Hearing set on sweeping code changes

SANDPOINT — Bonner County commissioners are slated to hear potentially sweeping changes to two sections of county code today at 1:30 p.m.

The numerous changes to Chapters 2 and 6 of the Bonner County Revised Code, which are not elaborated in the notice, address several appeal and application processes regarding county land use policy.

The Planning Department is seeking to strike the entire appeal process from Bonner County Revised Code 12-616 – which directs the issuance of conditional certificates of compliance. Part D explains that should the Planning Director determine that a lot or parcel resulting from a division of land did not comply with the applicable provisions of the code in effect at the time when the division occurred, then the Planning Director “shall record … a conditional certificate of compliance with the Bonner County Recorder.”

If Amendment 13 passes, Part F of BCRC 12-616 will be struck from the code – preventing the appeal of a certificate of compliance or of a conditional certificate of compliance.

If the public are dissatisfied with the Planning Department’s issuance or non-issuance of a “conditional [or regular] certificate of compliance” they can, for now, appeal the decision. For now, Part F permits an appeal of a certificate of compliance within ten days of its issuance.

Another appeals process could be abolished as well. While 12-238 currently states that any person affected by a variance may appeal the Planning Director’s decision within 28 days and that county commissioners must have a public hearing for that appeal within 60 days, the amendment appears to strike the appeals process for variances entirely.

The proposed amendment would also establish clearer requirements for the appeal of decisions by the Zoning Commission or the hearing examiner, establishing five possible reasons an appeal may be filed. If the amendment passes, 12-262 would require that any appeal explicitly allege that the decision is in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, in excess of the statutory authority of the commission or hearing examiner, made upon unlawful procedure, arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion, or not supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole.

The amendment would also allow the hearing examiner to allow conditional use permits, while BCRC 12-223 only charges the Zoning Commission with approving conditional use permits.

BCRC 12-216, critics allege, would make rezoning a parcel easier and could render the zoning map arbitrary. While 12-216 states that the county “shall determine whether there is adequate evidence that the proposal is in accordance with the general and specific objectives of the comprehensive plan,” the amendment would BCRC 12-320 to determine the permissibility of the zone change.

Land use advocate Jonna Plante wrote in a letter to commissioners that 12-320 is, as its title “Zoning Districts Established” suggests, that subchapter is intended to delineate zoning districts, not serve as a guide for rezoning applications.

The effort to loosen rezoning applications comes as the latest draft of the proposed goals, objectives, and policies for the Comprehensive Plan would discourage both downzoning and upzoning.

Dave Bowman of Keep Bonner County Rural wrote to county commissioners that the proposed revision to 12-216 “defeats the purpose of zoning” as it would codify zoning by parcel.

“The Planning Department has already been using 3.2 as their criteria for recommending approval or denial of individual zone changes, and you the BOCC have gone along with it – knowing full well you are approving the practice of spot-zoning,” Bowman alleged.

“It was NEVER intended that every single parcel in a given zoning district would have every single feature listed in the zoning district description. Those descriptions are the GENERAL characteristics of the zoning districts. That’s why they are called zoning districts – not zoning parcels,” Bowman added.

Bowman and Plante both took offense to the proposed edit to BCRC 12-211, which says that any “request for amendment to the text of this title, the comprehensive plan or to the zoning map must be accompanied by a written request that addresses: A. Why the amendment is necessary.”

The county wants to replace the requirement in Part A to demonstrate the necessity of the amendment with softer language that asks only for “[t]he reason for the request.”

Plante wrote that “‘necessary’ should always be used when deciding comp plan changes and zoning map changes as these decisions impact everyone. The word necessary has been ignored through this reign of our county commissioners but that doesn’t mean it should be removed, rather than I suggest the commissioners keep it in the code and start actually abiding by it.”

Bowman argued that “to simply ask for a reason for a request, rather than why the request is necessary, lowers the bar to the point where in effect, nothing will stand in the way of a request to amend the zoning code or Comprehensive Plan.”

The amendment was applied for on July 28 and was noticed on Sept. 2. To read the entirety of the text of the proposed amendment, search “AM0013-22” at BonnerCountyID.gov.

Information: This amendment will be heard and voted upon by Bonner County Commissioners this Wednesday, Sept. 7 at 1:30 p.m. in the third floor conference room at the Bonner County Administration Building at 1500 U.S. 2 in Sandpoint.