BOUNDARY COUNTY PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION – SEPTEMBER 24, 2026

Meeting Minutes

PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION

MINUTES OF JULY 23, 2026, PUBLIC MEETING

Boundary County Annex at 6566 Main St., Bonners Ferry, ID 83805

 

ATTENDANCE:

Chair Caleb Davis: ☒Present, ☐Excused, ☐Absent	Vice Chair Wade Purdom:☒Present, ☐Excused, ☐Absent
Rob Woywod:      ☐Present, ☒Excused, ☐Absent	Scott Fuller           ☐Present, ☐Excused, ☒Absent
John Cranor:        ☐Present, ☒Excused, ☐Absent	Adam Isaac:         ☒Present, ☐Excused, ☐Absent
Bill Benage:          ☐Present, ☒Excused, ☐Absent	Anthony Spoto:    ☒Present, ☐Excused, ☐Absent
Seth Kinkade:        ☒Present, ☐Excused, ☐Absent

 

ROLL CALL: Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m. Roll call: Commission members’ attendance is noted above. Also in attendance: Co-Acting Planning & Zoning Administrators Clare Marley and Tess Vogel, and Boundary County Planning & Zoning Technician Jennifer Maynard, along with members of the public.

 

CONSENT AGENDA: Commissioner Isaac moved, and Vice Chair Purdom seconded the motion, to approve the June 25, 2026, minutes as presented. The Chair declared the motion approved on a unanimous voice vote.

 

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

FILE #26-0105, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, TERRY & HOLLY GAYA are requesting a conditional use permit for a multi-structure residential use to allow for a proposed second primary single-family dwelling on a 15-acre parcel, where a primary single-family dwelling currently exists. The parcel is zoned Agriculture/Forestry, which sets a 10-acre parcel size minimum and requires a conditional use permit for a multi-structure residential use per Section 15.9.5.3. of the Boundary County Land Use Code. The parcel is located at 720 Copeland Road and is identified as Assessor’s Parcel RP64N01E184650A in Section 18, Township 64 North, Range 1 East, B.M.

Chair Davis opened the public hearing and called for disclosures. No disclosures were announced.

Applicant testimony: Applicant Terry Gaya testified about the reasons for seeking a second home.

Public testimony: The Chair called on those who wished to testify for, neutral, and against the application. No members of the public testified.

Rebuttal: Applicant Terry Gaya testified that they did begin construction because they believed they had met all the criteria requirements and the hearing was a formality.

Closing Statement: Applicants Terry Gaya & Holly Gaya stated there were no neighbors who expressed concern over the project.

Deliberations: The Chair closed the public hearing at 5:42 p.m. and called for deliberations. The Commission discussed agency approvals including water, septic, and that the approach permit had been obtained with Road & Bridge approach permit, which had satisfied condition #9. They also discussed construction being started in advance and the concerns over dwelling density. Ms. Vogel reviewed condition #5, which would state that no additional dwellings of any kind, beyond the grandfathered primary single-family dwelling and the newly proposed second primary single-family dwelling, shall be permitted on-site, including but not limited to any accessory single-family dwelling unit.

Motion: Commissioner Kinkade moved, and Commissioner Spoto seconded the motion, to approve the conditional use permit for a multi-structure residential use to allow for a second primary single-family dwelling, File #26-0105, finding that the proposal IS in accord with the standards of Idaho Code and Section 7 of the Boundary County Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance, based upon the findings as written and conditions as amended to remove Condition #9 – all requirements of the Boundary County Road & Bridge Department shall be adhered to, including any access permit requirements, and based upon the reasons as read into the record during deliberation. This action does not result in a taking of private property.

The Chair declared the motion approved on a unanimous voice vote.

 

FILE #26-0121 – LAND USE ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT – BOUNDARY COUNTY has initiated an amendment to the Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 2019-1 to: update Planning and Zoning Commission duties and organization; allow residential placement permits to be transferable to subsequent owners; establish expiration dates for residential placement permits to match the 2-year expiration date of commercial and industrial permits with permits remaining valid as long as work continues on the permitted structure; remove regulation that invalidates an issued commercial/industrial permit if the building’s use is discontinued; add extension allowances for placement permits and conditional use permits; remove a requirement that all special purpose districts sign final plats; correct typographical and grammatical errors; correct and update references to rights of appeal, record maintenance, and legal noticing; and remove references to the now-defunct Area of City Impact. The Planning and Zoning Commission will provide a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, who will consider the amendment at a hearing to be set at a later date.

 

Ms. Marley provided a brief summary of the land use decision making process and hearing protocol.

 

Staff Presentation: Ms. Marley summarized the background for the proposed code amendment and the details of the proposed amendment and the differences between the existing and proposed codes. She reported that the County had implemented a new online codification that will affect the how the codes will be listed, and be reviewed following the land use hearing. Changes were proposed as follows:

• Section 3.6.3.3, P&Z Reappointment: Current code requires candidate to submit for reappointment whether they want to or not. Update clarifies if they wish reappointment.
• Section 3.6.3.4, Term Limits: Current code states P&Z authorizes reappointment to more than two terms. State code gives that authority to BOCC.
• Section 3.6.3.5, P&Z Appointments: Section deleted. This is repeated at 3.6.4.
• Section 3.6.4, PZ Vacancies: Fixed will/shall wording. Edited section requiring Administrator to set BOCC agenda. States appointments are made per I.C. § 67-6504 without stating what it was specifically for to account for future changes.
• Section 3.6.5, PZ Meetings: Refers to newly adopted P&Z Bylaws for setting meetings.
• Section 3.6.6, Quorum & Voting: Vote by proxy prohibited. Absent member cannot submit comment for consideration, as this could potentially be considered ex parte or bias.
• Section 3.6.7, PZ Officers: Removes “Co-Chair” title and refers to Bylaws for election and meeting procedures.
• Section 3.6.8, Removal of PZ Member: Removes specific reasons for removal of a member. Refers to Bylaws and Idaho Code for the process.
• Section 3.7.3, PZ Authority: Removes ACI reference. Shall/will corrections.
• Section 3.8.1, Final Authority: Fixes erroneous statement that a final decision by BOCC can only be contested in court. New state law calls for reconsideration to BOCC.
• Sections 6.4.2 & 6.4.2.1, Development Permits: Adds (10) to days. Removes requirement that Planning first approve the permit and then send to Addressing and Road & Bridge. Current practice is to require Addressing and approach approval first.
• Section 6.4.2.2, Pending Permit: Uses “pending” rather than “table” because review continues.
• Section 6.4.3, Duration of Permit: Allows permit to be transferred if work is the same. Inserts an expiration date of two years. Valid as long as work continues. Clarifies that this is an administrative transfer and will need to come in to facilitate the transfer. Extensions by Administrator permitted for cause.
• Section 6.5.2, Decision: Added (10) to ten days.
• Section 6.5.2.2, Pending: Uses “pending” as review continues.
• Section 6.5.3, Duration of Permit: Fixes wording that permits “go” with the land. Strikes statement that permit for a structure becomes invalid if use is discontinued. Once issued, the structure is validly permitted. Discontinued use should not invalidate the structure permit.
• Section 7.4, Terminating CUP: Adds extension clause. Removes automatic invalidation if not in use for two years, since Idaho Code protects vacant uses for up to ten years.
• Section 7.9.4, Defer Decision: Fixes typo changing “my” to “may.” This was not caught in the codification and will need corrected.
• Section 11.7.8, Final Plat: Repeals requirement for all special purpose districts to sign final plat. Not required by Idaho Code. Confusing reference to special purpose districts. Requiring all signatures is a logistical nightmare and could allow an entity other than the County to effectively veto a plat. This will remained as reserve to hold the paragraph in place in the event a future topic can fit in this section.
• Section 13.2.2, BOCC Authority: Appeal section must also point to rights under Idaho Code.
• Section 13.2.3, Notice of Appeal: Inserts that any affected person aggrieved by a final decision by the Administrator or P&Z may (not will) file an appeal. Clarifies appeal must be in writing.
• Section 13.2.4.4, Records Request: Removes requirement that records requests must be filed within five working days of the hearing notice being mailed. Inserts requirement to follow the Public Records Act. Nothing prevents someone from filing a records request at any time, not just within five days of hearing notice.
• Section 13.2.5, Appeal Hearing: Adds missing “of.” Adds that mediation is per Idaho Code and local code. Fixes typo changing “mitigation” to “mediation.” This was also not caught in the codification and needs corrected.
• Section 13.2.7, Judicial Relief: Adds the word “final” decision, as a decision must be final to be eligible for judicial review. Adds the word “reconsideration,” which is a newer route to appeal that must be used before court action. Replaces “Rule 84, Idaho Court Rules” with Land Use Planning Act, Chapter 65, Title 67.
• Section 19.2.1, Legal Publication: Fixes will/shall wording. Replaces “a development permit” with “a land use request” for applications requiring a public hearing.
• Section 19.2.3, Mailed Notice: Administrator has to draft legal notice but doesn’t say to provide it. Adds the word “provide.” Fixes the clerical challenge of having to mail one day prior to newspaper publication. Changes to not less than 15 days prior to hearing, per state law.
• Section 19.2.3.3, Sending Notice: Inserts that property owners or purchasers of record are entitled to legal mailed notice per state code. Current code also lumps all adjoining applicant ownerships into the 300-foot notice requirement, which could unintentionally capture many parcels. Changes the requirement to properties within 300 feet of the lot or parcel that is the subject of the application.
• Section 19.2.3.4, Additional Notice: added any additional noticing as required by Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act to include Airport, TC Energy, etc.
• Section 19.3.2, Record Maintenance: Relies on state code rather than six months, which used to be two years in state law and could change again. A period will be added after “record” in the first sentence.
• Section 19.3.3, Ex Parte Contact: Reference to Open Meetings Law is changed to the Idaho’s Local Land Use Planning Act §67-6506 and Title 74, Transparent and Ethical Government or subsequent amendments thereto. Ms. Marley will follow up with legal to see if it was advisable to use the same “or subsequent amendments thereto” on other sections referring to Idaho Code to ensure that section stays in accordance with future changes to Idaho Code.
• Section 19.3.4, Lack of Quorum: Current code allowed a meeting or hearing to be opened and tabled to a date and time certain. When there is no quorum, there can be no votes taken, so tabling and setting agendas cannot occur. New language states the Chair shall declare the hearing canceled if there is no quorum. No decisions shall be made nor votes cast in the absence of a quorum.

 

Public Testimony: Chairman Davis opened the hearing to public testimony at 6:21 p.m. Patrick Stevens with the Moyie Springs City Council requested clarification on the taxing districts signing the final plat in section 11.7.8 and how that would affect cities within the county as taxing districts, such as Moyie Springs. Ms. Marley stated this is only affecting unincorporated Boundary County and would not affect how city entities would process their own plats in their city. Grant Dorman with Highland Surveying also stated that the listing of the taxing districts was above and beyond the required by the State of Idaho and was being additionally imposed by the county. Ms. Marley confirmed and stated that the planners were not aware of the origin of the requirements for those districts but staff is trying to operate within the current code requirements by requesting the districts be listed on the plats. The intention is to remove this unnecessary requirement.

Grant Dorman referred to 6.4.2. in development permits and clarification on complete applications, including public frustrations of requirements above and beyond the requirements in Idaho Code and county ordinance in amenities for structures being built with the information being gathered specifically for the purposes of the Assessor. Ms. Marley stated that the application forms were in place from the previous Planning and Zoning Administrator and as approved by the County Commissioners, which Ruen-Yeager inherited when they began working for the county. She did reach out to the Assessor for more information and learned the request for information on the specific features and finishes of structures were inserted by the prior Zoning Administrator and prior Chief Deputy Assessor. Mr. Dorman recommended suggested language similar to Kootenai County, which he read aloud. Ms. Marley stated this would be a side issue that needed to be referred to County Commissioners. Planning Technician Jenn Maynard confirmed that she was the one accepting the applications and noted that  applicants are encouraged fill out that section to the best of the ability or put pending for unknowns. Applications are accepted without the amenities being complete. Applications are required to have site sketches and floor plans to ensure they are abiding by the requirements delineated in their zoning for approval such as ADU, multi-family residences. Concerns over the applications would need to be sent directly to the Commissions for their jurisdictional review.

Grant Dorman also noted that the word “may” is used throughout multiple sections in reference to approve, table or deny decisions within ten days of receipt of the complete application. He suggested should be changed to shall or will to alleviate confusion on may or may not. Ms. Marley stated the word “may,” such as in section 6.4.2.1, was used because there are three options provided for response. Chairman stated this would be considered in the Commissions final discussion. Jeremy Davy with Cabinet Mountain Water District stated that their association also deals with the permissive nature of may and have defaulted to the mandatory nature of shall for regulations.

Mr. Davy also asked to clarify section 11.7.8 on behalf of the Cabinet Mountain Water District regarding the signatures on the plats, and what the alternate options are for the water district to weigh in on the plats and what is happening in their district. Ms. Vogel stated that planners would continue routing the information for comment and restrictions would be listed as a condition on the issuance and noted in the plat as well.

Mr. Davy asked about the transferability of the placement permits and what the process will be for the new owner to request that transfer. Ms. Vogel stated it would be through a reissuance and only if there are no changes to the structure. If there are changes, the application will be rerouted to agencies for comment. Reissuances will also be sent to agencies as they have been in the past.

Mr. Dorman also stated that the state does require the water district be noted on a final plat.  No further public comments were made.

Ms. Marley reviewed the standards of review in accordance with Idaho Code §67-6511 and draft findings.

Chairman Davis closed the hearing for deliberations at 6:47 p.m.

Deliberation/Discussion: The commission discussed section 6.4.2 and the “will” versus “shall” permissibility and requested that the statements be changed to “shall” and “or” following each option, approve, table, deny. Commissioner Spoto noted this was also already determined as being necessary in section 3.6.4 with such language updates.

For clarification, Chairman Davis stated that the discussion for the completeness of the application form is more of a commissioners’ issue and need to be referred to them for changes. The issue could be discussed at a later date to have a review of the applications.

Chairman Davis stated he felt the changes are in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan The amendments are important changes to the current ordinance to streamline the county process and remove burdensome and ambiguous language in the current ordinance and serves the public good.

MOTION: Vice Chair Purdom moved, and Commissioner Kinkade seconded the motion, to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners approval of File #26-0121, an amendment to update standards and procedures of the Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 2019-2, also known as 9B18LOV2, finding that the proposal IS in accord with the comprehensive plan and the criteria of Section 18 of the Boundary County Land Use Ordinance, based upon the findings as amended in the staff report and the reasoned statement as read into the record and subject to amendments for sections 6.4.2, 6.4.3, and 6.5.2 as read into the record during deliberations.

The Chair declared the motion approved on a unanimous voice vote.

Chair Davis asked staff to follow up with the county civil counsel on how the draft local code can properly reference Idaho Code and any future amendments or renumbering to the state laws.

Chair Davis complimented the planners and commissioners for their hard work on this ordinance amendment.

Codification of Boundary County Laws: Advisory

Ms. Vogel and Ms. Marley provided an overview of the Boundary County codification project and issues that have been identified during that process including typos and errors, noting some minimum parcel size errors. The codification was created combining the entirety of the Boundary County Ordinances through American Legal Publishing with a new numeration, which the Planning and Zoning Commission and planners will be required to use for future references. Changes to the ordinance will be codified once future amendments are approved. Ms. Vogel provided a visual walk through the site through the county webpage. Formal adoption of the new codification is still pending from County Commissioners.

 

 

 

UPDATES & ANNOUNCEMENTS:

Ms. Vogel stated there were no files for review in August. Planners will be working with Road and Bridge on the subdivisions and road standards as well as the changes to the codifications. Training was moved to the next meeting as well.

 

MOTION: Commissioner Isaac moved, and Commissioner Spoto seconded the motion, to cancel the August Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The Chair declared the motion approved on a unanimous voice vote of those present.

 

ADJOURNMENT: Chair Davis declared the meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.

 

 

/s/_________________________________                                                                                                         

Caleb Davis, Chair                                                                                       Date:

Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission