HomeMy WebLinkAboutBOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES 4.13.221 | Page
Planning & Zoning 35 N 1st E Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone (208) 359.3020
Board of Appeals: April 13, 2022 5PM
Troy Thurgood (County - Impact Area)
Shane Ruebush (County - Impact Area)
Rory Kunz (City - Impact Area)
Kristi Anderson (City - Impact Area)
Applicant: Rachel Whoolery
Others in Attendance: Natalie Powell, Charlotte Erickson, Kyle Baldwin, Attorney Spencer
Rammell, Gary Armstrong (County Planner), Alan Parkinson (City Planner)
Gary – Explains the Board of Appeals and How It Will Work:
Board of Appeals – 2 members appointed by Madison County and 2 appointed by the City, who live
in the Area of Impact. The time limit for submittal of an appeal letter is within 15 days of the
decision. The Applicant has submitted the appeal letter in the time required. The decisions before
this group are 1) to uphold the decision from the P&Z to deny the application and it will go to the
County Commissioners or 2) to reverse the decision, which sends it back to the Commission for
reconsideration. The end, no matter what, is the Madison County Commissioners. Commission
consideration: criteria to change zoning based on the following criteria:
“(1.04.020.C) Commission Consideration . In evaluating requests for amendments, the Commission
shall consider, in addition to conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as required by Section 67-6511, Idaho
code, the following:
1. The capacity of existing public streets, water and sewer facilities, storm drainage facilities, solid waste collection
and disposal, and other utilities.
2. The capacity of existing public services, including but not limited to, public safety services, public emergency
services, schools, parks and recreational services.
3. The potential for nuisances or health and safety hazards that may adversely affect adjoining properties.
4. Recent changes in land use on adjoining properties or in the neighborhood of the map revision.”
Alan – Staff Report, and summation of the City PZC Recommendation from March 17:
Alan showed the current zoning as Transitional Agriculture (TAG) for the parcel. The applicant is
requesting to rezone to Medium-density Residential 1 (MDR1). In reviewing this application the
Commissioners discussed the parcel is a great distance away from any similarly zoned parcel. There
is one strip of Light Industrial (LI). The zoning around the request is all TAG. If you allow MDR1,
there would be a requirement of sidewalk connectivity all the way to N 2nd E.
The biggest challenge is sewer and water. For sewer and water, the closest point is Walmart. The
cost would go to the developer. A lift station would be required. A Traffic Impact Study would
determine changes on Moody Rd and the intersection with N 2nd E and Moody. Storm drainage
2 | Page
would have to be maintained on site. Staff Report said they were in favor, but as the meeting arrived,
Staff was neutral.
Kristy asked if Moody Rd was considered private. Alan responded the road is a county public road
and does not meet the city road standards. There is a possible overpass over the highway. Rory
asked about the current road right-of-way. The road is currently thirty (30’) feet wide. The city
requires ninety-nine (99’) feet. The car wash submitted to the city to be built on the southwest
corner of the intersection of W Moody and N 2nd E will build out their half of the road adjacent to
their property required half of the ninety-nine (99’) feet and dedicate the road to the city. He
confirmed the developer would be responsible for road build out. Gary shared this is a development
consideration, not a zoning consideration. Kristy had questions about the recorded eight (8) to three
(3) vote. Aaron Richards is noted twice. (The minutes and recording were reviewed and confirmed
Aaron is a “no” vote. The corrected vote would be seven (7) in favor and three (3) against.) This
needs to be changed in the minutes. Alan said the Commission felt the change was too early and
the area is not prepared, at this point, for the density requested.
Applicant – Presentation – Rachel Whoolery: One of the major issues was the conversation
about the cost for the developer. The church had not submitted their plan yet. A focus was on the
development instead of the zoning. The land is within the scope of MDR1. We see the development
of Walmart and the farmland that is ready to be developed. She wants to maximize the use instead
of the eleven (11) individual homes allowed in the current zoning. The land is near to a commercial
area. The Commission did not necessarily want Rachel to not zone to MDR1, but to wait for the
church to go first. Rachel’s rights are important too. She feels the two points focused on are the cost
of developing, which is her job as an analyst and developer to decide if right now is the time to make
the needed connections and develop the units. Rachel also has the right to delay and decide when to
develop. If someone pulls the infrastructure in first, great, she will still have to pay her costs for
impact. The parcel is in a developing area at this time.
Do we know what development is happening in this area right now? Yes. Walmart set the area as an
anchor store. Hibbard will connect with the overpass on Moody. Is there a need for housing? She
owns a property management company. Fifty-five (55) people are on a waiting list for nine (9) units.
People want to submit an application, regardless if the waiting list is long. The needs are significant.
We do not have enough places for rent either. $320,000 is median income house right now. In the
community, multi-unit homes are needed. This development needs to be more of a mixed use. One
hundred seventy-six (176) units on eleven (11) acres are possible. Three (3) complexes is the
maximum. A lot of the land has to be green space. She cannot build higher than forty (40’) feet.
Gary said the Board of Appeals needs to make their decision based on the information presented.
Gary reviewed the motion and read it to the Board.
The neighbors presented themselves as not supporting, but represent to Rachel they are in support.
Rachel said her neighbor rezoned to Light Industrial (LI). Based on the minutes, the approval reason
was the need for Light Industrial in the community. When the city later annexes the property, eleven
(11) built homes do not densify greater until much later. For a tax base, which is better? Eleven (11)
homes or a planned unit development?
Q/A from Board of Appeal – The complete subdivision was shown on the map for Muir Glen
DIV1 subdivision. There is one parcel on the GIS map, not shown on the subdivision plat. The
request is for one parcel within this subdivision. Shane looked at the lack of nearby residential
3 | Page
zoning. Troy is intrigued by the Light Industrial parcel. The parcel was rezoned at time of
annexation. He said the city granted spot zoning for the Light Industrial piece. Gary would advise
this is not the appeal request. Troy said these circumstances are similar to the Light Industrial piece.
Gary said zoning changes are independent, discretionary decisions. Rory said the spot zoning is not
mentioned in the motion. The focus is on the interaction with the request and the TAG zone. Light
Industrial does interact well with TAG. Attorney Rammell said the courts typically take a more
specific facts and circumstances approach to each spot zoning. There are two types of spot zoning:
one is more descriptive and the other is more legal in nature. In Idaho, it is used as more a
descriptive term, but based on permissible spot zoning. In the minutes there are three things the
court looks at. Gary read Attorney Rammel’s spot zoning comments in the minutes:
“Spot zoning commonly refers to the singling out of one lot or other small area for zoning classification that
is different from that accorded to similar surrounding land, usually for the benefit of the owner and to the
detriment of the community. The most widely accepted test for determining an illegal spot-zoning is sometimes
stated in combination or sometimes separately as whether the zoning for the parcel in question is in accordance
with the Comprehensive Zoning Plan, whether the zoning of the subject parcel is compatible with the uses in
the surrounding area, and whether the zoning of the subject property serves the public welfare or merely
confers the discriminatory benefit on the owner of the property.”
Deliberation:
Troy said the language of the motion said, “spot zone concerns.” It is an issue for consideration. He
goes back to his previous comments, the precedent is it is already done. Rory’s comments are sound.
The Comprehensive Plan allows for MDR1. He fails to see why it applies in one case and the other
is different. Rory is going back to Gary’s comments in the beginning about Commissioner
Consideration, which is the road conditions and the infrastructure. The Comprehensive Plan is
LDR1-MDR1. There are all sorts of zones in between that do not create apartments. You do not see
apartments in TAG zones. Right now, the road is currently a dead-end street. We do not know if the
overpass will happen and when it will happen. The surrounding neighborhood is used as TAG. This
subdivision was the development and we are going from two (2) acre and half (½) acre lots to
sixteen units per acre. Kristy said, as currently recorded, the neighbors that currently own those
properties are against this application. In the definition of each zoning, there is a part of the
protection of this area. The city decided we can see LDR1-MDR1 going into this area. The people
who own the land have a larger parcel. Just because we said this is a use for the future, does not
mean this is how it will be. During the discussion of ranges, she was concerned about lumping the
LDR designations with MDR designations. She asked the question, does this mean the person has
this right to ask for the highest zone in that range. The approval depends on what is best for the
area. She feels like changing the MDR1 does not work for the neighbors. The school district
comments were not addressed in the motion. Sugar City cannot expand due to their bonding out. N
2nd E is already in trouble and if we add more people to access the road, it will get worse. Alan said
this end of 2nd E is not the problem, but failure occurs as you drive down N 2nd E heading south.
Recent studies have shown the road capacity is available for this area. Shane said MDR is supposed
to be a buffer from less dense to other types of uses. It makes sense apartments are along a busy
road like Hwy 20. He is with Troy on this one – the fact there is not infrastructure is not a deciding
factor for him – the developer takes the cost on themselves, or they do not do it and the land sits.
Gary read 4.06.010 Purposes and Objectives for the MDR1 zone:
“The MDR1 zone is established to protect stable neighborhoods of detached single-family dwellings on smaller
lots and multi-family housing. Restoration or rehabilitation of older homes in this district shall be encouraged.
4 | Page
Conditional uses shall be compatible with an atmosphere of low building heights, low traffic volumes, ample off-
street parking, and low nuisance potentials at a higher density than LDR zones.”
Troy said he appreciates the comments about road width. That is a valid concern. He is looking
specifically at the motion. The Commission did not bring up any concerns about road width,
infrastructure, or road width as part of their motion. If the neighbors have come out in support,
post hearing, let us send the application back to the Planning & Zoning Commission to hear it again.
He has issue with the limited reasons in the motion. Attorney Rammell said, is it practical to repeat
all 47 minutes of the deliberation in the motion. Gary said he is in agreeance. The deliberation is
part of the record for that decision. Kristy confirmed the board can look at anything in the record,
not just the motion. Troy said why did they not mention safety concerns. He is not saying
everything needed to be articulated in detail. If the facts have changed, let the P&Z hear it again.
Shane said the road is a moot point - this has to happen upon development, not on the zoning. It
looks like more of an opinion. Rory said if the zone is approved, the applicant has to build out the
road in front of her parcel. Alan said she will also have to bring in the infrastructure. Sidewalks
would be required to N 2nd E and the right-of-way has not been acquired. Really, these are
development decisions. Troy said changing the zoning has zero immediate impact. Gary said the
zoning changes the potential for future development. Troy said we have to consider the land as it is
now. He also understands it is less than one thousand (1000’) feet from Light Industrial. Kristi
asked about the cost for expanding the utilities. The developer will be charged 1.5 times the in-city
cost for sewer and water. Rory is in agreement with Troy, let the Planning & Zoning Commission
hear the application again.
MOTION: Motion to remand the application the application (22-00072) Glen Muir DIV1 (1
lot -RP04MG1001004D) – Rezone from Transitional Agriculture (TAG) to Medium-Density
Residential 1 (MDR1) in the Area of Impact back to the Rexburg City Planning & Zoning
Commission, based on the information that has come to light in this appeal hearing. Troy
Thurgood. Seconded by Rory Kunz.
VOTE: All Appeal Board members in favor.
Adjourn