BOCC denies appeal hearing refund

SANDPOINT — A Bonner County resident’s appeal fees will not be returned to them after commissioners voted against the request at their regular Tuesday meeting.

Commissioner Asia Williams moved to return the appeal funds resident Suzanne Glasoe paid the county regarding a conditional use permit for a winery expansion that was approved earlier this year.

“Mrs. Glasoe appealed this decision and the board voted 2-1 to allow what was requested,” Williams said.

The way the CUP approval, as well as the appeal hearing, concerned her as a taxpayer, resident and commissioner, she said. According to county ordinance, Williams said the winery would be required to grow half an acre of the primary product used in the distillation process, which allegedly has not happened, deeming the winery in noncompliance.

“None of those elements were met, but the CUP was confirmed as approved,” she said.

In the staff report attached to the original CUP request, Williams said that ordinance was ignored. Additionally, she said Glasoe pointed out during the appeal hearing that a word was removed from the verbiage of the ordinance. When people come to Bonner County, Williams said they are expected to know the county’s ordinances, and the county doesn’t have a right to change them when they don’t like them or when what is being requested doesn’t fit under one.

Glasoe was not given a just appeal hearing, Williams said.

 “… A commissioner made a decision that’s not in our statute to say, ‘You have two years to be in compliance,’” she said. “So in a way, we actually concede the argument that it’s not in compliance.”

Changing or ignoring ordinances when it’s not convenient is going to make residents stop appealing decisions they deem unlawful, because no one wants to pay money to not be listened to, the commissioner said.

“People feel like it’s about who you know to get what you want,” she said. “They don’t feel like we’re following our comprehensive plan.”

Agriculture is a valuable part of such a rural county, Williams continued, and if the county starts making up rules that do not protect it, the area will lose one of the things that draws many people to North Idaho.

“I requested that we give her her money back since we decided that we weren’t going to follow the rules in that hearing,” she said. “We can’t do that to our community members. We can’t do that to our county.”

Commissioner Luke Omodt said that Glasoe announced that she intends to file the appeal at the district court level, and because of this, called on Deputy Prosecutor Bill Wilson for input on the appropriateness of discussing the issue in an open meeting. Wilson said that when further litigation is threatened, he is never a proponent of discussing the issue in a public setting.

However, Williams said that Glasoe planning to appeal to a higher court did not have any bearing on the belief that the board ignored the things they were supposed to actually look at during the appeal hearing, while charging her money to do so.

Williams again voiced that the winery is in noncompliance with the CUP, as they currently do not grow grapes on the property, but instead have them shipped in to distill. While it does take many years for good grapes to grow, she said, that does not excuse the fact that right now, no grapes are being grown for the product being created.

“The appellant said, this may happen years down the line, but right now, this is not satisfied,” she said. “That is my issue.”

Williams said this issue is important to settle so the community can see that the board is dedicated to following the rules. This is not an opportunity for the board to say, “it’s difficult to grow grapes, so we’re going to give you a period of time where you can operate conditionally.”

However, Commissioner Steve Bradshaw said it is not the board’s job to tell people what they can or cannot grow on their own properties.

“We have to stay within our bounds of what we are actually obligated to do,” Bradshaw said. “And we should be competent, and not ridiculously incompetent, when we make these decisions.”

Despite more discussion from Williams, the motion was denied in a 2-1 vote.

“Absolutely not,” said Omodt when the roll call vote was taken.

Bradshaw shared similar sentiments.

“Not even on a good day,” he answered.