Kootenai County staff, applicant spar over subdivision and "replication" risks in Elder Road CZDA continuation

Kootenai County Community Development held a continuation of a public hearing July 10 on two conditional zoning development agreements (CZDAs) affecting two parcels on Elder Road, during which staff and the applicant discussed whether the CZDAs would allow replicated commercial uses if the parent parcels were later subdivided. No formal vote or final decision was recorded during the portion of the meeting in the transcript.

The CZDAs under review would change how the West parcel (described in the hearing as about 33 acres) and the East parcel (about 27 acres) could be used, including a proposed designation of "commercial resort" on the West parcel. Director David Callahan, Community Development, apologized at the start for a file error and described the short preparation window before the hearing: "My apologies. We've heard as of last night, you had the same file twice in your electronic file. ... We corrected that this morning about 30 minutes ago."

Vlad Finkel, Kootenai County Community Development staff, told the commissioners that the proposed scope of uses in the CZDAs is largely consistent with previously approved conditional use permits but raised concerns about the interaction of commercial-resort language and the county's subdivision exemptions. "We find that the proposed, scope of use that will be on each of the, parcels is consistent, if not identical, to what the previously approved conditional use permits allowed," Finkel said, but warned that exemptions such as family divisions or boundary line adjustments could produce multiple separately owned parcels that might seek the same commercial uses.

Ben Tarabat, community development staff, told the board staff had asked the applicant to add a clause preventing replication of uses if a subdivision or exempt division occurred. He summarized the concern: if replication were not prohibited, "you could have, in theory, 3 restaurants out there" or multiple RV parks on the same former parent parcel. Tarabat said he believed a replication clause should be included and that the CZDA currently lacked explicit language to prevent duplication.

The applicant's representative, Ray Kimball, a licensed civil engineer and land surveyor, proposed specific language to address the concern on the West parcel. Kimball read an example caveat he had proposed to staff for section D of the CZDA: "the subject property ... is limited to a single commercial resort as defined above. Any subdivision allowed under this agreement shall designate which property the commercial resort was located. All other parcels shall be limited in use to those allowed under the agricultural zone." Kimball said that language would allow family divisions or boundary-line adjustments that do not encompass the resort area while preventing multiple parcels from each hosting the same restricted commercial resort use.

Staff also noted that the department had sought a provision requiring notification to the county before any boundary line adjustment (BLA) or exempt division so staff could determine whether the CZDA needed modification. According to the transcript, the applicant has struck that notification provision from the most recent CZDA draft. Pat Braden, a meeting staff member, moderated some exchanges and asked for additional input from the applicant on potential advantages of subdividing.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about whether the CZDA would supersede existing conditional use permits if the zone changes were approved; staff said approved CZDAs would supersede existing CUPs. Commissioner Duncan asked whether the same result could be achieved by expanding existing CUPs rather than using a CZDA; staff and the applicant said the answers differ between the West and East parcels because of limits on commercial uses under the existing zoning on the East side.

The transcript records detailed discussion but no motion or vote on the CZDAs during the portion provided. Staff recommended addressing replication and parcel-change procedures within the CZDAs to avoid a future situation in which multiple owners of subdivided parcels would need to coordinate unanimous agreement to modify the CZDA. The applicant argued for narrowly tailored language that preserves property rights for family divisions while preventing duplication of the resort use.

The hearing continued on the topic; no final action was recorded in the excerpt provided.