Council continues appeal hearing over shoreline design review after title and record questions; hearing set for Oct. 23

Two appeals challenging a planning and zoning commission decision to approve a shoreline design review and building addition for a Fuller family property were heard Sept. 25 by the McCall City Council. Appellants raised a disputed property line, questions about nonconforming setbacks and whether all relevant documents were in the record before the commission. After testimony and legal discussion, council continued the appeal hearing to Oct. 23 to augment the record and allow limited written argument on newly added materials.

The appeals concern a proposed expansion of an existing shoreline‑zone cabin that the Fuller family owns. Planning staff reported that the application sought to expand the structure from roughly 521 square feet to 2,191 square feet and that the planning and zoning commission had considered the project at two meetings in May and approved design review and shoreline review under county/city code. The commission’s signed findings and conclusions were entered into the record in July, opening a 10‑day appeal window; two appeals were timely filed.

Jed Manwaring, attorney for appellant Rick Wood, asked council to reverse and remand the planning and zoning decision because of a title dispute over a roughly 10‑foot strip of land near the Fuller property and asserted that the commission did not adequately consider existing nonconformities (setbacks, encroachments into the Diamond Street right‑of‑way, snow‑storage easement). “If there is a legitimate dispute over status of title to this property, there is no way we can permit this and that’s something that has to be shook out in court,” Manwaring told the council, citing a quiet‑title lawsuit filed after the P&Z decision.

John Wood, a family member who said he has an inheritance interest in nearby property, likewise said documents obtained via public records requests showed surveys and communications that raise questions about how boundary lines were drawn and which surveys the planning staff relied upon.

The Fuller family’s counsel, Mary York of Holland & Hart, asked the council to deny the appeals and affirm the planning and zoning decision. York said the commission held two noticed hearings, that an earlier objection by a neighboring property owner (identified in the record as Bob Wood) had been withdrawn before the second hearing, and that the commission considered building‑safety issues and applicable code sections on nonconforming structures. York also said the contested 30‑foot strip at Davis Beach (a separate claim referenced by appellants) is not material to the Fuller application and that the city’s position is that Davis Beach is city property.

Council and city staff discussed how the record was assembled and whether planning staff had available but not included documents (including multiple surveys and interparty correspondence). City planner Meredith Todd confirmed to council that a set of documents and surveys exchanged between parties during pre‑application discussions and between hearings had not been embedded in the council packet even though some were in the planning file. City attorney Bill Punkany recommended augmenting the record and continuing the hearing to a date certain to allow all parties to review the full planning‑level record and to submit written argument focused only on any newly added items.

Council voted to continue the appeal hearing to Oct. 23, 2025, for the limited purpose of amending and completing the planning and zoning record, and to accept written argument only on the augmented record. The motion passed by roll call vote. The council directed staff to provide the newly included materials to all parties and advised that no additional oral arguments would be scheduled on the new items; parties may submit written comments on the augmented record in advance of the Oct. 23 session.

Pending the augmented record and subsequent deliberation, staff told council that a title determination resulting from the separate quiet‑title litigation could affect lot coverage calculations and therefore could affect permitability if the final lot coverage would exceed code limits. Todd advised that most outstanding technical concerns (stormwater, drainage, and infrastructure comments) are typically resolved at infrastructure or final plat stages and that planning and zoning found no immediate health and safety threat in the Fuller application when it approved design review.

Next steps: staff will add the omitted documents to the record, notify the parties of the augmented record and the schedule for written comments, and return the appeal to council on Oct. 23 for deliberation and a final decision to affirm, reverse or remand the commission decision.