Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission
Minutes September 19, 2019
|
|
Attending
|
Names
|
|
Public |
David Nicholas, Beth Nicholas, Chris Embree, Rosanne Smith, Lewis Clark, Paula Clark, Julie Johnson, Dick Staples, Sara Adams, Maria Ciocazan, Don Jordan, Rick Durden, Daniel DeHart, Linda DeHart, Ron Sukenik |
|
Planning & Zoning |
David Hollabaugh, Adam Isaac, Ron Self, Rob Woywod, Caleb Davis (Chair) |
|
Absent |
John Cranor, Wade Purdom (Co-Chair), Tim Heenan, Scott Fuller, Counselor Tevis Hull |
|
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 6:00PM Chairman Caleb Davis identified the presence of a quorum, opened the Meeting, and asked the Commission if there were any changes or corrections to be made to the Minutes of the August 15, 2019 Meeting. There being none, Davis asked for a motion to approve the August 15 Minutes. Rob Woywod so moved, seconded by Wade Purdom, and there being no further discussion Davis called for a vote. The votes were as follows:
John Cranor - Absent, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - Absent, David Hollabaugh - Abstain, Wade Purdom -Aye, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Caleb Davis - Abstain, Ron Self - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (4), Absent (3), Abstain (2)
The motion to approve the August 15, 2019 Meeting minutes was approved.
Chairman Davis opened the meeting to hearing 19-145 by applicant Daniel DeHart, a request to amend the zone of his two parcels from Commercial/Light Industrial to Rural Residential (RP62N01E232414A, RP62N01E232413A). (Mr. DeHart's property lies adjacent to and below the Boundary County Airport.) Davis asked the applicant for an opening statement. Mr. Danial DeHart introduced himself and his wife Linda, and stated that he is representing both himself and his deceased brother Robert DeHart. He stated that he is an airlines captain for United and is well aware of the situation living next to an airport. He said he recognized the property was at one time zoned Residential but that he is not planning to develop his acreage or increase the residential density. Davis asked if there were any questions from the Commission members. Hollabaugh asked if there was any intention of raising a tower? Mr. DeHart said that he is well aware of height limitations next to an airport and in this regard he recognizes the likelihood of having to cut down some trees that may be too tall on his property. He also said that concerning the Runway Protection Zone that if the airport is expanded there is a possibility that this zone may cut into the corner of his property. In recognition of this future possibility he stated that he would not develop this portion of his property consistent with any concerns related to this Protection Zone.
Davis asked for the history of the zoning of this property, based on the opening statement. DeHart said he did not know when the property was rezoned, or what the original zone was (Residential, Rural Residential), but that he knows it was rezoned and now he wanted to restore the zone to what it was because from a financial perspective he is trying to reestablish the land value for his brother (his estate, since now deceased). Davis clarified that the applicant is prepared to discuss the request, and that he can answer questions regarding both the history and intended use of the land. Mr. DeHart replied 'Yes' to both questions.
Self asked for clarification regarding the intent; just what is the plan regarding use of the property? DeHart answered by saying that the property was gifted from his parents, to his brother and himself, and he is now a little over 1 year away from retirement. He said the intent is to provide a summer home for himself since Texas summers are warmer than Idaho's summers and this is a good place to be. Hollabaugh asked if living next to the noise of an airport, or being in the proximity of the Protection Zone was a problem. DeHart said he fully recognizes the environment he is proposing to live in, and neither the noise nor the Protection Zone are of concern to him.
Davis asked if the applicant is aware of the differences between a Commercial/Light Industrial zone and a Rural Residential zone? DeHart said yes, that he understood that a Commercial/Light Industrial zone allows a caretaker to live on the property but that he is more inclined to want a residential house than a caretaker's residence. Davis stated that the application being reviewed is for a rezone, not for a specific use.
Davis asked for a Staff Report. Staff stated the particulars of the location, and said that the application is not asking for a specific use, but simply to rezone the property to Rural Residential. Staff pointed out that there is an Airport Overlay Zone that super-cedes, or overlays, whatever the underlying zone happens to be. However, this Overlay Zone borders the applicant's property and perhaps slightly enters the western portion of the property. Without a specific survey to determine this relationship, it is sufficient to say that there is a concern that this must be addressed. Staff read from the Analysis: "It would seem that although the airport is in proximity to these parcels the land owner wishes to develop this property consistent with Comprehensive Plan description of Rural Residential Use, not limited (as in the Commercial/Light Industrial zone) to having solely a caretaker’s residence on the property. Note, too, that these parcels are immediately adjacent to the Rural Residential zone thus the request does not suggest a ‘spot zoning’ issue where these parcels would be inconsistent with existing/adjoining use." Staff concluded his analysis by stating that because the airport is in close proximity it is safest to include FAA scrutiny of this application in the event there are concerns that should not be overlooked and he suggested that FAA approval be documented.
Davis thanked Staff and after determining there were no questions of Staff, asked if there were anyone present wishing to speak in favor of the application? There were none, and none to speak in a neutral opinion regarding the application. Davis then asked if there were anyone present wishing to speak opposed to application 19-145?
Staff then said he has had communication with the Airport Manager, Dave Parker, and Mr. Parker has provided documentation that shows the airport overlay as it relates to the parcels in question. There was a question regarding the prohibition of residences in the airport overlay zone, and some time was spent in researching this question. Staff clarified the Runway Protection Zone as a zone lying on the surface of the ground extending a width of 675 feet for a distance of 1200 feet. He said that unlike prohibitions involving other zones, including and specifically involving the airport flying airspace, this zone follows the contour of the land including all land in that distance described below the airport 675 feet wide for 1200 feet below the runway. Prohibitions: within the Runway Protection Zone, new development of residential facilities are strictly prohibited. Thus, the prohibition is to the specific location of this property as it relates to the dimensions of the Runway Protection Zone.
Staff said he estimates the distance from the end of the runway to the DeHart property as being about 1300 feet. DeHart said that his aerial viw of the property places it beyond the 1200 feet distance, and that perhaps the 675 width touches the corner of his property, but only the corner and he does not plan to develop or do anything with that corner of the property. Self asked if there were a survey available that would show this relationship and the applicant replied that he has not seen a survey that references anything like the Runway Protection Zone.
Davis proceeded to ask for clarification as to which areas of the property are close to the Zone in question; DeHart pointed out the North-West corner of the western parcel. The Airport Manager feels that the protection zones would be compromised by this application. Staff pointed to the basic rezoning amendment language which states that "All Boundary County property owners have the right to make application for a zone map amendment subject to the standards established herein so as to amend the zoning of individual parcels or lots to allow subsequent establishment of a proposed use which would not conform to existing zoning; and all citizens of Boundary County have the right to make application for a zone map amendment affecting a specific area or region in which no specific use is identified but wherein such zone amendment would better serve those property owners affected" - see Section 18.1.2. Applicability). Staff went on to say that this application was not for the placement of a residence but for a rezone.
Conversation swirled around the question of right to rezone and the restrictions imposed due to protection zones in the oevrlay area. Opposed to the rezoning effort were Don Jordan, Ron Sukenik and others. Mr. DeHart said that his property was only very partially involved in the overlay zone. He maintained that his plans did not include further dividing his land nor increasing the residential density and that he was
- trying to recover the original zoning and
- establish his zone consistent with his immediate neighbors to the east.
Davis said that his original question of the applicant had to do with intended use, which after all is what the rezone is all about. He said that coupled with the prohibition as pointed out by the Airport Manager, and the clear statement in the ordinance that the application must meet the criteria (Section 18.1.5.3.1. Recommendation: when it is determined that the proposal does not meet the criteria established herein or the criteria established in the Comprehensive Plan), which it fails to do, per Section 13.2.6. "The airport assessment in the transportation component cites a need for restricting residential development in areas critical to aircraft operation, and establishing commercial and industrial zones in those areas would protect the public as well as provide a measure of certainty for those considering locating businesses here.").
Adam Isaac moved to recommend disapproval based on the language in Ordinance 9B18LOV2 Section 18.1.5.3.1. and the Comprehensive Plan 9B18CPV1 section 13.2.6. Seconded by Rob Woywod. Davis called for a vote (an 'Aye' vote means disapprove) which went as follows:
John Cranor - Absent, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - Absent, David Hollabaugh - Aye, Wade Purdom -Nay, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Caleb Davis - Aye, Ron Self - Nay
Tally: Nay (2), Aye (4), Absent (3), Abstain (0)
The motion to recommend Disapproval of Application 19-145 to the Boundary County Commissioners was approved.
The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended Disapproval of Application 19-145 to the Boundary County Commissioners.
Chairman Davis referred to the agenda for hearing 19-155 by applicant Kevin Thompson, a request to establish an Urban Subdivision in the Agriculture/Forestry zone located at Dusty Lane on Highway 95, RP60N01W243010 - 33-acres. Mr. Thompson was represented by Dick Staples of JRS Surveying.
There were several people who were opposed to the development
- Julie Johnson: a) need to survey neighboring parcels and b) water availability questionable
- Sara Adams: a) easement acquired under false pretenses, b) if easdement to be upheld there must be substantial improvements to the road (Dusty Lane), c) access to Dusty Lane from Highway 95 is hazardous
- Maria Ciocazan: a) no water in well sufficient for own use, b) traffic and safety issues, c) want to maintain rural atmosphere
- Chris Embree: a) bring access to Dusty Lane up to ITD standards
Dick Staples said the applicant will be willing to upgrade Dusty Lane, that water may be available from Cabinet Mountain if a well doesn't produce enough water and that the applicant will review the proposal with South Boundary Fire to get EMT involvement.
Based on objections on various grounds (see next paragraph) but without being able to respond for the applicant to questions raised, the hearing was tabled by the Commission until such time as the applicant is prepared to answer these questions.
Issues raised include:
- road/driveway infrastructure availability, accessibility and maintenance with the infrastructure brought to county road standards
- sufficient water available to satisfy all proposed lots
- satisfy the boundary dispute between Julie Johnson and Kevin Thompson such that
- parcel line does not pass through Johnson structure
- resolution yields a Thompson parcel included in the subdivision (not left as a parcel remainder less than 10 acres in size)
- all access to Thompson property meets ITD requirements
Mr. Staples agreed to present these requirements to Mr. Thompson, and Ron Self moved to table the hearing until such information requested can be provided.
Davis called for a vote to table application 19-155 which went as follows:
John Cranor - Absent, Tim Heenan - Absent, Scott Fuller - Absent, David Hollabaugh - Aye, Wade Purdom -Aye, Adam Isaac - Aye, Rob Woywod - Aye, Caleb Davis - Aye, Ron Self - Aye
Tally: Nay (0), Aye (6), Absent (3), Abstain (0)The motion to table Application 19-155 until the applicant is able to respond to the above concerns was approved.
Chairman Davis turned to the last item on the agenda for hearing 19-177 by the Planning and Zoning Commission, a request to hold a public hearing to share with the public proposed changes to Land Use Ordinance 9B18LOV2 to create 9B18LOV3.
It was agreed to place this hearing on the next agenda, for the October 17 2019 meeting. David Nicholas asked when the public would be be able to see the content of the proposed amendment to the Land Use Ordinance 9B18LOV2? Staff replied that this would be available when the application to make these changes is scheduled for a public hearing.(View reference location for this material below Forms, center page.) Every attempt would be made to update this information prior to the next meeting, staff said.
There being no further input Ron Self moved to adjourn, Rob Woywod seconded, approved unanimously at 8:55 pm.
Transcribed by: John B. Moss