Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Permits And Inspections topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners uphold denial of building-location permit fee refund

5114443 · July 1, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Board denied an applicant's request for a $13.15 refund of a building location permit fee after staff said planning had reviewed the permit application and coordination with agencies; the board found planning staff had performed work and that the department's fee-funded work should not be refunded.

Bonner County planning staff recommended denying a request to refund $13.15 in building-location permit fees after the applicant withdrew an application for a structure the Planning Department determined was in mapped wetlands for county GIS purposes.

Alex Vann, planning staff, explained the permit (BLP 2020-410-97) had been deemed complete on Oct. 22, 2024, and that planning requested a wetland reconnaissance because the county's GIS showed wetlands on the property. The applicant submitted a wetland delineation from Tom Dubendorfer in March 2025 concluding the wetlands were not jurisdictional to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the Corps later denied the applicant's jurisdictional determination request, and the applicant withdrew the permit and asked Director Grubell for a refund. Grubell denied the refund.

During discussion, staff told commissioners the Planning Department had performed application review, agency coordination and administrative processing before the applicant withdrew. Commissioners noted building location permit processing is fee-funded rather than taxpayer-funded and that planning had done work on the request.

A motion to uphold the planning director's decision and deny the applicant's refund request was made, seconded and adopted by roll call vote. Commissioners cited that the applicant had placed the building without an approved permit and had financial exposure from that choice.

Ending: The board denied the refund request; the decision leaves open applicant options for other appeals or administrative remedies established in BCRC 11-108 (undue hardship) and related appeal provisions.