairman Dinning said we are created to help the public. Attorney Hull said the county does have some jurisdiction to enforce if damage is being caused. Chairman Dinning said he was correlating to the county having to enforce the wetlands rules. Attorney Hull said when putting a disclaimer in a document about the Army Corps of Engineers and wetlands, make no comment with regard to a wetlands remediation plan. Chairman Dinning said the Army Corps of Engineers will have to enforce their wetlands as the county doesn’t enforce the Corps of Engineers. Ms. Nelson explained a past situation when a landowner didn’t have documentation in the form of an answer from the Corps of Engineers so she just had to keep the information as documentation and take the landowner at their word.
Attorney Hull said we will have to work on disclaimer language that is very broad and refer to other agencies and put the burden on the landowner to look into that. Road and Bridge is limited to whether or not the application meets road standards. If it’s approving a variance, it’s only for an approach and sight distance, and it’s not making comment or assuming liability for other agencies, such as Idaho Department of Lands, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. The responsibility falls to the landowner. If they’re putting a road within wetlands, that is on the property owner; not the county.
Ms. Nelson spoke of all things to consider when putting together information for a variance. Chairman Dinning questioned if it should be Road and Bridge’s responsibility to spend time to determine whether or not where a landowner wants to put their approach is accurate, or is that the property owner’s responsibility? Attorney Hull said the property owner has to have a drawing where the easement is located across the property so we can verify where the approach is going to be. Chairman Dinning said at the point where the access hits the county road, what does that look like, is there a document that states it’s how wide, etc.? Attorney Hull said if the county wants to take it from the position of if an applicant submits a drawing showing where the easement is, that the county is basing its approach permit within that easement and if there is a discrepancy, it’s the sole responsibility of the applicant to address that issue with the landowner. If the property owner ends up putting the easement in the wrong location, that is the property owner’s issue. Ms. Nelson said she will need specific language that would state that kind of information. It would be good to have this language on the permit and also in the variance findings. Attorney Hull said the county will have to have this language on every permit and it might also have to list disclaimers. The county is not doing any investigation and if there is not an accurate representation, that issue is the responsibility of the owner. Mr. Morris said if the property owner puts an approach in the wrong location, do they have to move it? What if the applicant puts an approach on someone else’s property? They will have to come back for a different approach. Chairman Dinning said the county will work with them on putting in a new approach and doing away with the old one.
Attorney Hull joined the meeting in person at 9:56 a.m.
Ms. Nelson commented on Road Standards Ordinance 2020-2, Section 3.3.H., which states if a parcel was created prior to January 23, 2007, or if the use of the property changes, the property owner needs to update their approach, but how does she know when a parcel was lawfully created? That would be the existing property owner saying their parcel was established, but it’s not known when it was established.
Attorney Hull left the meeting at 10:04 a.m.
Ms. Nelson said the property owner would provide a deed, but how would she know it’s the same parcel. Solutions were discussed on how to protect the county in these situations.
Ms. Nelson asked if it’s okay for Road and Bridge to just say, if a property owner wants to mark their location, Mr. Morris can take a look at the information and the approach and not notify Planning and Zoning. Ms. Nelson said she doesn’t want to incorrectly impact or override any other department.
Ms. Nelson said the Road and Bridges ARC map is a published map as of January, but it’s now April so she needs to check with County Mapper Olivia Drake as to when Road and Bridge could get a copy. Ms. Nelson asked if this is something that Addressing Coordinator Debra Dreger could do as Road and Bridge would like a monthly update. Ms. Nelson added that Ms. Drake said this ability has to do with licenses, and the addressing coordinator position doesn’t have that license. Ms. Nelson discussed wanting to streamline the process while also still being protected.
Commissioners stated they need to continue the approval of the variances and leases to tomorrow.
Ms. Nelson spoke of receiving information from Representative Sage Dixon about a conference call scheduled for April 15th between the Idaho Transportation Department Alta for projects in the Naples area.
The meeting with Mr. Morris and Ms. Nelson ended at 10:22 a.m.
Chairman Dinning spoke of public defender services and of possibly joining Bonner County to provide this service. Chairman Dinning feels Commissioners should make a motion. If agreed to, Bonner County would essentially handle the public defenders and Boundary County would compensate Bonner County for Boundary County’s portion and for providing office space.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to go forward with a proposal to join Bonner County for public defender services and to discuss a request for additional funding from the Public Defense Commission upon approval of an offer and to have Bonner County prepare such documents. Commissioner Bertling second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to sign the Public Defense Commission Fiscal Year 2023 Financial Assistance Application. Commissioner Bertling second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to reappoint John Youngwirth to the Translator Board with a term to expire March 2025. Commissioner Bertling second. Motion passed unanimously.
Commissioners reviewed claims for payment. Fund totals are as follows:
Current Expense $ 65,536.40
Road & Bridge 56,263.95
Airport 4,771.73
District Court 7,589.29
Justice Fund 63,916.21
911 Funds 3,556.31
Indigent & Charity 12,204.33
Junior College Tuition 14,800.00
Parks and Recreation 3,419.02
Revaluation 817.29
Solid Waste 20,370.98
Veterans Memorial 75.82
Weeds 617.13
Restorium 23,279.61
Waterways 669.39
Grant, Airport 14,966.01
Grant, Emergency Communication 745.44
TOTAL $293,598.91
Trusts
Auditors Trust -*Misc 3,447.32
Boundary County Drug Court 319.32
Sales Tax Collected 319.12
Indigent Reimbursements 5,259.50
Sheriff’s Trust Fund 366.50
Odyssey Court Trust Account 26,606.75
Odyssey Bond Trust Account 762.00
Odyssey Restitution Trust Acct 1,537.27
TOTAL $38,617.78
GRAND TOTAL $332,216.69
Citizens are invited to inspect detailed records on file in the Courthouse (individual claims & Commissioners’ allowance & warrant register record 2021-2022).
10:55 a.m., Bonners Ferry Herald Reporter Emily Bonsant joined the meeting.
11:01 a.m., Restorium Administrator Karlene Magee and Assistant Administrator Diana Lane joined the meeting. Ms. Lane presented a report on Restorium statistics for the months of January through March 2022. Those present briefly discussed room rates.
11:20 a.m., Ms. Magee and Ms. Lane left the meeting.
11:30 a.m., Boundary County Parks and Recreation Board Chairman Rob Tompkins and Co-Chairman Brandon Glaza joined the meeting to update Commissioners on various Parks and Recreation matters.
Mr. Glaza introduced himself to Commissioner Bertling. Mr. Glaza spoke of needing to prepare for filling vacant positions in the Parks and Recreation Department. Mr. Glaza said the Parks and Recreation Department has the maintenance assistant and concession stand positions noticed and they’ve not received any applicants. The market shows a demand for a higher pay than the maintenance person receives. It’s quite expensive to hire the mowing work out, according to Mr. Glaza. It’s also difficult to stay on top of watering the grounds without having a full-time employee.
Mr. Glaza and Mr. Tompkins informed Commissioners the old restrooms located down at the fairgrounds will get demolished soon and they’re working on grants for getting a new restroom. Clerk Poston suggested grant sources for the Parks and Recreation Board to look into.
Commissioner Bertling spoke of wanting to walk the Riverside Park area as it pertains to relocating rocks to allow for a different parking configuration.
Those present discussed wanting to get security cameras for the park areas. Mr. Tompkins spoke of wanting to look for grants to replace the existing tennis court and to also add one more court. It would be for pickleball and tennis, according to Mr. Glaza. Commissioners were in favor of the Parks Board moving forward with grants.
Mr. Glaza mentioned quotes for replacing lights in the slab area. Mike’s Electric provided a quote to replace fixtures and also provided a quote to add more lighting. Mr. Glaza asked about the ability to share in those costs.
The meeting with Mr. Glaza and Mr. Tompkins ended at 11:57 a.m.
Ms. Bonsant and Mr. Martinez left the meeting at 11:57 a.m.
Commissioners recessed for lunch at 12:18 p.m.
1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Tim Bertling, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy
Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.
1:30 p.m., Treasurer Sue Larson joined the meeting to provide Commissioners with an update of county accounts. Those present reviewed account information.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the Treasurer’s report of county accounts dated March 31, 2022. Commissioner Bertling second. Motion passed unanimously.
1:53 p.m., There being no further business, the meeting recessed until tomorrow at 10:30 a.m.
***Tuesday, April 12, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., Commissioners met in regular session at the County Annex conference room with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Tim Bertling, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.
10:30 a.m., Wayne and Esther Dyck joined the meeting.
Mr. Dyck asked Commissioners about his ability to obtain 30 feet of property from the county that runs along his north property line and in exchange he will give the county 30 feet. Mr. Dyck explained the reason for his request is to be able to obtain a water hookup through the Three Mile Water District. Chairman Dinning said there are rules that do apply to counties, such as whenever counties buy or sell property the property has to be appraised so that the values are the same. Chairman Dinning said he doesn’t see a problem with what Mr. Dyck is requesting, but the time-consuming part is having an appraisal done. Commissioners informed Mr. Dyck that they will talk to their attorney about his request.
The meeting with Mr. and Ms. Dyck ended at 10:40 a.m.
Commissioners tended to administrative duties.
11:00 a.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Road and Bridge Variance 4-2022. This is a variance to Boundary County Road Standards Ordinance 2020-2 requested by Jeffrey and Renae Bennett as it pertains to an approach. The hearing was recorded.
Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Tim Bertling, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris, and Applicants Jeff and Renae Bennett. The hearing was recorded.
Commissioners reviewed the public hearing procedures. There were no questions of the hearing process. Commissioners cited no conflict of interest.
Ms. Nelson provided a staff report. Boundary County Road Standards Section 3.3.B. sets 330 feet for distance from an existing access or the intersection or two public road rights-of-way on collector or arterial roads and 200 feet for distance from an existing access or intersection of two public road rights-of-way on local roads. Ms. Nelson said Paradise Valley Road is a major collector so the sight distance entering collector routes is a minimum of 300 feet and the sight triangle is 40 feet. Information was provided for the proposed use of the approach. There is a proposed parcel division in the future and the new approach is for this property. This area is not in the City of Bonners Ferry area of impact, there are no wetlands present and the zoning is rural residential. The approach for the residence at 1201 Paradise Valley Road is 179 feet south of the proposed approach. Where the stop sign is located is 182 feet north of the proposed approach and the existing field/logging approach is located 200 feet north of the proposed approach.
Ms. Nelson said if not for a variance approach, Road and Bridge would have denied this application. The traffic count was 1,802 vehicles per day in year 2018. From the proposed approach and also at the existing approach at 1201 Paradise Valley Road, Road and Bridge did verify just a minimum of 300 feet of sight distance can be achieved and with a small amount of brushing or removing a particular hump of dirt, a 40-foot sight triangle could be achieved. The topography consists of short flat sections with rolling hills and a sharp drop off downhill west from the intersection. The geography is rural residential, agricultural and forested lands. No public comment was received, but comments were received from Planning and Zoning and the Assessor’s mapper. Planning and Zoning says they don’t have an application for land division on file so they would encourage discussion on that. The mapper wants to know if the existing access is to remain in place. The Assessor’s mapper also mentioned the busy intersection nearby with a short sight distance to the west down the hill. Ms. Nelson said the summary from her and Mr. Morris is that safety to the public is their priority. The applicants had mentioned other variances in the area, but those approaches were already in existence prior to the ordinance adopted in 2007 that requires spacing.
Chairman Dinning said on Page 4, Section 6.4.4.3 talks about site distance and when it states a distance of 300 feet from the proposed approach, is that meaning that distance is achieved today or does it mean to achieve that distance there needs to be some work done. Ms. Nelson said there will need to be work done to achieve that 40-foot sight triangle and that will need to be maintained. The 300-feet can be achieved this time of year, but there is a need to think about snow berms when the county plows snow and neighbors plow their driveways.
Commissioners asked the applicants for an opening statement. Mr. Bennett explained that he wants to retire and they would like to split their property down the middle. There is a deed restriction that only allows one house per 10 acres so they would like to take the north 10 acres and build a smaller house and sell their current house. Ms. Bennett said they haven’t surveyed their property yet, but they are working with JRS Surveying. Ms. Bennett said they want to access the property from Paradise Valley Road as the back portion of the property is Bonneville Power Administration land so they cannot access the proposed lot from there. Chairman Dinning asked where the south line would be to the new lot in relation to the existing approach. Commissioners reviewed the map of the proposed land split.
Commissioners opened the hearing to public testimony, but no one from the public was present so no comments were received from those in favor, uncommitted or opposed to the application. Notices of the hearing were mailed to properties within 300 feet of the property and no comments were received.
Chairman Dinning asked about the hills on Paradise Valley Road and it was mentioned this is one of the county’s busiest roads so had the applicants thought about using the same current access and creating what is basically a frontage road. This frontage road would be located on the Bennett’s property and not on the county road. Ms. Bennett said since there are only two residences, a 20-foot easement would work to access the newly divided parcel. Mr. Bennett mentioned there being a 10 to 12-foot draw and the topography is not flat. Mr. Bennett said if he were to put in a frontage road, there is a possible drainage issue to deal with.
Commissioner Bertling said his only concern is how close the approach is to the intersection. Commissioner Cossairt said in looking at what appears to be the logging road, why not use that access as traffic is already stopped. Mr. Morris said he doesn’t know as that was also his thought. Ms. Nelson and Mr. Morris mentioned having a stop sign at that location and Ms. Nelson added that if some traffic controls could be implemented, that would probably work. Those present talked about issues involving traffic confusion. Chairman Dinning said someone had asked about putting in an approach at the logging road. Ms. Bennett spoke of her concerns in that while cars coming up the hill slow down when they turn right at the top of the hill, other cars speed up the hill when they’re going to turn left and head north. The installation of reflectors did help when they were put in, but not for drivers turning to the north at the top of the hill. Chairman Dinning asked about Commissioners taking a visit to the site and it was decided they would schedule a visit.
Commissioner Bertling moved to continue the hearing to a time set in the future to allow Commissioners to check the site. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
The hearing ended at 11:39 a.m.
11:50 a.m., Commissioners contacted Susan Kiebert with the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) about a meeting with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) to discuss local projects in Naples and they asked what ITD wants to achieve with their funding. Ms. Kiebert said she would assume the meeting is about using LHTAC funding and finding some federal funding. Ms. Kiebert said Representative Sage Dixon has been urging ITD to get projects going so she will make contract to find out about projects, but she thinks the meeting is to discuss general funding. Ms. Kiebert added that ITD is not going to say the county needs to come up funding so the meeting is probably much more general.
Those present discussed bridge funding.
The call to Ms. Kiebert ended at 11:53 a.m.
Commissioners recessed for lunch at 11:55 a.m.
1:30 p.m., Commissioners reconvened for the afternoon session with Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Tim Bertling, Clerk Glenda Poston, and Deputy
Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser.
1:30 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #22-0078; an application for a short-plat – rural subdivision requested by Albert and Terry Solt.
Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Tim Bertling, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Planning and Zoning Administrator Clare Marley (via telephone), Planning and Zoning Assistant Tessa Vogel, Road and Bridge Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris, Applicant Albert Solt, and Applicant Representative Dick Staples with JRS Surveying. The hearing was recorded.
Commissioners reviewed the public hearing procedures. Nobody had questions of the process and Commissioners had no conflicts of interest.
Commissioners opened the hearing and asked Planning Assistant Tessa Vogel for the staff report. Ms. Vogel said the parcel was originally created through the simple parcel division and that is the reason for this hearing as an additional split cannot be done by the same property owner. Ms. Vogel’s staff report included Power Point slides, referring to the county’s zone map, air traffic pattern images, preliminary plat and approaches to Highway 2. The application does meet the zoning acreage.
Ms. Vogel commented that requests for comments were sent to various agencies and the major comment was from the Idaho Transportation Department stating two approaches off of Highway 2 are not permitted so the applicant will have to come off of Oxford Loop Road. The variance instrument number is to be listed on the final plat. No comments from the public were received.
Ms. Vogel’s information listed standards of analysis and where Commissioners are to find the requirements for rural subdivisions and preliminary plats.
Ms. Nelson said that Condition #12 states the final plat has to include the approach variance instrument number, but we’re now over the one-year limit for the initial variance and the applicants had to get an extension. The Findings and Decision for that extension still needs to be recorded so both the original variance and amended variance instrument numbers are to be listed on recorded plat.
Chairman Dinning asked where the access to Lot 2 comes from. Ms. Vogel said this access will come from a private access easement and that it’s a 30-foot access and utility easement. Most likely this access will come from Lot 1, but that is at the discretion of the property owner. Ms. Nelson said the approach location will have to be approved. There is already approval for Lots 3 and 4 and Lot 1, so the only concern is Lot 2 access.
Mr. Solt’s representative Dick Staples gave an opening statement and said that Steve Jeske was the project surveyor on this project. Mr. Staples said he hasn’t talked to the property owner about access to Lot 2, but it may have to come through Lot 3 or work with the Idaho Transportation Department to get a permit. Regardless, it states in the conditions that access will have to be provided to Lot 2.
Mr. Solt said if access is not possible from the state highway, he will probably have access go through Lot 1. Mr. Solt added that he might be able to get an easement off of another access. Mr. Staples said in situations where highway plans show an approach and that improvements were made by the state to that approach, ITD will come back and require a permit. Mr. Staples recommended trying for a state highway approach. Mr. Solt said part of the deal with the state for expansion were the two accesses as the state took a portion of the front yard. Ms. Nelson said the state is starting to deny accesses off of Highway 1 and Highway 2. Ms. Nelson added that she’s been working with Mr. Jeske and had asked him if he could update the plat with approved county road names, which is Oxford Road; not Oxford Loop Road. Ms. Marley asked if the applicant could possibly get ITD approval regarding the approach. Mr. Staples said he is going to pursue that and even though a statement was made that the state was clear in that they won’t allow an access off the highway, he wants to discuss with them what those reasons are. The state usually seems to be pretty understanding in those situations, according to Mr. Staples.
Commissioners opened the hearing to public testimony. No members of the public were in attendance of this hearing so Commissioners did not ask for comments.
The applicant did not wish to provide a closing statement.
Commissioners closed the hearing to further comment. Commissioner Cossairt and Commissioner Bertling said they saw no problems with the application. Chairman Dinning commented about draft conditions of approval #9 and he asked if Road and Bridge had questions. Ms. Nelson questioned if the applicant would need a variance if the access to Lot 2 has to come from a new approach along the county road. Mr. Solt said that it’s an existing access. Ms. Nelson said then there would be no issue.
Commissioner Bertling moved to approve the preliminary plat for Solt Subdivision, a rural subdivision of a 12.15-acre parcel to create four lots ranging in size from 2.5 acres to 3.83 acres, File #22-0078, and direct staff to prepare written findings, a decision, and terms and conditions of approval, finding that the preliminary plat is in accord with the applicable zoning and subdivision standards of the Boundary County Land Use Ordinance, based upon the findings and conclusions in the staff report as written or amended. To amend condition of approval #9 to state there will be legal access to Lot 2 and to add conditions of approval #12 to state the location and instrument number for the approved Road and Bridge variance shall be shown on the final plat, and condition of approval #13 to state that the instrument number for any extension of the approved variance and the approved official road name shall be noted on the plat. This action does not result in a taking of private property. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
The hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #22-0078 ended at 1:51 p.m.
2:00 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #22-0047 for applicant Darrel Chupp for Chupp Ridge Acres Subdivision. This is an application for a short plat – primitive subdivision. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Tim Bertling, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Road and Bridge Department Co-Superintendents Renee Nelson and Randy Morris, Planning Assistant Tessa Vogel, Applicant Darrel Chupp and Applicant representative Dick Staples with JRS Surveying. The hearing was recorded.
Chairman Dinning stated for the record that the previously stated public hearing procedures are still in effect.
Ms. Vogel provided a staff report. The is an application to divide a 20-acre parcel into two, 10-acre lots. This division needed to go through this process as the land had previously been divided using the 20-acre provision. This zone is Ag/forestry so 10-acre parcels are allowed. This subdivision is located off of Legacy Ridge Lane from Smith Lake Road. Ms. Vogel said notification of the application and hearing was sent to agencies and a variety of comments were provided. Bee Line Water Association made it clear that this application as well the Byler Building Supply and Schrock applications won’t have Bee Line water availability. Comment received from the County Road and Bridge Department pertained to Legacy Ridge Lane as accessed from Smith Lake Road. Planning and Zoning did not receive any public comments by the time the staff report was completed, but comments were received later citing general concerns of development of this area.
Ms. Vogel pointed out the standards of analysis of applicable code and draft findings and conclusion.
Ms. Nelson said the only comment she had for the final plat was to correct the Smith Lake Road name as it is supposed to be Smith Lake Road and not East Smith Lake Road.
There were no members of the public present to voice comments. The applicant did not wish to make a closing statement so Commissioners closed the hearing to comment.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the preliminary plat for Chupp Ridge Acres Subdivision, a primitive subdivision of a 20-acre parcel to create two, 10-acre lots, File #22-0047, and direct staff to prepare written findings, a decision and terms and conditions of approval, finding that the preliminary plat is in accord with the applicable zoning and subdivision standards of the Boundary County Land Use Ordinance, based upon the findings and conclusions in the staff report as written or amended. This action does not result in a taking of private property. Commissioner Bertling second. Motion passed unanimously.
The hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #22-0047 ended at 2:10 p.m.
2:30 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #22-0050 for Schrock Acres Subdivision, for a short plat, primitive subdivision. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Tim Bertling, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Planning Assistant Tessa Vogel, Lowell Graber, and the applicant’s representative Dick Staples with JRS Surveying. The hearing was recorded.
Chairman Dinning stated for the record that the previously stated public hearing procedures are still in effect. Commissioners cited no conflict of interest.
Commissioners opened the hearing and asked for a staff report. Ms. Vogel commented that this hearing will be a repeat of the prior hearing. This is an application for a primitive subdivision to create two, 10-acre lots from a 20-acre parcel that had previously been split using the 20-acre exemption. The parcel is accessed off of Legacy Ridge Lane, which is a private road off of Smith Lake Road. The application was routed to various agencies and Bee Line Water Association provided the same comment about not providing water. Road and Bridge provided comment that mentions the county road needs to be listed as Smith Lake Road; not East Smith Lake Road. No public comments were received by Planning and Zoning. Ms. Vogel mentioned that she had provided the standards of analysis of applicable code, draft findings and conclusions, along with conditions of approval in her presentation for Commissioners and she commented that one condition is to remove “East” in the Smith Lake Road designation.
Commissioners opened the hearing to public testimony and no comments were offered. The hearing was closed to public comment and Mr. Staples opted not to make a closing statement.
Chairman Dinning said there is a statement listed that says each lot created shall provide, at minimum, defined access and easements meeting width requirements established by the current Boundary County Road Standards Manual from an existing public road, but we don’t have that criteria. Ms. Vogel said this is written in the ordinance, but it doesn’t need to be addressed as a condition.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to approve the preliminary plat for Schrock Acres Subdivision, a primitive subdivision of a 20-acre parcel to create two, 10-acre lots, File #22-0050, and direct staff to prepare written findings, a decision and terms and conditions of approval, finding that the preliminary plat is in accord with the applicable zoning and subdivision standards of the Boundary County Land Use Ordinance, based upon the findings and conclusions in the staff report as written or amended, and to approve draft conditions of approval 1 through 7. This action does not result in a taking of private property. Commissioner Bertling second. Motion passed unanimously.
The hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #22-0050 ended at 2:40 p.m.
3:00 p.m., Commissioners held a public hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #22-0066, the Graber subdivision, short plat, rural subdivision. Present were: Chairman Dan Dinning, Commissioner Wally Cossairt, Commissioner Tim Bertling, Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Planning Assistant Tessa Vogel, Kathy Wenzel, Luke Roeser, Applicant’s representatives Lowell Graber and Dick Staples with JRS Surveying. The hearing was recorded.
Chairman Dinning stated for the record that the previously reviewed public hearing procedures are still in effect. Commissioners cited no conflict of interest.
This application is for a short plat rural subdivision to create four, 10-acre lots from two, 20-acre parcels for the Graber Subdivision.
Ms. Vogel gave a staff report and said the last two applications were for primitive subdivisions and this is an application for rural subdivisions as it is for four lots instead of two lots. An aerial view of the property was shown. The zone is Ag/forestry and access to the property is off of Legacy Ridge Lane. Ms. Vogel’s presentation included a preliminary plat and the mention that the application had been routed to various agencies. Bee Line Water Association will not be providing water and the comment from Road and Bridge is to remove the word “East” from Smith Lake Road. Planning and Zoning received one public comment after the completion of the staff report. The comments were from the Morgan Family Trust and they listed concerns pertaining to not wanting division to occur, increased traffic, and noise levels. Ms. Vogel referenced the standards of analysis, draft findings and conclusions, and draft conditions of approval as provided in her presentation. Ms. Vogel commented that she would add the condition correcting East Smith lake Road to show as Smith Lake Road.
The applicant did not wish to provide an opening statement. Commissioners had no comments or questions of the application.
Commissioners opened the hearing to public testimony and asked for comments in favor of the application. No one spoke in favor of the application. Speaking uncommitted to the application was Luke Roeser, 872 Templeman Road, who said he really enjoys the area where we live and this application to split and subdivide land is different than what this area is. Mr. Roeser said he fears that breaking up parcels will have a ripple effect. Chairman Dinning explained that the applicant’s prior application to rezone this parcel was denied and now this is an application for a division that fits within the ordinance as this is allowed for this zone. Chairman Dinning said the earlier application for a rezone was to go down to five acres, which was denied, but this application is to create 10-acre lots, which is allowed.
Also speaking uncommitted was Kathy Wenzel and she mentioned hearing about the zone as currently ag/forest land and she questioned if the land has to be in a residential zone for the applicant to create these smaller parcels. Ms. Vogel said no, that is not the case as the prior application was to reduce lots to 5-acres, which was denied. Now the applicant is applying to create two, 10-acre lots. Ms. Wenzel asked about the water service. Ms. Vogel said for a rural subdivision, the application is required to show services and this will have septic systems and wells. Bee Line Water Association cannot provide water. This will be on the final plat and it was on the preliminary plat.
Nobody from the public spoke in opposition to the proposal. The applicant did not provide a closing statement. Commissioners had no questions.
Commissioner Bertling moved to approve the preliminary plat for Graber Subdivision, a rural subdivision of two, 20-acre parcels to create four, 10-acre lots, File #22-0066, and direct staff to prepare written findings, a decision, and terms and conditions of approval, finding that the preliminary plat is in accord with the applicable zoning and subdivision standards of the Boundary County Land Use Ordinance, based up on the findings and conclusions in the staff report as written or amended. To include draft conditions of approval 1 through 7. This action does not result in a taking of private property. Commissioner Cossairt second. Motion passed unanimously.
The hearing to consider Planning and Zoning File #22-0066 ended at 3:15 p.m.
Commissioners tended to administrative duties.
3:30 p.m., John Poland met with Commissioners to present his appeal of the Planning and Zoning Department’s denial of his application, File #22-0029. This is an application for a primitive parcel division. Also present were Clerk Glenda Poston, Deputy Clerk Michelle Rohrwasser, Planning and Zoning Assistant Planner Tessa Vogel, Professional Land Surveyor Matthew Wilson, and property owner David Nicholas. Planning and Zoning Administrator Clare Marley participated in the meeting via telephone.
County Civil Attorney Tevis Hull joined the meeting at 3:45 p.m.
It was explained that the process will be for Mr. Poland to address Commissioners, followed by county staff and at the conclusion, Commissioners can make their decision regarding the denial of Mr. Poland’s application.
Mr. Poland said he owns 30 acres at 514 Willow Lane. Last fall he had filed for a primitive parcel division and the Planning and Zoning Department denied the application based on an old document they discovered that they claim puts the property in the Kootenai Orchards Subdivision, which is the short plat process. Mr. Poland said he believes this to be in error as that process has been invalided by the county by property splits. There is an amended plat for parcels along the road, but he’s not arguing those; just the remaining parcels that are not mentioned in the amended plat. If the decision of Planning and Zoning to deny his application is upheld, it could cause hardship for neighbors due to creating issues with titles, roads and the overlap of land to the east of his property, plus it creates a hardship for him.
Mr. Wilson stated that Mr. Poland basically hit the bullet points and he reviewed a map and surveys. Mr. Wilson referenced the old survey documents, such as the Kootenai Orchards Plat from year 1910, the Kootenai Orchards First Addition dated year 1911, and the Kootenai Orchards Plat dated 1916. Mr. Wilson referenced a color aerial map and said the property lines shown in blue is the plat as best can be drafted from a 1916 document. Those blue lines are what this really should look like if it is per the plat. The red lines are the county GIS lines and it is actually what it looks like on the ground by legal deed. None of the legal descriptions refer to the Kootenai Orchards plat. Attorney Hull asked about exhibits.
Mr. Wilson said in year 1987 the first independent survey was done by the Forest Service. The Forest Service ground is south and east of this property. Also, there is Board of Land Commissioners land that abuts these properties. In year 1999 a survey was done on a big portion of Kootenai Orchards, but it mentioned nothing of Kootenai Orchards. In year 2003, was the first survey that affects the parcel in question. This survey created a 40-acre piece of land in year 2003 and Mr. Poland owns 30-acres of that now. Mr. Wilson said in the record of survey, he doesn’t know how that land division happened and he referred to his exhibit, stating this is the first survey in year 2003.
In 2008, another survey was done and in year 2009 a survey was done, Exhibit L, and it created the 30-acre piece of land that Mr. Poland owns now. Mr. Poland is trying to split his property into one 10-acre piece and one 20-acre piece. Going back to the Google map shows a lot of information. Mr. Poland’s property is outlined in the magenta colored lines, it consists of six lots and through the property is a platted road. If the subdivision still exists, then that platted road still exists and someone could decide to build up that road.
Mr. Poland said if the Kootenai Orchards document is valid, there is an existing county road that runs through half a dozen of these properties and through a house. The Kootenai plat followed section lines and this was offset. Attorney Hull asked if Lots 1 through 12 are independent of Kootenai Orchards plat or are they reflected properties in the plat. It was said these lots are referenced as lots of an amended plat and the amended plat with Kootenai Orchards has no issues. Mr. Poland said he just sees a mete and bounds description; no mention of Kootenai Orchards. Many parcels are affected. Most are three or four different lots. If the plat is ruled to have existed, then the road exists as it hasn’t been vacated. Mr. Poland said he can’t even go through the variance process. This matter would cause issues for so many people so he’s just asking about his property. Mr. Poland said the county didn’t try to fix the original referencing to the 1916 Kootenai Orchards plat so he’s just asking this to continue through completion, acknowledging documents have been voided. Mr. Wilson said this is the last large parcel to be split.
Mr. Poland mentioned the title company had an old document mentioning a Kootenai Orchards Plat, but there is nothing about it in his deed. Chairman Dinning said in year 1910, Boundary County was a part of Bonner County and he asked if Mr. Poland looked up records in that county. Mr. Wilson said he didn’t check there. Clerk Poston informed those present that Boundary County does have some streets that were platted by Congress so could that also have occurred. Chairman Dinning said he didn’t know. Attorney Hull said he doesn’t believe Boundary County Commissioners have the authority to declare a plat vacated. Attorney Hull said that seems most reasonable, but how do you get property owners together to agree, etc. Attorney Hull commented on the problem being perpetuated.
Chairman Dinning questioned how the property owners get access if the plat is vacated. Mr. Wilson said there is a separate easement. Mr. Poland said that is a private road. Most other houses have access off of Doe Road and Sitka Road. Mr. Poland said he first checked how people accessed their property when he bought his own property and when Wyman sold and divided the property the deed mentioned Willow Lane, which is owned by another landowner.
Attorney Hull said in Mr. Poland’s research, in realizing the issue with the Kootenai Orchard plat, did he reach out to other property owners. Mr. Poland said not prior to finding out there was a difficulty. Attorney Hull asked if Mr. Poland has contacted other property owners since then and Mr. Poland said yes, and he added that a neighbor keeps asking the status as he wants to purchase his 10 acres. Mr. Poland questioned what is the positive for dragging this document up and not vacating the property. Attorney Hull mentioned Commissioners’ authority and not taking a unilateral decision to not let property owners be heard. There is due process. Mr. Poland asked what about Commissioners for the last 100 years. Attorney Hull said he can’t answer that. Mr. Poland questioned why not help him out. Attorney Hull said that may ultimately be the right answer, but the county cannot go from zero to 60. There may also be culpability of the landowners for splitting the properties. Attorney Hull said we’re not here to place blame. We’re saying that Mr. Poland presented a legitimate issue and we’re questioning how to rectify this. Commissioners cannot today say they’re going to vacate that map as they don’t have the authority to do that. Mr. Wilson said he was hoping the Planning and Zoning Department would have information. Ms. Marley informed Mr. Wilson that Commissioners have a public hearing this next week and he could attend as it’s a request to vacate a plat. Ms. Marley mentioned the ability to look at whether it is appropriate to vacate only Mr. Poland’s 30 acres or the entire plat. Ms. Marley said it’s not uncommon for old wagon trails to disappear, but they don’t disappear legally.
Mr. Poland said it’s been over 100 years. The County Recorder’s Office has approved all of these property splits so they had some responsibility to say something is wrong. It goes back to the surveyors and controlling officers. Attorney Hull said you have private property owners. The county recorders have to record and they can’t say something doesn’t look right. Attorney Hull said Mr. Poland stated up front that it is solely the county’s responsibility, and we’re just saying there is an issue that needs to be solved. The county is not trying to block Mr. Poland or impede him, it’s just that the process needs to be done right. Mr. Poland said he doesn’t want this taken lightly and he added that Attorney Hull is stating that these properties are not legal as they were not done legally. Mr. Poland commented about fixing this issue or fighting it. Mr. Poland said he has the opportunity to have his legal description vacated from the plat and he mentioned not ignoring the rest of the property owners.
Mr. Wilson said if the county decides to go the route of vacation, it could take a while and in the interim, can the county approve the preliminary split, then work on the vacation. Ms. Vogel said this might be the only property that could be divided, but it’s not the only property to adjust lot lines and she commented on when platting is required under the county’s subdivision ordinance. It was said the mapper commented that the 1910 plat was vacated and this plat replaced it and it was recorded in 1999. It was said that had occurred in Bonner County. It was said that the county’s zoning ordinance does not allow for primitive parcel division of a plat. Mr. Wilson said that is what it takes and Ms. Vogel said it’s for the property owners to vacate.
Chairman Dinning said he thinks Commissioners understand what the issue is. Ms. Marley said she does agree it’s kicking the can down the road and she commented on thinking the county ought to look at processing a vacation. Ms. Marley said the process would take a long time as they they’re working on a vacation with Cabinet Mountains Water District now and it takes 30 days for newspaper publication, etc. Attorney Hull stated that Ms. Marley and Ms. Vogel are being proactive and working toward solutions and to clean up this entire thing. There are ways to get this done and address those issues. Attorney Hull added that he understands exactly where the Planning and Zoning Department is coming from as the property sits in a platted subdivision so they cannot do what Mr. Poland is requesting. They need to get rid of the platted subdivision. Mr. Poland said if the county is willing to involve the neighbors as needed, he is all for the legal process of vacation. None of the neighbors would have problem, according to Mr. Poland. Chairman Dinning asked if each individual landowner has to be an applicant to the vacation and Ms. Marley said yes. Ms. Marley said she has worked on some replats and there were roads that were ignored and she had to unwind approximately 50 plats. Ms. Marley commented that she has also been the author of rewrites for state law. The answer is to vacate, but it’s difficult to determine everyone’s rights in this. Everyone who is affected has to be on board. Chairman Dinning said at this point, Mr. Poland would ask for a vacation. Ms. Vogl said Mr. Poland can vacate his own property.
Mr. Nicholas said he feels the way to do it is to deal with Mr. Poland’s property only. There is a property with a house being built on it currently and this landowner doesn’t know anything about this issue. This was part of a 30-acre parcel that was subdivided by Wyman 30-years ago and then the land was divided into three lots so it’s a mess. Mr. Nicholas said there are also personality conflicts so just deal with Mr. Poland’s property. There may be people moving in and moving out who want to sell their land. Mr. Nicholas added that he bought his land, developed his house and he doesn’t want to be affected by what Mr. Poland wants to do on his 30 acres. Attorney Hull said Mr. Nicholas’s comments are spot on. Mr. Poland said he didn’t know it was possible to vacate just his own property and he questioned what the county’s and Ruen-Yeager’s position is on the legality of just him vacating his property. Attorney Hull said if Mr. Poland is asking for a legal conclusion, he can’t give that as the matter is not before Commissioners. Mr. Poland can ask Planning and Zoning what to do about just vacating his property. Mr. Poland said if he knew that was an option, he would have considered that. Ms. Vogel said they notified him of the ability. Mr. Poland said he will follow up and look into vacation of his own property.
Chairman Dinning said we’re at the point of making a decision on the appeal.
Commissioner Cossairt moved to uphold the decision of the Planning and Zoning Department to deny Planning and Zoning File #22-0029 by Applicant John Poland. Commissioner Bertling second. Motion passed unanimously.
The meeting regarding Planning and Zoning File #22-0029 ended at 4:34 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas continued his questions regarding the property situation and he said this was an issue that was okay 25 years ago, but it’s not okay now. Mr. Nichols said he does not want to be impeded; he’s just saying it’s going to have an effect.
Mr. Poland brought up issues and Attorney Hull said Mr. Poland is playing the blame game and going back years ago. The issues need to be resolved to move forward. Mr. Poland asked if the county is going to back up the landowners in undoing some of these problems or will it be put on the taxpayers to pay for and fix it. Attorney Hull said Commissioners can only address individual applications made and they will look at the matter and see what they can do. Attorney Hull said to Mr. Poland that you haven’t heard anyone here say they don’t recognize there is an issue. Mr. Poland said he wants Commissioners to say they will help landowners; he wants Commissioners to help them and not just say maybe. Commissioner Cossairt said the problem is that someone a long time ago did not vacate the plat; but it was not the Commissioners. Commissioner Cossairt said we’re trying to go forward. Chairman Dinning said we, Commissioners, 30 minutes ago had a solution, now we have to listen to Mr. Poland chastise Commissioners for not coming to him when it was private individuals. So, to blame Commissioners and Ruen-Yeager/Planning and Zoning is wrong and to continue to harass them is wrong. Mr. Poland asked if the county is going to claim ownership, etc. Ms. Vogel explained which agencies are involved for comment and how Commissioners cannot answer any of those questions. Mr. Poland said that’s a good out for Commissioners. Mr. Nicholas said to Mr. Poland that this is a good thing. Mr. Nicholas said we’re all getting older and he doesn’t want any hang-ups if he were to want to sell his property. Mr. Poland and Mr. Wilson are going to be the experiments in vacating. Mr. Nicholas reiterated that if he were to sell his property, he doesn’t want anything sticky so his feeling is that this is a good thing. Commissioners are recognizing this is an issue. Chairman Dinning said in all honesty the best thing is to vacate the entire plat, but they can’t do that.
The meeting ended at 4:55 p.m.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
_______________________________________
DAN R. DINNING, Chairman
ATTEST:
__________________________________
GLENDA POSTON, Clerk
By: Michelle Rohrwasser, Deputy Clerk