County still working to justify variance

SANDPOINT — The Bonner County commission roughed out justifications Tuesday for granting a variance to a couple who expanded their home on Lake Pend Oreille without a permit.

Commissioners Lewie Rich and Cornel Rasor conceptually approved the first-ever variance to the county’s floodplain standard in February, but county officials have struggled to draft findings and conclusions that support the decision.

In order to grant the variance to Dwight and Pamela Sheffler, the county has to find that the request meets each of the five criteria found in Bonner County’s land use code.

The criteria include findings that an undue hardship exists because of site characteristics and that the development code would deprive the landowner of rights enjoyed by other landowners in the same zoning district. The county also has to find that the circumstances do not result from the actions of the applicant, grant a special privilege others don’t enjoy or conflict with the public interest.

The county commission directed the Planning Department to draw up the findings, but Clare Marley told commissioners during a hearing on Tuesday that the department was unable to do so.

The department has previously recommended against granting the variance and the Planning & Zoning Commission denied the Sheffler’s variance request because it did not meet all the criteria, a determination that was overruled by the county commission.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has put the county on notice that it intends to revoke a 5 percent discount 250 Bonner County landowners receive on their flood insurance policies if the commission grants the variance.

Flood insurance policy holders in the county would have started receiving a 10 percent discount in May because of the recent overhaul to Bonner County’s development code, but the variance would thwart that.

Commissioners picked their way through various conditions, with the much of the discussion centering around the hardship, landowner action and public interest questions.

Rasor and Rich argued having to elevate the home or its bottom floor nine-tenths of a foot to keep it out of the floodplain was an obvious hardship. However, Marley advised the board that a hardship can only apply to the land or structure, not a landowners’ pocketbook, according to the county’s rules and court decisions cited by FEMA.

While Commission Chairman Joe Young has been sympathetic to the hardship question, he continued to struggle with conclusions that the Shefflers did nothing to cause the predicament and that exposing policy holders to higher rates was in the public’s best interest.

“We’re overlooking that the applicant created the problem by not getting a site location permit,” said Young, who added that it’s in the public’s interest to receive benefits from the National Flood Insurance Program.

Rasor expressed doubt FEMA would actually penalize the county and countered that easing federal influence on local decisions would benefit the public.

“I’m not sure it’s in the public’s interest to be bullied by FEMA,” Rasor said.

Rich and Rasor ultimately decided to advance their findings and have the Shefflers’ legal counsel, John Finney, collaborate with planning staff to develop additional findings to bolster the variance decision.

Young continued to voice opposition to the variance. He did not vote on Tuesday’s developments because the action did not require a roll-call vote and there was no tie to break since Rasor and Rich were in agreement.

The board is scheduled to further deliberate the matter on April 20.