Panel opposed to subdivision plan

BONNERS FERRY — A public hearing originally scheduled at the Extension Office regarding an application for an urban subdivision in Paradise Valley, had to be moved to the upstairs courtroom in the Boundary County Courthouse on Thursday night.

It was standing room only, with community members standing in the back and in the doorway to the courtroom.

Jim Ball, the landowner of 4.06 acres on Shamrock Road, submitted an application to subdivide the parcel into smaller lots and place mobile or manufactured homes there in order to meet what he called a community need for affordable housing.

The Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission, who were seated in the cordoned off portion of the courtroom where the defense and prosecution attorneys are usually stationed, were charged with making the decision to move the application on to the County Commissioners or decide against doing so.

“Boundary County needs affordable housing,” said Ball, and his plan to subdivide the 4.06 acres and create affordable rentals, he said, would meet this need.

“I’ve lived here my entire adult life, over the last 18 years I’ve invested in real estate and worked at a couple of jobs since I’ve been here … we currently own and operate 126 rental units; a hundred of them are residential units,” said Ball in his opening statement.

“Our properties provide homes for several hundred people,” he added. “Our properties have served thousands of people since we started doing rentals in 2002.”

Ball had 25 letters of support for his planned subdivision to submit to the commission, as he wanted the commission and the audience to understand his character.

“We currently try to add five to 10 units a year to the market due to the fact of the demand, we have employed local people, we donate to several causes, we support hope house, volunteer at the Moyie park, habitat for humanity, the FFA,” said Ball.

Ball presented that the subdivision that he was applying for is allowable within the current ordinance and referenced another subdivision that has been allowed that he says is comparable to his.

“We meet all standards required for a subdivision. We have all required utilities and roadways and fire protection... water access is through a private well that meets all state guidelines,” said Ball.

There were some people present to speak in favor of the subdivision, although it was evident the overwhelming majority of people present were against the plan.

Those in favor of the subdivision plan talked about how it was difficult to find affordable rental housing in Boundary County.

Miles Stevens, from Bonners Ferry, agreed there is a lack of affordable housing in the area.

“I’ve seen the proposed site, what people will see from the main road is very limited,” Stevens said. “If the proposal was, say, frame housing instead of manufactured homes ... I think there is a stereotype around the word ‘manufactured’ home.”

“There is a need for affordable housing; my brother has done a lot in this community,” said Luther Ball of Libby, Mont. “Jimmy does a lot to keep up the housing.”

Another audience member stated that Ball provides a lot of community members with work in the community.

The arguments against the planned subdivision centered around the issues of developing an urban subdivision within a zoned residential agriculture area, and how this affects neighbors, property values, enjoyment of property, and other nuisances.

Randy Morris of the Boundary County Road and Bridge Department presented concerns regarding snow plowing, road construction, and traffic issues.

“The issue here tonight is the requirement that the commissioners have to uphold,” Karen Glacier said. “The first line of the ordinance introduction says Boundary County, Idaho, is a unique place and this ordinance was written to reflect the rural mores and lifestyles of this community.”

“In the comprehensive plan there are 14 references to rural lifestyle, rural nature, rural atmosphere, rural qualities rural characteristics and rural character and the goal is to maintain them,” said Glacier. “These documents are the defining documents for boundary county’s growth and development and it is critical that they be taken into consideration.”

Samuel Lovely from Paradise Valley PIC said the application for the subdivision, “violates the letter of the planning and zoning ordinance as the ordinance prohibits non-conforming development use.”

“The fundamental question presented is whether the proposal contained in the application is conforming or nonconforming. If it is conforming it may be approved, if it is non-conforming, it must be denied,” Lovely said.

“Section 2.14 of the ordinance describes density as the smallest parcel size allowable within a zone district. The density specified here in rural residential is five acres pursuant to sec 15.10.1. The proposal is to create new parcels of less than five acres; therefore, the proposal is nonconforming and must be denied, not may be denied, must be denied,” said Lovely.

Lovely added: “Five acres minimum, actually means five acres minimum,” which garnered hefty applause from the audience in the room.

Ann Conklin, from Paradise Valley, asked that anyone in the room who is opposed to the subdivision to say aye and raise hands, where it was audibly evident that those in attendance were heavily against this application.

Jim Ball, during his closing statement, reiterated the CCRs and stated that the private road meets all safety standards and that they intend on maintaining a quality road.

“There is a section in the ordinance 14.2 that gives latitude to zoning district areas that says that the zoning district chapter is general only,” Ball said.

Ball stated when he originally bought the 4.06 acres more than 10 years ago, he bought the land with the understanding that it was zoned as urban subdivision, when in fact it was not and it was found to have been a county error in zoning.

“There was a zone map error when I bought that land, the county found the zone map error in 2008, and said that we were now in a rural residential zone. When I originally bought it it was in error by the county and I have been sitting for 15 years on this land. When I bought it was zoned for this type of area,” said Ball.

The rights of the applicant and the adjoining property owners were taken into consideration when making this decision, as well as maintenance of the rural character of the community, safety needs, among other comprehensive plan requirements.

As for the argument for affordable housing, this was addressed by Chairman Davis who referred to the comprehensive plan. Affordable housing is already provided according to the rural residential definition of a five acre minimum lot size.

The Planning and Zoning Commission Chairman, after a discussion with other commission members, and after reviewing all evidence and commentary presented, voted against the subdivision application being moved on to the county commissioners.

Davis stated as part of the closing, “Specific uses of land could adversely affect the rights of adjoining property owners who similarly enjoy the use of property, as well as detract from the values and enjoyment of the general public as established in the comprehensive plan.”