Minutes

Boundary County Planning & Zoning Commission

November 20, 2003

Members present: Jim Paulus, Doug Reoch, Mary Ann Luedtke, Tom Hollingsworth, Marc Paulson, Jane Kirby, Toby Schnuerle, Rod Barcklay, Donna Standley. Members absent, none. Staff present: Mike Weland

1. Paulus called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. and called for reading of the October minutes. Kirby made motion to waive reading and approve as presented. Reoch seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

2. Paulus introduced new member Tom Hollingsworth and welcomed him to the commission.

3. Paulus read the public hearing procedure and opened public hearing on SUP 03-02. No member cited conflict of interest. Applicant Glen Isaac gave an overview of his proposal, and stated that based on public reaction, he would not be installing or operating a chipper and would haul slabs away. He stated that he’d used a decimeter to measure noise levels from the road with both mills operating, and said the noise measured between 73 and 74 decibels. A lawnmower, he said, measured between 92 and 94 decibels. He stated he intended to plant trees around the operation to further reduce noise. He stated that anticipated truck traffic resulting from the operation would be about two trucks per week. He stated that he was not in a position to relocate the operation. Kirby asked when the mill was moved in, Isaac said 2001.

Staff reported that one new letter had been submitted since information was mailed and that the letter was before members. Paulus opened the hearing for testimony from those in favor of the application.

a. Ernie Brandt, Sandpoint, stated that he buys products from Glen, who he said provides items that would not otherwise be available. He stated that producers such as Glen provided necessary products and were important.

b. David Foust, who lives above the mill, stated that the operation is well run and clean, and he stated the community should support such a business.

c. Margaret Mouat, Moyie Springs, stated that the city and county have both stated that priority of economic development had been to encourage and promote secondary wood products, which is what the applicant is proposing to do.

d. Roy Mastre, Oxford Loop Road, said he’s never had a problem with noise resulting from operation of the mill, and said John Holdeman ran a similar mill about one mile from the proposed site, which likewise didn’t cause problems. He said it’s important to the community to look to the benefits of small mills such as that being proposed, stating that the community needs such businesses.

e. Josh Mastre, who lives approximately ¼ mile from the site, said the mill has been no bother to him, and that he’s in favor of allowing it to continue.

f. Frank Mastre, who stated he’s the nearest neighbor to the proposed mill, said he doesn’t see any problem with the mill and that he’d like to see it stay.

g. Ernie Brandt, Sandpoint, noted that approximately 95% of the product sold by such mills comes from out of state, helping the local economy by adding value to local products.

Paulus called for comment from those non-committed. Jacob Epstein, Porthill, said he was opposed to the issuance of a special use permit as it provided no protection to the zone. Kirby asked all who’d spoken in favor of the proposal how many stayed home all day; none did.

Paulus called for comment from those opposed to the proposal.

a. Uta Peterson stated she owned property 50’ from the Isaac property and that she had developed it into four building lots that she could not sell due to the location of the mill. Luedtke asked if the mill was there when the division was made, Peterson said it was not. Reoch asked how far the mill was from her home; Peterson said about ¼ mile. Barcklay asked her if noise was a problem, she said it was not. Peterson said her primary concern was her inability to sell the lots.

b. Ken McDonald stated he lived about ¼ mile from the site and was opposed to a mill, saying it was not right for the area, which is growing as a residential area. He stated he was concerned that once a mill was allowed there, it would need to grow. He stated the mill posed no noise problem, but the chipper was excessively loud. He stated that the 100,000 pound gross trucks hurt the road, which was of good quality to handle residential traffic.

c. John Lozier, who lives approximately ¼ mile away from the site, said he spent 33 years in mills and did not have a problem with noise, but said he was concerned that allowing such use would open the door for similar businesses. He stated he likes what Glen has been doing, but not where he’s doing it. He said he was concerned over road damage.

d. Patty Perry, a County Road 32 resident, said she supports the business, but not the location. She stated there were 29 residences fronting County Road 32 and that the area was growing in residential use. She stated that due to the proximity of the pond, a DEQ permit was required and stated that DEQ had not been contacted by the applicant. She introduced a series of pictures to members. She stated that the mills weren’t the only source of noise resulting from the proposed use; that trucks, loaders and other equipment were also used. She stated that Isaac owns other larger parcels elsewhere that would be more suitable for such use.

e. Rosco Ryan, who lives ¼ mile from the site, stated that the mill is in the wrong place. He said it generates a lot of semi traffic that would damage the road.

f. Melody Earle, County Road 32, stated that she was concerned about the increased truck traffic in light of the number of children who walked and rode bicycles on the road.

f. Bill Hayden, County Road 32, said he was concerned with the road and with how large the mill would get.

g. Jim Perry, County Road 32, said that he moved to the area to raise his family. He said that, should the permit be granted, the applicant would be legally required to control dust, and he stated that he would have to meet EPA stormwater regulations.

h. Patty Perry recounted the complaints that had been made since the mill was placed.

There being no further public comment, Paulus called for closing comments from the applicant. Glen Isaac sad he was grieved that his action and application had disrupted the neighborhood. He stated that truck traffic would not exceed two to three per week, and that they would not be overloads. He stated there would be no more chipping or chip trucks used, that all slabs would be hauled. He stated that he did own other parcels, but said they were not suited for the use as they did not have electricity.

Barcklay said he supports what Isaac was doing, and asked if it would be possible to give him a fixed time during which to relocate. Luedtke asked when the decision was made to convert the use from temporary to permanent; Isaac stated there had been a misunderstanding. He said he set the mill up on property in Moravia temporarily prior to moving it to County Road 32. Prior to doing so, he said, he talked to all the neighbors and said there were no objections. He said that since starting in the current location, the mill has decreased in size. He stated that traffic resulting from his operation was minimal compared to farming and residential traffic. Rod asked again if a time could be set, Isaac asked if five years would work. He clarified that he did not have a chipper and that no chipper would be brought back. Standley asked about the other parcels he owned, he stated that he owned two 80 acre parcels and one 50 acre parcel, but said there was no access to electricity and other problems that made them unsuitable for the proposed use.

There being no further comment, Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion among members. Kirby stated that had the applicant applied when the mill was initially established, she didn’t think the commission would have approved the location. Reoch stated that he didn’t feel that there were that many homes in near proximity to the site, and stated that the area was not predominantly residential, but more forest and farm. Schnuerle concurred; saying the nearest neighbor he’d heard was about ¼ mile away. Paulus stated that the focus for such businesses had been along US 95 and in the Three Mile area. Barcklay said it would be in everyone’s interest for such a business to grow, and said the idea was wonderful in terms of a business, but said the site was wrong. Reoch stated that a use permitted as a special use could not impose adverse impact. Standley asked if the business would have to close should the permit be denied, she was answered that it would.

There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a motion. Barcklay made motion to forward to commissioners a recommendation of disapproval; Luedtke seconded and the motion carried with six in favor and two opposed.

4. Paulus opened public hearing on CUP 03-02 by Second Chance Animal Adoption. No member cited conflict of interest. Alice Miller, co-founder and president of Second Chance, stated that the organization was a grass roots, not-for-profit entity that received no government funding. Primary funding was raised through operation of the thrift store included on the application. She said the buildings that would house animals would be 600’ from the nearest property line, that buildings would be constructed to be soundproof. She said dogs would be allowed outside from about 8 a.m. to about 6 p.m., and would remain indoors overnight. She said the septic system would meet Panhandle Health requirements. The property would be fenced. Paulus called for comment from those in favor of the proposal.

a. Doreen Beck, Bonners Ferry, said the proposal would be good for the health and safety of the community and that the priority of members of Second Chance was to be good neighbors.

b. George Miller, Alice’s husband, said they’d been housing up to 25 strays at a time at their home and had received no complaints from neighbors, who were considerably closer than owners adjacent to the proposed facility.

c. Jan Scott, a member of Second Chance, stated that Alice’s vision was catching, and that her passion rubbed off on everyone involved. She said that cleanliness and high standards of sanitation were demanded. Paulus asked if only dogs and cats were taken in; Jan said they’d been called upon to provide care for horses, pigs, birds, fish, livestock, etc. She stated that in most such incidents, animals were placed with individuals equipped to care for the particular animal.

d. Doug Helm, Moyie Springs, said the county needs an adequate place to house stray and unwanted pets, and he praised the past efforts of Second Chance.

e. Debra Richardson, Moyie Springs, said such a shelter would be a benefit to the county.

f. Sue Esray stated the proposal was a win/win for the community.

g. Cynthia (last name missed) said Second Chance has a strong reputation for caring for stray animals, and said their efforts reduced the number of unwanted animals. With such a facility, she said, the stray population would continue to decline.

h. Helm reiterated that no tax money was used.

Paulus called for comment from those uncommitted on the proposal. Jacob Epstein stated that a kennel clearly falls within the definition of a conditional use in that zone, but he questioned whether a thrift store constituted a higher use that should be considered as a special use. Weland stated that in accepting the application, he looked at the kennel as the primary use proposed and the thrift store as an adjunct, but said that if commission members disagreed, a recommendation could be forwarded to county commissioners and a subsequent public hearing be held. Hollingsworth asked if Second Chance was registered as a non-profit, Miller stated they were a 301c corporation. Hollingsworth stated that the store and the kennel would both fall under the non-profit umbrella and said it could be stipulated that all uses shall be associated with the non-profit corporation.

            Paulus called for comment from those opposed.

a. Donna Nystrom, Pleasant Valley, said environmental decisions need to be made clear regarding septic, water runoff. She stated she had concerns over liability and the potential for animals escaping. She said she was concerned such use would decrease property values. She said she felt those running Second Chance now were wonderful and would do a good job, but said she was concerned as to whether the same would hold true in the future.

b. Ben Nystrom said he lives to the south of the proposed site and said the area is known for deer, elk and turkeys. He stated the addition of a kennel would change the nature of the area.

c. Tanya Nystrom, Ben’s wife, stated her primary concern was with the turnoff on U.S. 95.

Paulus called for closing statement from the applicant. Alice Miller said the Idaho Transportation required a commercial approach and that they had been in contact. She stated that all animals sheltered at Second Chance were vaccinated and quarantined to eliminate the risk of disease. She reiterated the kennel septic requirements established by Panhandle Health would be met. Paulus asked how many dogs could be sheltered at one time, Miller said 25. Paulus expressed concern that once one dog started barking, the rest would join in. Miller stated again that the building would be soundproofed, and that dogs known as “nonsense” barkers were fitted with special collars to break them of the habit. Schnuerle asked if Second Chance was subject to enforcement of barking dog and other complaints, Miller stated they were.

            There being no further comment, Paulus closed the hearing to public testimony and called for discussion. Kirby stated such a facility was long overdue. Schnuerle said he felt the site was a good location. Paulson said the use fit well in the zone district. Paulus said it was clear the group was working hard to be good neighbors and address specific concerns. Luedtke said she helped her husband run a small animal hospital next door to a residential neighborhood, and said she knew from experience that the right people could run such an operation so as not to disturb neighbors. Hollingsworth said that about a month ago a sheriffs dispatcher called Alice and took an animal to her home, he said they were impressed by how clean and well-kept it was.

            There being no further discussion, Paulus called for a motion. Kirby made motion to approve application CUP 03-02 as presented. Paulson seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

5. Paulus reopened public hearing on the proposed Area of Impact Agreement submitted by the City of Bonners Ferry. City Planner Gary Falcon had nothing to add to the opening statement. Barcklay asked if there were implications over adding areas in the flood plain; staff stated that the addition would have no bearing unless the area were annexed, at which time the city would assume responsibility for flood plain monitoring. Barcklay asked if the addition would allow subdivisions, saying that part of the area under consideration was valuable farmland. He asked whether each area could be considered separately. Steve Boorman stated that the proposal was to open the way for negotiation, and that it was not an “all or nothing” proposal. Bill Michalk stated that areas proposed were within at least two drainage districts, and said that as legal entities, drainage districts were to be notified of such proposals. Staff stated he had not notified drainage districts, and concurred they should be included in the notification process. Reoch said he was still curious regarding inclusion of area B, Three Mile. A discussion was held on annexation. Boorman said the city had not considered annexation, but had looked at providing sewer service to the area. Estimated cost, he said, was $450,000. He said the Economic Development Corporation felt such service was necessary to realize the economic potential of the area.

            Paulus called for public input from those in favor of the proposal, there was none.

            Paulus asked for public comment from those uncommitted.

a. Stan Mastre said he lives in the existing area of impact and that he hasn’t seen his taxes increase nor any other discernible difference. Barcklay asked him if he was in favor of the proposal or opposed, Mastre said he was in favor.

b. Jack Tice said there seemed to be a lot of confusion between the county, the city and the EDC; he said he favored the proposal if it meant getting sewer service, but he said he doesn’t like the potential for being annexed. Based on that, he said he opposed expanding the area of impact.

c. Craig Hubbard said he didn’t know much about the proposal and had learned some and came to ask questions. He said that since the existing area of impact agreement had been reached, only one area had been annexed, and that at the request of the residents within the area. He stated that the city doesn’t want to annex the Three Mile area as it would cost more than would be paid in taxes. He stated that deductions in fire premiums due to higher ratings by the city department usually offset the increase in taxes. He said that in the area of impact, farm land would still be taxed as farm land.

d. Bill Michalk again stated that drainage districts need to be notified and stated that the mailing prior to the hearing was inadequate. He said more information needs to be presented before a sound decision could be made.

e. Brian Triplett, Bonners Ferry Herald, said he’d written articles on the subject and said the city, county and EDC were in accord regarding goals.

f. Steve Shelman said he concurred that more information was needed to enable residents and property owners to form an opinion.

g. Fred Hendrickson asked for further information about the annexation process.

Paulus called for testimony from those opposed to the proposal.  James Copp said he can’t see anything the city could provide that isn’t already available, and said the next step would be annexation.

            There being no further comment, the hearing was closed to public testimony and discussion was held among members. Kirby stated that the information provided was inadequate, and she suggested holding another meeting to provide handouts and additional information. She stated another mailing to each property owner affected needed to be made. Barcklay said he felt each separate area labeled in the proposal should be looked at separately. Luedtke said she would like to know what the city and the county were thinking. Hollingsworth said he could see where the proposal showed the future of Bonners Ferry, but said he agreed that residents and property owners had to want to be annexed. Discussion was held on providing more information to the public and on publication in the newspaper of record; Weland stated that he could submit press releases providing information on areas in question, but that such releases would be published at the discretion of the Bonners Ferry Herald. He stated that he didn’t feel the advertising budget would be sufficient to publicize using additional legal notices or display ads.

            Kirby made motion to table the proposal pending to allow further public notification; that the proposal appear in the newspaper three times, that property owners in the affected areas, including drainage districts, again be notified by mail, this time providing a map and more information than was initially mailed, and that upon reopening hearing, each area proposed, as identified in the application, be considered separately. Luedtke seconded and the motion carried unanimously.

6.There being no more business before the commission, Kirby moved to adjourn, Barcklay seconded and the motion carried unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m.