BOCC rejects notice of demolition options

SANDPOINT — Last week, Bonner County commissioners shut down a proposal that would have required notice of a demolition permit before any structure on personal property could be torn down.

Bonner County Planning Director Jake Gabell came before the board Wednesday, Feb. 21, with two drafts of the department’s proposed idea — one which was more lenient than the other, he said. The first draft — the more lenient approach — would not require a formal permit but would require a notice of the demolition.

The application for the notice would require numerous things: A site plan, plans of the structure to positively identify which one is being demolished, a photo of said structure with date and time stamps, the schedule for removal, a copy of the deed describing the property that the structure is located on, and a temporary erosion control plan, if applicable.

Additionally, Gabell said the department suggested another photo, also date and time stamped, following the demolition for record purposes.

The planning director said staff had not yet determined what a suggested fee for the notice would be, but it would likely be minimal, intended only to cover staff time for processing the notice. With the more lenient option, Gabell said an inspection would not be required unless requested by the land owner.

“We haven’t determined what a fee would be on this,” he said. “I would consider something minimal … I don’t see this taking a lot of staff time; maybe an hour. So a $20-$25 fee, if no inspection is needed.”

The second draft, he said, would require an actual permit to be obtained in order for demolition to commence.

“This would be a permit rather than just a notice, so the application contents are a little more in depth,” Gabell added.

These application contents would include: A more detailed site plan showing the location of all buildings, easements and utilities, including power, water, gas, septic, sewer and the drain field, as well as all environmental features, if applicable; plans of the structure to positively identify it; a digital photo with date and time stamps; the schedule for demolition; a copy of the deed describing the property said structure is on; and a temporary erosion control plan, if applicable.

A fire safety provision would be added to the permit, requiring that the land owner comply with the safety requirements of any applicable fire district. An inspection would also be required under this draft of the proposal.

Gabell said the notice of demolition — whether it involves a simple notice or requires a permit — will help the Bonner County assessor more accurately assess property values. This way, county residents are not being assessed and charged for structures that are no longer on their property, saving them money on their taxes.

However, commissioners voiced immediate concerns with the proposals. Commissioner Steve Bradshaw used an audience member as an example, telling the planning director to suppose he wants to knock down a well house on his property.

“Why should he have to pull a permit and pay a fee to tear down his old structure?” Bradshaw asked.

Commissioner Asia Williams agreed, saying she did not see why county residents should have to jump through another hoop just to take down a structure. Williams suggested a rule or ordinance stating that if residents do not want to be taxed on a structure, it must be taken down before the assessor assesses the property. If the structure is still standing, it will be added to the assessment.

“When I look at my area and what everyone is frustrated with, it always comes down to assessors and what feels like micromanaging private property,” she said. “[Making] a permit — we’re creating more work instead of putting the [responsibility] on the owner …”

The District 2 commissioner said it felt like rather than helping, the county was looking for more ways to police its people, putting more work on both the residents and the staff instead of alleviating it.

“Some type of notification requirement would be a good thing,” Bradshaw said. “As far as making people pull a permit so they can tear down their own stuff — yeah, I’m 100% against that.”

Gabell said the commissioners’ concern is why he offered the first option of a notice without a permit. A fee would not need to be attached to it, he said, if the board did not approve of it. With a simple notice, residents would not need to go through the extra steps of obtaining a permit and having a mandatory inspection.

“Either way, I don't like using staff because some people aren’t doing it, and I don’t like the fee,” Williams said, “and the increase of Planning just policing people’s property, which I 100% understand why we need to be notified of it, I just don’t like the fee.”

Despite Williams’s and Bradshaw’s disapproval of both proposals, Commissioner Luke Omodt said he looked favorably on the first draft, describing it as “light, not a heavy-handed government.” 

The planning director reiterated that he was on board with whatever commissioners chose and was merely presenting them with options for them to decide which they preferred.

“I don’t really have a dog in the fight; I see some benefits to this for the Planning Department, really on the non-conforming structures, to be able to find a way to memorialize those,” Gabell said.

Williams said that should either of the proposals go forward, she wanted the county to hold a public hearing to get input from the people these proposals will impact.

“It doesn’t mean it’s the wrong thing to do, but I do think the public should be able to give some input on this decision,” she said.

However, for Bradshaw, he said it was a “no” for him across the board. No one should need permission from the county to knock down something on their own property, he said.

“For me, just like [the audience member] and Commissioner Williams said, it’s an overreach of property rights,” he said. “It’s mine, I can tear it down if I want to. End of story.”

While Omodt still voiced interest in the first draft, Williams and Bradshaw held fast to their disapproval of both. Because of this, the board decided not to move forward with either option. Neither is expected to be brought back before them in the future.