Meeting Minutes
Boulder Town Planning Commission
Regular Meeting and Public Hearing
May 25, 2006, 8:00 p.m.

Commissioners present: Connie Reid, Eric Feiler, Mike Nelson, and Brian Dick. Elaine Roundy was absent. Also present were secretary, Peg Smith; and Planning Coordinator, Curtis Oberhansly.
At least 35 persons were present for the majority of the meeting, specifically for the yurt discussion: Fay and Neal Jepsen, Connie and Alfred Jepsen, Don and Tia Montoya, Sergio Femenias, Cookie and Pete Schaus, Tim Clarke, Eric Bresselsmith, Chyleen and Bob Mackey, Loch Wade, Vard Coombs, Kristen and Wulf Barsch, Kay Ripplinger, Anselm Spring, Trina Barsch, Laura McKerracher, Eva DelRe, Kathy McCance and John Wolfer, Bob and Naomi Brems, Susan Fullmer, Mike Ryan, Bill Muse, Mark Nelson, Jeff and Ana Sanders, Judi Davis, Susan Richards, and David Nessia.
Mike called the meeting to order at 8:06. Eric moved to approve the agenda for the meeting, Connie seconded the motion, and all approved. The commission reviewed the April 27 and May 11 minutes. With a correction on the May 11 minutes previously noted by Judi Davis, and an additional correction noted by Mike Nelson, both sets of minutes were approved, with Connie making that motion and Eric seconding. All approved.
Meeting Agenda
• Hear John Wolfer’s request for conditional use permit.
• Continue discussion about alternative housing issues and options.
Note: Official public hearing on this issue is scheduled for June 8, 2006.)
• PUBLIC HEARING – Recommend revisions to Ordinance 46D on 90-day permits for owners’ use of RVs on their property.
• Plan agenda for June 8 public meeting.
John Wolfer Request for Conditional Use Request
John Wolfer was applying for a conditional use permit for use of a trailer on his property during house construction. Building will start in a couple of weeks, with plans to finish by December. He presented a site plan showing setbacks, as well as a copy of his perc test. He still needs to provide his feasibility letter from SW Health for approval of the septic system. (Chad Reeder had approved it, but also needed to sign the copy from Jimmy Johnson.). Curtis asked about the two additional trailers parked on the property, as the Ordinance 46B only authorizes one. John said that his permit request is for their living quarters. The other is a popup camper that is used intermittently; the other trailer is the “construction office” as they are serving as their own general contractors. It will be used only during the period of construction and is necessary for using the computer and fax for research and orders. The septic system is hooked up to the residential trailer. A portable toilet is onsite for construction purposes, but will be removed after completion. Eric said that the town could stipulate that the other trailers will ultimately be removed, other than the RV parking. Connie moved to approve conditional use with the stipulation that the outstanding paperwork would be submitted to the town and that the trailers would be removed as soon as construction is complete. Since the ordinance allows conditional use for one year, that year starts now. Brian seconded the motion, and all approved.
Discussion on Alternative Housing
(The following comments are excerpts from the discussion and not a complete transcription. This meeting, along with all public meetings as of May 1, 2006, was tape recorded.)
Mike said he had received several letters. One of those, Marc Jepsen’s, which he read aloud, expressed strong opposition to yurts as acceptable alternative housing. He then asked for general comment. Naomi requested that all speakers identify themselves and say whether they are property owners.
First, Anselm asked if any additional research had been done. Mike responded that he had checked with Grand County---the county doesn’t allow yurts, but does allow town to do their own thing.

Naomi said when she and Bob wanted to be “where people have roots, where it is stable and beautiful. When we first came here, this was up for discussion then. The majority of people agreed at that time they didn’t want it.” She said they are not in favor in yurts as permanent housing. She had talked to building inspector Jimmy Johnson who told her that yurts do not meet 2003 International Building Code requirements for single family dwellings. She said Garfield County does not allow yurts and Boulder shouldn’t go against them. She also talked to Chad Reader, SW Public Health who told her that an approved septic tank and drain field is the only acceptable septic system. She talked to banks about financing: if one is building a stick house, banks generally loan 100 percent on the appraised value; on modular or mobile homes, they loan up to 95 percent; on anything else, they don’t make loans. Other forms of housing are uninsurable. She then presented a letter and petition signed by several parties opposed to allowing yurts in Boulder.

Vard expressed remorse about the changes having occurred in Boulder since his childhood. He said he couldn’t understand “why we have all these rules and ordinances, then people come in and do whatever they want to.” Every town has problems with housing, he said. For example, St. George needs teachers and other people, but they don’t have the option of moving into town and putting up a tent. He said, “I am against yurts. There are about 5 or 6 tents in the property across from the church. What is going on?.

Loch said that everyone has different ideas on what’s pretty, and it is hard to make a rule on that. The thing that’s important is a septic system, and it’s perfectly reasonable for people in a yurt to have that. He said maybe it would be in the town’s best interest to determine the condition yurts should be kept in, in terms of tarps, holes, etc. Basically, there are people in town who want to live simply and in a natural way that it fits their lifestyle. As long as health and safety are approved, and their housing meetings other town restrictions, we could approve yurts.

Curtis said that one of basic challenges is that yurts don’t meet uniform building code. However, people could decide to make it an accepted form of permanent housing, in which case it would be almost impossible to specify yurts from any other housing; it would open the door to trailer park developments and anything else.
Don asked if the conversation were only about yurts. People still have right to choose how they live, he said. “If I want to live in my house and not have electricity, and just use solar, who says I have to hook up? I don’t know if I can afford to stay here, with the minimum five acres and standard house. Why should I be put in a situation where how I choose to live is evaluated by a mortgage? As long as my house meets health and safety requirements and I’m not putting town at liability or endangering my neighbors, why is that offensive to anyone? Alfred said that it’s not the yurt itself, it’s what we’re creating. Then he said you can put in a nice double-wide trailer for $40K

Naomi said the county won’t even come out to inspect a yurt for health or safety. Don replied that as a town, we could address those issues and determine safety standards for a yurt, such as fabric strength, use of a platform, etc. Wulf said that over half of the buildings in town haven’t been inspected. Anything build during the 40s,50s, or 60s wasn’t inspected. He said the first issue is the safety and health issue, and no one seems to disagree with that. The second issue is whether we will allow people to do what they want to do on their property. “It cannot just be a money issue,” he said.

Eric Scott said that he and Cynthia are currently leasing a trailer from Robert and Donna Owen. Speaking of health and safety, he said, the trailer is mouse-infested, it leaks, and “I’m afraid for my family when the wind blows strong.” Considering that, he said, we have an ordinance that says that is OK, but don’t we allow a cloth structure with a little bit of lumber. “Yurts will not blow over. Round structures will stand hurricane force.”

Naomi said she doesn’t want to create new ordinances that subvert the county ordinances. “You do not have the right to go against the codes made for your building and your protection. I don’t think we can make better decisions than the county or state.”

Anselm said that the letters and comments prove that there is a cultural divide within Boulder. We shouldn’t let those different opinions prevent our rights. We should remember that the Constitution, and not Garfield County ordinances, are the law of the land. He thought the issue wasn’t so much about yurts and hogans, but who lives in them, and that the ordinances are a way of discriminating against people with these values.

Susan Richards, who lives on BJMiller’s Rob Withrow’s property with his permission, said that she bought her yurt for $3000, and spent about $5000 refurbishing it. She said if she doesn’t dismantle it, it should last “between 50 and 100 years. Winds don’t bother it.” She reiterated the confusion that had occurred when she first sought permission to put up her yurt. “I spoke to Jimmy Johnson, and he said the county does allow a town to make its own laws” At first, she had been told yurts were OK, then to wait. Now, she said she has a trailer that she will be bringing onto the land for 3 months. “I have not tried to go around anyone. I have gone to the mayor, have talked to Judi, but I just don’t know what the law is.”

Fay said that she has lived in Boulder for 84 years. She asked Wulf about the “excessive” permit checking that Marc went through when he needed to move a modular home. “Someone was up there nearly every day to make sure septic was going in properly. When did these things get changed that you can come and put up a tent without electricity, when Marc had to do everything properly? Everyone should be treated the same way.
Bill said that Susan’s case was one of the reasons meetings are now being held. He thought the town was basically split on the matter at this point. “But not one of the yurts in town right now is legal.” He would like a clear reading from the Planning Commission on the Grand County ruling is on yurts.

Wulf said that we can make own laws. He admitted that “we may have over-inspected on Marc Jepson’s place after we adopted county laws.” But now we can set up our own regulations and identify conditions. But it needs to be a law, and not just anarchy where everyone does his own thing.

Curtis wanted to clarify a point. Yurts, trailers, tents, hogan, tipis are not allowed right now. The town does have certain latitude to expand on laws. But he repeated that it is almost impossible to craft an ordinance without “cherry-picking.” The discussion is beyond yurts---it covers all housing.

Loch said he would like to see Boulder move in a progressive direction on this issue. “As long as our laws are not less restrictive than state law we can create our own,” he said. We need an ordinance that describes temporary dwellings, and then define a structure that can pass code and qualify as a permanent structure. With the price of gas going up, materials costs are going to skyrocket, maybe beyond the means of people who don’t have the income. What do we want to do about the honest, hard-working people who are here and want to remain here. “Let’s see if we can do something to help people along.”

Mike concluded the discussion by appealing to the sense of community that Boulder can evoke. “Thinking of things like the Karson Coombs fund-raiser settles me down. Our town can come together,” he said.
Public Hearing on Ordinance 46D
Mike asked for a motion to open the public hearing. Eric so moved, with Brian seconding the motion, and all approved. Curtis introduced the subject: We are required to hold a public hearing to recommend any amendment to an ordinance or to draft an ordinance. In this case, the amendment would be to Ordinance 46D that describes the right to use any RV or travel trailer up to 90 days in a year. That ordinance was adopted by the town last year. However, its wording leaves in question some key items. The ordinance doesn’t clearly define how many trailers can be parked and where they can be placed. In the process of trying to please a number of scenarios, the town is ending up with a lot of trailers on undeveloped property. The ordinance doesn’t distinguish between living in an RV for 90 days, or just pulling it onto land and leaving it there. He said the town should better define this.

Mark Nelson said that it took many years to even interest people in the problem of people living in trailers indefinitely. He thought we definitely need an enforcement mechanism. “People have learned we don’t enforce this, and that is our big problem.” With the breakdown of the ranches and increasing number of small lots and sub-divisions, we need to address this now.
Eric Feiler reminded everyone that the original spirit of that ordinance was to allow people to come here and use their property. He agreed that the problem arises with the legal distinction between temporary vs. permanent occupation. Curtis said the former town council was trying to accommodate land owners on a visiting basis.
Loch wondered about the town regulates what you can store on your property? When does storage become a junk yard? Enforcement of whatever the ordinance stipulates would fall to Ray Gardner. Wulf said the county doesn’t want anything to do with enforcing civil laws and actions. But, he said, you can’t take property right away from the owner. The question is how many and where.

Kathy McCance said that her former community in Wilson WY, dealt with the same things. “People had to live in cheaper, outlying areas (to Jackson Hole) travel to work. They decided to approve cluster development with yurts and trailers in Wilson, because, “when the people who are your nurses and teachers have to leave town because they can’t afford to live there, the town folds.

Curtis suggested that the current, cumulative 90 day period is OK. However, the RV goes home with you after you’re done with it. Rather than simply issuing a permit, he suggested that RV users be required to come before the Planning Commission once a year to obtain a conditional use permit. This would allow the town to decide on a face-to face, case-by-case basis. If things happen that don’t meet ordinance, this provides a check in place, and it could be applied to any temporary housing. The burden now is on Judi to issue a permit. She shouldn’t have to control. this.

Jeff asked about requiring a person to have to wait for a meeting to obtain a permit. People agreed that this could be a problem. Tim wondered if a written notification to all landowners in Boulder might at least give advance knowledge of this requirement. Bob Brems liked the idea of conditional use with annual renewal. Mark asked if there was a way to keep this from becoming employee or temporary housing.

Curtis is going to use this input to draft some language that can be passed along to Marvin Bagley for review. In the meantime, with the topic having been aired at this public hearing, no one can squeeze in under “grandfathered” usage. Eric Feiler said that the ordinance should contain wording that discourages persons from living in the trailer 90 days, then leaving it as a permanent dwelling on the land.. Mark agreed, saying that this would encourage people to fish or cut bait; if they want to live here, maybe they’ll need to build a structure. Another concern, said Curtis, is if the trailer is obviously not being used, we should have a mechanism to require landowner to review its usage. Tim said the notice can go out to everyone at the same time, once a year, but the 90 day period can start at any time.
Discuss June 8 Agenda
Known topics for discussion will be the official public hearings for alternative housing and for amending the sub-division ordinance. In addition, the topic of additional dumpsters and placement has been requested. The sub-division hearing is to address the streets and infrastructure requirements currently in affect, but not providing adequate protection for the town. Possible changes could include requiring a concept plan that includes mention of areas likely to be sub-divided in the future, as well as changing requirements on when roads need to meet certain standards.

Tim reminded interested persons of the Trails meeting in Panguitch on May 31. Eric moved to adjourn the meeting. Connie seconded the motion, and Mike adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m.

Margaret Smith Date
Planning Commission Clerk
Approved:_________________________________ Date:______________________________________