Commissioners adjourn P&Z code enforcement public hearing

BONNERS FERRY — Boundary County commissioners adjourned Monday’s public hearing on planning and zoning code enforcement ordinance, saying it needs to be brought back to the P&Z commission.

Over 100 residents packed the meeting room, going over that allowed by fire code regulations. 

Many present expressed concern the county was following that of California with new rules overtaking private property rights. Others said the county risked potential lawsuits, similar to those faced by their home counties in California. 

One man, speaking in support of the new ordinance, said it appropriately penalized those not following zoning codes, adding that, under current rules, someone could have a factory in a residential area and pay a one time fee and never have to be compliant. 

John Poland, of Naples, also spoke in favor of the new rules, noting his property value has dropped since a neighbor began operating an improperly zoned junk yard in a residential area.

“I’m greatly affected and financially damaged by egregious violations in my neighborhood and the county has chosen to not take any action against these people and the reason they’ve given is the enforcement code wasn’t clearly written,” he said, asking the county to enforce the rules. “There’s no new rules, no one here should be affected at all by this, but people like me are affected because we have played by the rules and have done our part and the right thing to make the county a great place to live.”

After a brief pause in the meeting to see if room could be made to allow people in the hallway space to stand inside the meeting room, Prosecutor Andrakay Pluid advised commissioners there were too many people in the room and the meeting was in violation of fire code. She said they could seek a new venue, such as the fairgrounds and hold the meeting in the evening. 

Commissioner Ben Robertson said he did not wish to move forward with the public hearing and did not want to incorporate criminal violations in the ordinance. 

“I think this one-size-fits-all solution does not work for Boundary County,” Robertson said. “Instead of wasting all the rest of your time, for hours letting everyone oppose speak. I’m making a motion to adjourn to not resume this meeting.”

He clarified he is not tabling the meeting, rather ending the public meeting and sending the issue through the county’s Planning and Zoning Commission to find a better solution.

“We need a better solution for Boundary County [...] and will do it in a better room some time,” he said. “This is the third public meeting we’ve spoken about this and maybe 10 people came to those public meetings.” 

At this time only four members of the public had spoken in favor of the ordinance during the public comment period, which had not yet gone to those who were neutral nor those who were against the proposed ordinance. 

The commissioners did not deliberate, rather Robertson made a motion to adjourn, when no motion had been asked by the chair, nor at the proper time of the meeting to make a motion. 

Commissioner Wally Cossairt seconded the motion and unanimously the commissioners voted to adjourn the meeting.

In the current Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision enforcement ordinance, a violation is deemed an infraction with a one time fine of $100. This means if someone operates a junk yard in a zone designated as residential or another land use, they would have to pay a one-time fee of $100 and not be required to follow zoning code. 

The proposed updated ordinance changed the infraction to a misdemeanor to any inaction or action contrary to the land use law. Additionally, if the land use does not comply with the proper zoning designation instead of having a new violation being created every week the new code would have a separate violation every day, matching state law. It also removed the allowance of a violation to continue if a fine is paid. 

Rather than law enforcement being directed to respond, the new code would have the complaint start with the planning department and forwarded it to the prosecutor if a resolution can be found. The code adds tools for civil action such as injunctions and withheld permits. The authority for action on violations would be assigned to the zoning administrator, prosecutor or county commissioners, depending on the nature of the violations and remedies. 

When it comes to responding to a violation, currently a landowner is only required to respond; the new code would require  “abatement” of the land use violation. The proposed code would also have the land owner be contacted twice and allow for immediate action if there is a threat to health, safety and welfare. However, the code specifies that it would be determined by the prosecutor and court. 

Unlike at the March 11 meeting, when the topic was tabled and sent back down to the Planning and Zoning Commission, no direction by the commissioners was taken on record. 

The commissioners had tasked P&Z to create “teeth” in the county ordinance regarding code enforcement. For the past two years the commission has worked on providing a solution. 

At the April 25 monthly P&Z meeting, the commissioners and both boards discussed how P&Z can get more direction from the commissioners. 

P&Z Chairman Caleb Davis said when the commissioners table items and send them back to P&z for a re-write they need more direction of what the commissioners think is working or not working in code updates. WIthout this information, P&Z is working in the dark. 

Robertson told the Herald his concern with the current enforcement code is the definition of “junk yard” and other definitions in code. 

“This is what this always boils back to, if you can’t enforce a bad definition what’s the point of trying to enforce something that is unenforceable?” 

He added that he doesn’t see everyone with a zoning violation as a criminal and that if the proposed code had passed not everyone would be facing a misdemeanor, but it opened up the opportunity for that to happen if the county had an overzealous prosecutor in the future. 

“[A future prosecutor] could go after every zoning violation as a misdemeanor, and I don’t want to open up that door,” he said. 

When asked why he decided to adjourn the meeting, Robertson said he knew what he would decide before the meeting, adding he felt that most those present in the room were opposed to the change. 

“Maintaining order in this meeting appeared to become very difficult,” Robertson said. 

Robertson said that he would conceive that some egregious violations are criminal acts, but that the county has to decide and define what is a criminal act and what is an infraction. This is something he would want the P&Z commission to consider. 

Bertling said his main concern with the current code is that a violator can pay a one time fine and never be required to be noncompliant with zoning regulations. 

“[Currently] they can’t be re-violated, they can keep doing what they are doing,” he said. “That’s my problem with it. I don’t think all violations are equal.” 

He noted that some violations are egregious and need to be addressed, while others are a simple fix by the landowner. He did not like the idea of sending someone to jail for being out of compliance, rather wanted to look at civil options or title the property. The criminal aspect was his major disagreement with the proposed ordinance. 

Bertling said he knew it was best to adjourn the meeting when it became unruly. He said at that point the meeting looks like it was going to evolve into something else that would not be civil. 

He said suggestions he would provide P&Z is to look at a two-tiered approach on violations. 

“It’s getting to the right solution the community can get on board with and achieve what we need,” he said. “We’re not ching to have 100% agreement on this, but let’s at least get close.”

“With listening to people in the community we can get a better solution to our problem of enforcement and do our due diligence to get a better policy,” he said. 

When asked if the county will do more to advertise these meetings, Bertling said the information is easy to find if you want to know about it. 

“The only reason this happened was because of social media,” he said. “We can talk about better posting.”

Commissioner Wally Cossairt said his main concern with the current ordinance is there is not enough penalty to deter people from breaking the ordinance. 

“That’s what I thought we were trying to do,” he said. 

He said having incremental fines until the code was followed would get violators attention, but currently the $100 fine without becoming under compliance to code isn’t working. He said many present at the meeting did not understand that. 

“We need some teeth [in code] and these people are going to want teeth in code when there is something happening next to them that they don’t like,” he said. 

    Local man cares a "Go back California," sign at the May 6 county commissioner public hearing on planning and zoning code enforcement ordinance.