Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes
September 08, 2016 Special Meeting & Workshop
Attending:
Public:
16-122 – Wedel – Ivan Wedel;
16-127 – Rogers – Robert Rogers
Planning & Zoning:
Caleb Davis, Scott Fuller, Wade Purdom, Matt Cossalman, Marciavee Cossette, Tim Heenan, Ron Self, John Cranor
Absent: Kim Peterson, Counselor Tevis Hull
Staff:
John Moss

At 5:30 pm Co-Chairman Caleb Davis opened the special meeting and 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. After it was determined there were no questions related to procedure, Davis asked if anyone had any changes or concerns regarding the minutes for August 18, 2016.l There being none, he asked for an approval of the minutes from the August 18 meeting. Matt Cossalman moved to accept; Scott Fuller seconded, and the minutes were approved unanimously.
[ 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.]
The first item on the agenda, application 16-122 submitted by Ivan Wedel, was for a Variance Permit to allow a setback of less than 25 feet in an Agriculture/Forestry zone. Co-Chairman Davis read the script for a quasi-judicial hearing specific to the terms of application 16-122, including the specific criteria to be considered by the P&Z Commission:
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, or if it would be granted to any property owner in similar circumstances. (It was acknowledged that several neighboring parcels are of a similar non-conforming size.)
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.

After determining there was no ex-parte contact or conflict of interest on the part of any P&Z Commission member, Co-Chairman Davis established the procedure for providing testimony and asked the applicant to make an opening statement.
Ivan Wedel explained that he began the ownership of the parcel in question when it was three lots, all small in size and even though the current parcel is less than the 10 acre zone minimum set for the Agriculture/Forestry zone, he has built the current parcel up from 3 much smaller parcels. He explained that the parcel has a steep drop-off behind the narrow meadow frontage visible from the highway, and that to retain the meadow use he is requesting the RV storage unit he wishes to place on his property be situated along the north-east edge of his property. He said the nearest house in that direction is over 400 feet away and that there are no concerns from any of his neighbors regarding this placement. He further explained there are trees and a deer fence situated along this edge of the property acting as a screen from view and furthering the likelihood that there be no interference with neighbors now or in the future.
John Cranor expressed agreement that there seemed little impact existed between current and even future neighbors.
Matt Cossalman reminded the applicant that topography is a factor in considering a variance and asked if there was any other place on the property the RV shed could be placed? Wedel responded by saying yes, there is room in the meadow but then the use of the meadow would be reduced by having to cultivate around the shed. Because of the drop-off behind the meadow, he is limited to just how much meadow he has to work with.
Tim Heenan agreed that it would be an imposition to have to cultivate around an obstacle placed in the meadow.
Caleb Davis asked if the setback distance maximum could be 10 of even 15 feet. Wedel responded that 5 feet would work, but more than that (10 feet?) would create a problem in impacting his driveway. The dimensions of the shed require a depth that 5 feet could accommodate but 10 feet would be a problem.
Ron Self moved to approve the application for a variance allowing a setback of less than 25 feet in an Agriculture/Forest zone on condition said setback was no less than 5 feet. MarciaVee Cosette seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.

The second item on the agenda, application 16-127 submitted by Robert Rogers, was for a variance to allow splitting a parcel of less than 10 acres in an Agriculture/Forestry zone. Co-Chairman Davis read the script for a quasi-judicial hearing specific to the terms of application 16-127, including the specific criteria to be considered by the P&Z Commission:
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, or if it would be granted to any property owner in similar circumstances. (It was acknowledged that several neighboring parcels are of a similar non-conforming size.)
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.

After determining there was no ex-parte contact or conflict of interest on the part of any P&Z Commission member, Co-Chairman Davis established the procedure for providing testimony and asked the applicant to make an opening statement.
Robert 'Bob' Rogers said he is 64 years old and hopes to retire. He said his father and mother lived in the house on his property but that they passed and now he would like to sell the house and the part of the property it is situated on. This would enable him to consolidate his debt so he can retire. He said the house has all utilities, including Cabinet Mtn Water, electricity and septic; it has its own driveway and address on Shiloh.
Caleb Davis asked if there was anything in the topography of the land that made this split a practical consideration. Rogers answered that the proposed parcel boundaries would follow a tree line on the west, and that to the east would be the existing parcel line of his 8 .62 acre parcel.
Davis reviewed the considerations for a variance point by point, and although there was extensive discussion related to property rights, special privilege, and neighboring properties which were under the 10 acre minimum, the P&Z Commission consensus was that to grant a smaller parcel size simply because neighboring parcels were also under-sized meant that anyone at any time could come in with a similar request and undermine the ordinance minimum size requirements.
Matt Cossalman suggested that a zone amendment could resolve a size dilemma, and that this would allow a review of this and other neighborhoods in the county that might benefit from such a review. He also said that an amendment could be applied for by the applicant to rezone just his own parcel. Further, he suggested that a parcel split using a gift to a family member was also an option.
In the recognition of a variety of options available, Mr. Rogers opined that perhaps giving the land to his son who would then sell the property was the best option.
Wade Purdom moved to deny the application for a variance allowing a split on a parcel less than 10 acres in an Agriculture/Forest zone . Ron Self seconded, and the motion carried unanimously.

The last item on the Agenda was to discuss and finalize changes to Land Use Ordinance 2015-2. It was agreed that the content of this portion of the meeting would NOT be recorded in the minutes, but that the conclusion of the meeting would result in a plan of action to make any proposed changes visible to the public.
Subsequent to the workshop discussion, Wade Purdom moved to submit an application to change the ordinance 2015-2 according to the changes that were approved in this meeting. Seconded by Matt Cossalman. Approval is unanimous.
Staff suggested further workshop discussion be removed from the September 15 agenda and agreement was unanimous.
There being nothing further to discuss, Wade Purdom moved to adjourn, Scott Fuller seconded, approved unanimously at 9:30PM.
John B. Moss
Recorder

____________________________________ _________________
Caleb Davis Co-Chairman Date