CONTINUED HEARING FROM THURSDAY WILL NOW BE HELD TOMORROW, MONDAY AT 1PM, DUE TO COMMISSIONER OMODT DECIDING TO NOT AGREE TO HEAR IT OVER ZOOM AND COMMISSIONER BRADSHAW MOVING IT TO MONDAY AT 1.

Thank you to all who showed up on Thursday for the hearing. It was an impressive attendance. I'm worried that we will not get the same on Monday, but I suppose that is part of their plan -- wear us down. 
 
Do not let them win at their games. Please show up either in person or via zoom. Here's the zoom link:
 
https://www.bonnercountyid.gov/BOCCHearings
 
There was also some confusion about the zoom link on the county's webpage and some folks could not find it. That's because they didn't put it on the events page with the rest of the hearings. You had to go looking for it (purposeful? -- probably). If you use my link, it should work. I guess I will have to test it right before the meeting since they are playing games with us. 
 
I am attaching once again, my letter to the commissioners since it explains the issues. For those that are new to this fight--a lot of water has passed under our bridge. We've had a few hearings and a court hearing. Pardon me if I just can't find it in me to explain all 16 months of what has transpired. But if you want to come up to speed, read my letter. If you have questions, I am happy to answer them. Just reply to my email. The main issue is that we don't want residential RV Parks in our rural neighborhoods. 
 
PLEASE GATHER THE TROOPS AGAIN! 
I know that some cannot come back on Monday but I hope that others will replace those who cannot come. Maybe this is an even bigger opportunity to have more people at the hearing. Many folks from around the county came to support you. Please don't give up. Get warm bodies either in the seats or on the zoom. 
 
Our attorney Norm will be there but remember he said that it will be us to win this, not him. 

REMINDER SENT IN LAST UPDATE:

Try as best you can to mention the main issues of having adequate water for fires and the fact that the application is for a residential RV Park. They will argue that the RV Park is commercial and will therefore be reviewed under that land use table. 
 
While it is a commercial type use, the code is clear that when RV's are used as dwelling units, only 2 can be on this property. Be sure to tell them how 20
RV houses will impact you! There are no prohibitions on generators and so all of the RV's can have generators, there will be increased noise and lighting not in keeping with a rural way of living or whatever you want to say. 
 
Tell them that it is their responsibility to promote our health, safety and welfare. 
 
Norm will speak on our behalf and hopefully, they will let him speak longer than 3 minutes. But if not, maybe someone in our group can give Norm their time so he can have 6 minutes. 
 
There may be others who also request more than 3 minutes so even if you attend just to give your time to someone else, that is helpful. I will probably also need more than 3 minutes. 
 
As always, feel free to email me with questions at kbcr@mail.com
Sincerely, 
Susan Bowman 
KBCR Planning Consultant
 

LETTER TO COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EXPLAINS IT ALL

October 19, 2023

Letter to the Bonner County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC)

From: Appellants in District Court CASE No. CV09-22-1674 and on behalf of the hundreds of county residents who testified at the several hearings/appeal and wrote letters to the county indicating the many negative impacts of RV Parks as housing in their rural neighborhoods.

RE: Remand of previous BOCC decision to allow an affordable housing RV Park in Blanchard.

As you know, Judge Cynthia Myers in CASE No. CV09-22-1674 in District Court ruled that the former BOCC’s decision to grant permit number CUP0030-21 is vacated and remanded for further agency proceedings.

There are two items of issue in this ruling but first a few facts from the ruling:

·      “The application states that the use for the subject property is ‘year round’ RV living for ‘RV residents’.”

·      “Numerous residences are located in close proximity to the proposed RV dwelling units, including single family homes on surrounding land.”

·      “Water is to be supplied to RV residents via an individual well.”

·      “Applicant proposed to have fire protection for the RV residents provided by the Spirit Lake Fire Protection District.”

·      The Board stated that the CUP was analyzed under BCRC 12-333.

·      Planning staff read aloud a comment from the Spirit Lake Fire Protection District which stated that “there is no adequate water supply for firefighting in this remote area.”

·      Community members raised concerns that the CUP should have been analyzed under BCRC 12-332, which governs RVs as dwellings.

·      The Board received comments from surrounding property owners which expressed many concerns of the impacts caused by residential RV Parks including roads, wells, sewage disposal, noise, general safety, fire and garbage.

Evidence establishing that the application is for a residential RV Park (affordable housing).

RV Parks as housing

The application clearly states that the RV Park will be used as housing by stating several times that the park will mainly provide long term RV tenant parking as affordable housing (items from the application below).
 

Furthermore, it is well established that the Zoning Commission and Planning staff consider the application for the RV Park to be housing and that they support this application as housing. It is clear that the county seeks to allow RVs as housing (dwelling units).

Here is an excerpt from the appeal of the Zoning Commission’s decision:

At the May 5th Public Hearing, when discussing the application for the RV Park (Affordable Housing Park), Planning Director Milton Ollerton at time stamp 2:12 (Bonner County You Tube channel), speaks about RVs as housing and states that they are allowed by code. He also states that when these regulations were created that there were “discussions” about RVs being housing and that “long term parking was considered to provide an opportunity for housing.”

Commissioner Matt Linscott at time stamp 2:21 in the hearing, speaks extensively about how there is a housing crisis in Bonner County, and came prepared with code sections to bolster his point. This shows clear bias in that he had already made his decision on this application before he arrived at the hearing, as he would have had to research the code sections referenced in order to call them out at the meeting. One clause he referenced was LLUPA 67-6508(l), which requires that comprehensive plans have land use regulations that analyze housing conditions and needs, including provisions for low-cost conventional housing, the siting of manufactured housing and mobile home parks. Note that this section of LLUPA does NOT ask for an analysis of RV Parks as housing. Also note that Matt considers RV Park housing as similar to mobile home housing. 

From the staff report:

“The application is consistent with the housing component of the comprehensive plan as this proposal will provide housing option for Bonner County.

Community Design Goal: Bonner County’s goal is to maintain a variety of lifestyles and a rural character in the future development of Bonner County.

This proposal will be creating housing options for Bonner County in proximity to areas that are currently comprehensive planned Transition and Neighborhood Commercial.” 

Note that none of this testimony was discussed by the BOCC in their approval of the CUP.

As referenced in the Bonner County Revised Code (BCRC) there are two sections of the code that govern RVs as dwelling units, 12-332 and 12-496.

BCRC Chapter 3 entitled: Zoning Districts and Land Uses governs RVs as dwelling units in the residential use table, specifically in 12-332 and note 9. Note that the site in question is in R5 zoning.

Note 9:

(9)    Building Location Permit regulations do not apply to non-commercial temporary, intermittent or occasional use of recreational vehicle. When a recreational vehicle is used in the same manner as a single-family dwelling or an accessory dwelling unit, such use is limited to a maximum of 2 recreational vehicle dwelling units per parcel, and the conditions of BCRC 12-496 apply (emphasis added).

The Code clearly states that the maximum number of RVs “as dwelling units” is 2.

BCRC 12-496 governs Development Standards for RV’s and states:

12-496: RECREATIONAL VEHICLES:

   A.   Dwelling Unit, Recreational Vehicle.

      1.   Limited to one (1) per lot or parcel for lots or parcels less than one (1) acre in size, or limited to two (2) per lot or parcel for lots, or parcels greater than one (1) acre in size without respect to density.

For reference, BCRC has a definition of RVs as dwelling units:

Definition in Chapter 8, title 12:

DWELLING UNIT, RECREATIONAL VEHICLE: A recreational vehicle used in the same manner as a single-family dwelling or an accessory dwelling unit.

Again, the judge specifically calls out 12-332(9) and 12-496 in her ruling to vacate the decision. While BCRC 12-497 calls out specific requirements for RV Parks, it is our position that in this circumstance the RV Park would not be allowed because it is clearly a housing development.

The previous Board chose to take the direction that Planning staff took, which was to apply the commercial land use table as the standard of review for the application which is clearly requesting approval of a residential use. Additionally, staff admit in their testimony and staff report that RVs will be used as housing for this application.  

In one respect, the commercial use table could be viewed as appropriate, because most certainly, RV Parks have numerous commercial impacts to residential neighborhoods. However, the discrepancy in the zoning code use tables must not be ignored. Clearly, the county Planning staff and previous BOCC intended to allow RV Parks as housing. It is also clear that the code does not allow it.

The same citizens as named in this letter came to the current BOCC to begin rectifying this code discrepancy. However, it is our understanding that the Planning Commission chose to table a proposed code amendment until the Comprehensive Plan is finished. While that is fine, we are asking that the current BOCC recognize the error in the zoning code and deny the application until the error is remedied. We are not against RVs as housing when only two are allowed, but the error in the code tells us that full consideration was not given to the impacts to rural residential neighborhoods when this part of the code was changed. We simply want to live our lives in peace in our rural neighborhoods without suffering through the intense densities allowed with RV Park housing.

Per the judge’s ruling, the previous BOCC did not have evidence or findings of fact in the regard of this discrepancy in the zoning code. In fact, they did not even address it either in writing or in their deliberations, and therefore the decision was made with no supporting or substantial evidence.  Their decision was arbitrary and capricious and was an abuse of their discretion in the decision to a approve the application. 

Adequate Water for firefighting

The previous BOCC and Planning staff relied upon BCRC 12-333, the commercial use table, and did not adequately address footnote 8 which states: “Adequate water supplies for drinking and fire suppression, as well as approval of sewage disposal sites and methods by the Panhandle health district and/or the state of Idaho, must be demonstrated as appropriate.” (emphasis added)

As noted in the judge’s ruling, one previous board member (BOCC) stated that “the proposed RV Park is within a fire district, which makes it adequate.”  He stated this even though a Planning staff member read aloud at the hearing that the Spirit Lake Fire Protection District chief wrote in the agency comments “there is no adequate water supply for firefighting in this remote area”.

We realize that the newest comment from the Spirit Lake Fire District expands on ways to mitigate the lack of adequate water by requiring a large, dedicated water tank and pumping system. The current Board may be tempted to condition the application and approve it, but that would not alleviate the code discrepancy of residential vs commercial use, which remains. Obviously, the Fire District chief looks at this proposed RV Park as a commercial enterprise and has commented as such. That does not alter the fact that the RV Park would constitute a residential development in a rural residential zone.

We maintain that the application should be reviewed under BCRC 12-332 (residential use table) because the application is for affordable housing. Further, we maintain that all RV Parks should be evaluated under 12-332 because 12-497 does not limit the length of stay in an RV Park as is the industry standard for RV Parks. 

We would not be facing this issue if the previous board had not changed the code to allow RV Parks in all rural zones. RV Parks are not appropriate uses in rural residential areas that have no services.  They create issues with snow removal, water resources, septic issues, noise, glare from numerous lights, and fire hazards, especially when placed in such a dense manner.

We are asking you to provide for our health, safety and general welfare in this matter and to deny this application.

Additionally, the requirements for approving a CUP for RV Parks (BCRC 12-233) states:

  “To grant a conditional use permit, the commission must find there is adequate evidence showing that the proposal is in accordance with the general and specific objectives of the comprehensive plan and this title, and that the proposed use will neither create a hazard nor be dangerous to persons on or adjacent to the property.”

It is our position that RV Parks are appropriate in populated areas, not rural areas and if placed in rural areas, they are hazardous and dangerous to adjacent properties.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

The appellants and neighbors of the RV Park