Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes May 17, 2018
|
|
Attending
|
Names
|
|
Public |
18-042, 043, 044, 045 (Falck): Levi Falck, Brian McDonald, Gerald Higgs, Darci Price 18-070 (Davies): Tom Davies, Wm. Dettenbach, Lisa Jarrell 18-084 (u>Wood): David Wood, Wm. Dettenbach, Robin Wood |
|
Planning & Zoning |
Caleb Davis (Chairman), MarciaVee Cossette, John Cranor, Scott Fuller, Adam Isaac, Ron Self, Rob Woywod |
|
Absent |
Counselor Tevis Hull, Wade Purdom (Co-Chairman), 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 5:30 pm Chairman Caleb Davis opened the meeting and presented the evening agenda. After identifying the presence of a quorum Davis asked the members of the Commission to introduce themselves.
Following the introductions Davis asked the Commission if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the April 17, 2018 meeting. There being none, Davis asked for a motion to approve the April 17 Minutes. Adam Isaac so moved, seconded by Rob Woywod, 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 - Absent, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Abstain, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (7), Absent (2), Abstain (1)
The motion to approve the April 17, 2018 minutes was unanimous.
Referring to the Agenda, the Chairman announced the reopening of the (continued) Conditional Use Hearing tabled on April 17, 2018 regarding applications 18-042, 18-043, 18-044 and 18-045 by Levi Falck. This Hearing is for parcels #RP62N01E142861A, #RP62N01E142876A, #RP62N01E142870A and #RP62N01E142841A, totaling 5.51 acres in the Commercial/Light Industrial zone.
Applications 18-042, 18-043, 18-044 and 18-045 are a request for a Conditional Use related to placing a Commercial junk yard on parcels in a Commercial/Light Industrial Zone.
Opening the continued hearing to resume comments on the applicant's applications 18-042, 18-043, 18-044 and 18-045, Chairman Davis asked if the applicant wished to make any additions to his opening statement in the hearing tabled April 17 concerning applications 18-042, 043, 044, and 045?
Levi Falck began by saying that at the earlier hearing he had provided a site plan which establishes a certain perspective of the layout of his property. He apologized for the quality of the site plan, saying he had attempted to draw the diagram of the property in such a way as to show his plans for use, and that somehow the drawing had faded or become less clear than he had thought at the time he submitted that plan. Mr. Falck went on to say that he had reviewed the seven items he was to address and that first, he had considered the need to screen the property, and stated that he would erect, by June 1 2019, a screen of ten foot tall trees for that purpose. He explained that any berm contemplated was a problem because of existing easements associated with accessing the parcels, said easements preventing the installation of the berms suggested at the last meeting.
Next, Mr. Falck agreed that the crushing hours, when such activity takes place, would occur between the hours of 8AM and 6PM, and that such activity would occur behind the buildings.
Third, the location of any derelict (inoperable) vehicles would be no closer than 20 feet behind the buildings.
Fourth, Mr. Falck stated that the fence height would be about what it is now, varying from between six and twelve feet as a function of the topography and the dips and hills that lie between the front of the property back to the fence line on the eastern edge of the parcels.
Fifth, concerning the number and condition of the vehicles, Mr. Falck stated that because he is in the business of selling parts and repairing vehicles he is not able to say with any certainty what the number of those vehicles might be.
Sixth, Mr. Falck agreed that security is a part of the fence design and would be adequate to keep people out of the property.
Finally, by placing ten foot high trees in front of the derelict cars, he felt that this would be adequate, especially as those trees expand and grow taller over time, to provide the necessary screen to place the cars out of sight.
Mr. Falck closed his comments by saying that he wished to conform to whatever Terms and Conditions the Planning and Zoning Commission may impose, and that he recognized the appearance of the property could be improved upon. Chairman Davis asked if anyone on the Planning and Zoning Commission has any questions for Mr. Falck?
Ron Self asked Mr. Falck if he thought of placing gates across the front and sides of his property to prevent access either to vandals or thieves? Mr. Falck said that yes, gates on either side can be placed in such a manner as to prevent access, and that a new gateway between the buildings could provide the same level of security.
Chairman Davis asked if there were more questions for Mr. Falck and, there being none, asked Staff for a Staff Report and any Staff Analysis. Staff replied that the Staff Report is unchanged and that Staff Analysis had been modified to incorporate a clearer version of the original site plan as submitted by the applicant.
Chairman Davis asked the Commission if they had any questions of Staff and there being none, stated in summary the items which Falck was asked to address:
What followed consisted of long deliberation as to whether or not the applications could be approved and if so, under what terms and conditions were to be imposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission determined that yes, a commercial junkyard is specifically allowed within the Commercial/Light Industrial zone which is where the parcels are located, and yes, the ordinance specifically states that the junkyard will be screened in such a manner as to block the use from view from any adjacent property or public right of way and to prevent trespassing. They acknowledged the fence, if fencing is the solution, is not to exceed twelve feet in height. The Commission discussed the limits of fencing, the benefits of using trees as a screen, and acknowledged that after crushing and being taken off premises the need for screening is greatly reduced. In addition, weed control and a crushing schedule were both discussed as well as security of the property as required in the ordinance. In meeting all of these considerations a list of Terms and Conditions was agreed upon, and the applicant affirmed that each was reasonable and would be met if the applications were approved.
The formulated Terms and Conditions agreed upon were:
Taking this list of eight terms and conditions as the basis for doing so, the Planning and Zoning Commission member Rob Woywod moved to approve the applications as long as these Terms and Conditions are complied with. MarciaVee Cossette seconded the motion and voting was as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - Abstain, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Absent, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Abstain, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (5), Abstain (2), Absent (2)
The motion to approve Applications 18-042, 18-043, 18-044 and 18-045 which together represent a Conditional Use Permit allowing a Commercial Junkyard in a Commercial/Light Industrial zone, in conjunction with the described Terms and Conditions, was unanimous.
Chairman Davis then announced a break before the next hearing on the Agenda.
The Chairman announced the opening of the Variance Hearing regarding application 18-070 by Thomas Davies. This Hearing is to permit a setback of less than 20 feet in a Suburban zone.
Opening the hearing to accept comments on Application 18-070, Chairman Davis asked if the applicant wished to make an opening statement?
Mr. Davies said that he would like to have the setback distance requirement waived for the garage on his property, said garage right up to the parcel line separating his property from the Jarrells' parcel to the south of his parcel. He said that it was not clear, when purchasing the property, that there was any issue regarding the property line. The garage is screened by a grove of trees making visibility of the proximity of the garage to the parcel line problematic. He said that until a survey had been taken and he became aware of the proximity of the garage to the line, there had been no contention between his neighbor and himself related to this setback question. He noted that the eaves of his garage extended a few inches into the Jarrells' space and that in order to avoid encroachment he had removed the offending eaves after hiring a contractor to do so. He acknowledged the garage is right at the property line, on his side by a few inches, and that he was asking for the variance to resolve any future issue that might arise with either the immediate neighbor or, should he wish to sell the property, to avoid a possible problem which the party who would purchase his property might encounter. He also said that he had asked the Jarrells' if they would exchange property, thereby allowing a setback buffer of 20 feet around the garage in exchange for a like amount of land that he would trade. Mr. Davies said this offer was declined because the neighbor wanted a straight parcel line, not one which would zig-zag as a result of such an exchange. This would not be noticeable, he argued, in that the area in question is surrounded by trees and that the parcel line adjustment would provide the buffer required by the ordinance while to observation there would be no difference from what can be seen now.He concluded by acknowledging the issue arose because of an earlier hearing in which his request to use his property as a vacation rental was opposed by the Jarrells but was approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. He said that it was at that hearing the closeness of the garage to the property line was discovered but was not at issue in that hearing. He said that it was his intention to remove the issue of setback distance as a possible contentious issue and that he was requesting a variance to allow the status quo to remain.
Chairman Davis asked if anyone had any questions they wanted to ask the applicant. In response to questioning it became clear that the applicant had purchased the property two years after the Jarrells had purchased theirs and that in 'walking the property' to observe property boundaries all had agreed upon what was thought to have been the parcel line separating the two properties. There was no intimation at that time that proximity to a parcel line was an issue.
Chairman Davis then asked if there was anyone wishing to speak in favor of, or neutral to, the requested variance application. There being none, he asked if there was anyone present wishing to speak opposed to the application.
Lisa Jarrell said definitely she and her husband are opposed to granting this variance. She read the following statement and passed it to staff after the meeting was over. She said:
"I am Lisa Jarrell. My husband Bill and I contest allowing the Davies a variance for the 20' setback ordinance for their south property line that meets our north property line. We mailed in a letter stating a couple of our concerns. I am assuming you all have seen that.
The Davies purchased their property near the end of last summer. It was obvious just by looking at the shop, guest house and propane tank (while looking at ANY parcel map) that they are very close to the parcel line. Any reasonable inspection of the property before purchase would have revealed the violation. Just because the Davies' purchased the property from another who violated or was ignorant of the setback rule does not give the Davies' clean hands in this situation. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
In fact, after they purchased; they installed a new generator and pad right up next to the property line in question! (PICTURES) They should have made themselves well aware of setback ordinances before installing the new structure. I believe they did this KNOWING the setback violation, planning to build a generator housing and just slide it in with the setback variance request.
We are concerned that if they are allowed a variance for the setback... how are we to protect ourselves from liability if a tree on our lot falls onto the setback area? It could very well damage a structure that isn't legally supposed to be there to begin with? I only see that as benefiting the Davies and not ourselves.
Is it possible to place some language into the variance to allow for the liability issue to be lifted from us if a tree damages something in the setback area? Or possible a waiver of liability for us in that case?
In closing, we feel that allowing a variance for this setback is unfair on so many levels. It rewards them for being ignorant of the law and educating themselves on the property they purchased before they purchased it. Its their responsibility to know the codes for building and land before they purchase and add anything near the property line."
Chairman Davis asked if there were any questions from the Commission for Mrs. Jarrell? Ron Self asked why is the Planning and Zoning Commission involved in answering this question? He said it seemed reasonable for the two parties to settle their differences with a parcel line adjustment. He said the request for a variance appears to be an attempt by the applicant to handle something that might be better resolved by shifting the parcel line. Rob Woywood suggested that by placing a marker 20 feet from the corner of the garage where it required such a setback distance, then drawing a straight lin to some point along the river that would amount to granting an equal exchange of property, the issue of a zig-zag in the jointly owned parcel line would be mitigated.
Chairman Davis asked Staff for clarification on granting setbacks, saying that the one reference in the staff report must surely be augmented by other examples of the Commission granting setbacks in the past. Staff replied that yes, there are several more that could be reviewed. Davis suggested that this hearing be tabled in order to have time to review these prior results. Adam Isaac protested, saying that there is enough information available now to make a decision.
Planning and Zoning Commission member Rob Woywod moved to table Application 18-070. Ron Self seconded the motion and voting was as follows:
John Cranor - Aye, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Absent, Adam Isaac - Nay, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Aye, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (1), Aye (6), Abstain (0), Absent (2)
The motion to table until the next regularly scheduled meeting, Application 18-070, a request for setback variance, was passed.
Then Chairman Davis announced the opening of the Conditional Use Hearing regarding application 18-084 by David Wood. This Hearing is to permit a second residence (greater than 1050sqft), a Conditional Use, in a Rural Residential zone.
Opening the hearing to accept comments on Application 18-084, Chairman Davis asked if the applicant wished to make an opening statement?
Mr. Wood said that he wished to build on the same parcel owned by his father. Previously, a 5-acre parcel, also owned by his father as part of a 40-acre parcel, had been split leaving 35 acres. It was on this 35 acres he wished to place his home. He said that because the ordinance stipulates that further subdividing of the 35 acre remainder, after the 5 acre split, would require platting, his wish is to remain with the family, and he does not wish to further divide (especially if platting is required) the 35 acre parcel. Since the property is in a Rural Residential zone, the size of any parcel related to his needs is not an issue, and he has adequate access both in infrastructure and utilities (water, electricity, septic) so as to provide the necessities for himself and his family while remaining close to his father and other family members.
After Chairman Davis confirmed with Staff that this was not an unusual request, that others like it have been granted and so is not creating a precedent or a potential burden on either family member, Davis asked if there were any questions on the part of the Commission members of the applicant. After some questions regarding the type of house being built and clarification as to location and access, Davis called for a motion.
Planning and Zoning Commission member Ron Self moved to approve Application 18-084. Rob Woywod seconded the motion and voting was as follows:
John Cranor - Absent, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - Aye, Marciavee Cossette - Aye, Wade Purdom - Absent, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Ron Self- Aye, Caleb Davis - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (6), Abstain (0), Absent (3)
The motion to approve Application 18-084, a request for a Conditional Use Permit allowing a second Primary Residence on a parcel in a Rural Residential zone, with no Terms and Conditions, was unanimous.
Chairman Davis then asked staff where things stand and what steps are needed to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map. Staff responded by saying that it is important to have the public involved in any rezoning changes proposed. He said that the public needs to see that a prime consideration in making any zone change is the availability of water, electricity, sewer/septic conditions approved by Panhandle Health, and available infrastructure to ensure all-weather access to property.
Ron Self moved to adjourn, Rob Woywod seconded, approved unanimously at 8:20 pm.
Transcribed by:John B. Moss