|
County P&Z says no to subdivisions,
rezone |
|
March 15, 2012 |
In the course of a four-hour meeting tonight,
the Boundary County Planning and Zoning
Commission voted unanimously to forward to
county commissioners recommendations of
disapproval on two clustered subdivision
applications along the banks of the Kootenai
River as well as a proposal by the county to
rezone several areas along the Moyie River from
agriculture/forestry to suburban.
They also moved to extend the period to accept
letters of interest to fill a position on the
commission until April 12.
Applicant Frank Wagstaff, who owns 1,425.62
acres in the Kootenai Valley along Turner Hill
Road, is seeking to create two subdivisions;
Kootenai River Estates South, totaling 81.89
acres, and Kootenai River North, totaling 124.84
acres, into 71 riverfront lots while restricting
the remaining acreage from development "in
perpetuity."
James Fox, Spokane Valley, representing the
owner, said that, under the current zoning in
the prime agriculture zone district, the
property could be divided into 142 ten-acre
lots, which would take that land out of
production forever, but lauded the new county
provision allowing "clustered" development,
wherein minimum parcel size is traded for "net
development density" by which smaller tracts are
allowed in exchange for preserving desired
attributes, in this case, agriculture.
"The land we're proposing to develop is being
grazed, but it's not being farmed," he said. "We
foresee some residential development, but think
that many of the lots we can offer will be used
for recreation."
Fox proposed a similar development, the Estates
at Copeland Landing, late last year, which also
received a P&Z recommendation unfavorable to the
applicant, and he attempted to address some of
the concerns raised then in presenting these two
proposals; Covenants, Conditions and
Restrictions (CCRs) on every lot sold requiring
the buyer to acknowledge that they're buying
land in farm country, and giving up their right
to sue for nuisances inherent in "accepted farm
practices," requirements that the buyers of the
parcels build to avoid the hazards of flood,
elevating their homes at or above an established
elevation.
P&Z members heard from two people in favor of
the proposal, though they both admitted they
didn't really like the idea; both saying the
property owner had the right to the best use of
the land whether the rest of us like it or not,
and they heard from many opposed, some out of
concern over inadequate roads, public safety and
the conflict between high-yield farming and
residential use.
"I'm one of the few in the 'new' generation of
farmers," one said, "and I can't farm the way my
parents did. I have to apply for a permit to
burn, and I'm told when I can. I'm 20 miles from
Canada, but when the smoke reaches Creston, they
call Coeur d'Alene and I'm told I have to stop."
"How do you know when there's a complaint?" A
P&Z member asked.
"There's a guy from Coeur d'Alene on my property
while I'm burning," he said, "And when he gets
the call that there's a complaint, he shuts me
down. I was permitted four days last year,
I got two. I agree with property rights, but I
look at it from a different angle ... I want to
preserve my way of life ... what about mine?"
Mike Ripatti, an engineer with long family ties
to the valley, said that telling buyers they
couldn't sue over nuisances from accepted farm
practices was well and good ... instead of
filing lawsuits, people wouldn't have too much
trouble changing the definition of what's
accepted.
On rebuttal, Fox again pointed out the benefits
of clustered development, saying it was nothing
new, and that he'd seen and studied places where
it's worked for decades ... for centuries.
While it wasn't brought up tonight, at the last
hearing many raised as an example against his
application the fate of the Rathdrum Prairie,
once prime farmland but now row after row of
homes and roads.
The comparison, he said is unwarranted.
"They allowed that to happen through rezoning to
allow higher development density," he said.
"They didn't allow for cluster development.
"I've visited Long Island, New York," he said.
"They recognized the concept more than 80 years
ago, and it is working. If you go to Europe,
they've been practicing it for years. It works
... farms and people can live side by side for
centuries. I know people hate change, and this
is a major change. But it uses six percent of
marginal land, and preserves 94% of the land for
what the community wants."
Despite his argument, which seemed to have been
somewhat compelling to some members, a couple of
ordinance provisions, one of which the applicant
wasn't aware, gave the commission little choice
but to say "no."
The entire area in which residential development
is proposed lies in the 100-year flood plain
established by FEMA in 1982, for which no base
flood elevation data was established, and,
surprising the applicant, it's all in an area
identified as wetland.
The Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision
unequivocally states that clustered development
can't be considered in either case.
Fox presented documentation to address the flood
plain elevation, hiring an engineering firm to
do the myriad studies needed to develop base
flood elevation, and he hired an expert to look
at the land as regards wetlands, and, thanks to
elevation, the doctor found none.
The maps provided by the Army Corps of
Engineers, however, and much to his surprise,
indicate that the entire area is a wetland.
"Based on that, the ordinance is pretty clear,"
said P&Z member Steve Shelman. "If it's in an
unnumbered 100-year flood zone, we can't approve
it. There's a way he can fix that by
establishing the base flood elevation and by
getting FEMA to approve it. If it's in an
identified wetland, which it clearly is, we
can't approve it. No one seems to know how he
can fix that."
Next on the agenda was the proposal for rezoning
many of the lands along the Moyie River ... a
passel of lots as small as an acre that had been
subdivided and in existence since well before
the county had zoning ordinances, which had been
given that designation on the Comprehensive Plan
Map adopted in 2008, but didn't make it onto the
county zoning map, which establishes law.
In spite of anything the county might accomplish
by a "blanket" rezone, the Planning and Zoning
Commission decided, adopting the propsal would
not be wise.
They heard from several who lived on the lots
affected; in the last two years, two homes had
burned down because the roads they relied on
didn't allow access to emergency vehicles.
Member Matt Cossalman, a firefighter with the
Hall Mountain Fire Department, begged to differ
... He helped put out both fires.
Despite poor, unmaintained roads, he said, Hall
Mountain Fire was there ... but in both cases,
too late.
Les Levig, who owns property up there, raised
the point that, though there were many parcels
created in the days before county land use
ordinances, a rezone allowing even higher
density without providing infrastructure
sufficient to support it was unwise.
"Sub" urban," he said, "means that services
available are near what would be available in
urban areas ... that's not the case here."
Steve Tanner spoke in favor of the proposal,
saying that he opposed the concept of zoning,
but was in favor of any zoning that gave
property owners more options, but then Cossalman
pointed out that higher density zoning placed
more restrictions on what property owners could
do on their land, as compared to ag/forestry
zoning.
"Do you realize that it's going to be harder for
someone to start or conduct a business?" he
asked.
"I didn't see that in the material," Tanner
said. "I guess that means I'm for it and again'
it!"
Both proposals have pros and cons, and
both will be subject to at least one more public
hearing before a decision is made by Boundary
County Commissioners.
The initial test on the development of the 30
potential home sites at the Copeland Bridge will
be heard by County Commissioners at 1:30 p.m.
Tuesday, March 27.
The recommendatons made tonight by the Planning
and Zoning Commission will be decided by our
elected officials, time and date to be
determined, subject to public notice as required
by state law.
On both sides of the coin, those interested will
have another say. |
|
|
|
|
