P&Z board opposes closed decision-making sessions

 George and Jeri Soulier’s ask for a special use permit to add a temporary use dwelling to their 375-acre property for a ranch hand is being sent with a recommendation for approval, while a variance request for a split of less than one acre by Weiser Flat farmer Bruce Winegar is recommended for denial.

 A sitting P&Z member Jeri Soulier recused herself from participating in the application’s decision making process before presenting the request. She said they want to live on their large acreage for as long as possible without using its available splits, but as they’re getting older they want a little help around the place.

 The plan includes a friend who can “weld, fix, do everything we can’t do and yet he works full time elsewhere.” Soulier said He is a retired missionary and could opt to “take off” somewhere else at some point, or they “could end up in assisted living,” making the whole question moot, she said. 

 The Soulier’s original request for a tiny house was changed after they found a 1985 manufactured home, completely finished for the same price. She said the residence would be set on and strapped down to concrete blocks, and they intend to put up a pole barn over it. When the arrangement ends, she said the manufactured home would be moved out and the pole barn would “be a great place for our stock trailer and other things.”

 With the hearing closed, Jaeger called for a motion to go into executive session and a second was entered into the record. At that point, commissioner Eric Johnson called for discussion on the motion, entering his opposition to the board holding its discussions in closed sessions. 

 Johnson said he doesn’t see the necessity of going out of an open session, and on a 4-1 vote the motion failed. Johnson then moved to forward Soulier’s request with a do-pass recommendation to the Washington County Commissioners, citing the county’s code on special use permits.

 Jaeger looked at Pearce, asking a question about adding another part of code to the citations, to which Pearce declined to answer outside of an executive session.

 Johnson withdrew his motion when Karen Powers suggested going into executive session, but also told Pearce he believes the attorney can give advice during an open session. 

 “You can argue with me if you want to, but I’m the one who went to law school,” Pearce responded.

 Jaeger called for a second to Powers’ motion, which drew one, but it again failed on a 4-1 vote.

 The board’s recommendation for the approval of the Soulier’s request references the county’s zoning code regarding special use permits, along with applicable general standards found in chapter 5-9-2. 

 Winegar’s variance request was to be able to sell a portion of an acre holding an old farmhouse that faces Olds Ferry Road on agricultural property he had purchased several years ago.

 Winegar said although the acreage came with available splits when he bought it, his only intention is to keep it as farm ground for as long as he lives, and most likely through the lives of his three sons. But, he has no use for the house, and doesn’t want to give up part of his field or his hay stack yard near the road to make the place compliant with the county’s 1-acre requirement. 

 “I’ve bought farms, and I’ve had to buy houses,” Winegar said. “Old farmhouses are a money pit, and I can’t get any return on them. That’s why I’m wanting to sell this house so I don’t own it.”

 When the hearing closed, Powers once again offered a motion to go into executive session, which didn’t earn a second.

 “I’ve gone over our code again and again,” Debbie Warren said. “I understand what you’re trying to do and I sympathize. Our code and the Idaho code for a variance are really clear that it has to show undue hardship and I don’t believe that’s been proven. So, I can’t support it.”

 Board member John Jensen agreed with Warren, saying they have never recommended a .51 acre split.

 The board’s 5-0 recommendation for denial refers to the county’s zoning code, chapter 5-18, 4d, also stating an undue hardship hadn’t been shown. 

 Jaeger described one hardship approval from years ago.

 “It has to be based on the characteristics of the property,” Jaeger said. “We did one once for Gateway Lodge (on Highway 71 going to Brownlee). The hillside comes down right behind it, so there was no way to make the set back from the highway there. That presented a hardship for them in order to build back after the store had burned.”