Commissioners deny Estates at Copeland Landing

March 27, 2012

Despite pursuasive arguments by applicant James Fox that development was going to happen and that his proposal for a clustered development of 30 lots along the Kootenai River at the Copeland Bridge was the best way for the county to attain its goal of retaining its prized agricultural lands, county commissioners today agreed with the Planning and Zoning Commission and unanimously denied a request to develop the Estates at Copeland Landing Subdivision. As proposed, the application would have allowed the platting of 30 riverfront lots ranging in size from 2 1/2 to three acres in size, and preserved approximately 240 additional acres, the best agricultural land of the more than 300 acres encompassed, for production, in perpetuity ... or until the zoning changed, whichever came first. The applicant argued that the change would never come, as the history of clustered development in the U.S., spanning more than 100 years, and in Europe, where it's existed considerably longer, shows that, properly planned, high density residential use and high-yield agricultural use can exist side by side, with both thriving. Only one person spoke in favor of the application, not so much in favor of the plan itself but for the right of the property owner to use the land in his own best interest, beholden to no one but the owner's neighbors and God. Many who spoke agreed with him, but took up his one caveat; that what a property owner did with his land shouldn't hurt his neighbors. Despite the applicant's assurances, everyone else who gave testimony raised concerns that the proposal would harm not only them personally, either by interfering with their way of earning a living or by threatening their safety either by overloading existing roads or by increasing the danger of flooding through damage to dikes and the banks of the Kootenai River, but the community as a whole, putting more pressure on the sole economic leg the county continues to stand on, agriculture. Under the cluster development concept, a property owner isn't restricted by minimum parcel size, but by net residential density. In the Prime Agriculture zone district, the minimum parcel size is 10 acres and the applicant owns more than 390, thus the right to build 39 homes. The Estates at Copeland landing would have reduced residential sites by nine, setting aside approximately 16% of the total ground for development and preserving 84% for farming. The idea and the concept was good, many said, the location wasn't. While Fox, whose family has owned that land since 1934 and who contends he met all the requirements and restrictions of both the county comprenensive plan and zoning ordinance as regards clustered development, has the right to appeal the commissioner's decision in a court of law, it doesn't appear that he's going to go that route. Instead, he told his surveyors and county commissioners, he's going to submit another preliminary plat application breaking the properties into 39 lots each 10-acres or more in size, setting aside nothing. By the rules of our ordinance, he said, he can't be turned down for that.