Commission Denies Appeal Over Property Lot Size Restrictions in Orange

In a recent meeting of the Kootenai County Board of County Commissioners, significant discussions centered around a contentious appeal regarding property development and zoning regulations. The case involved the Smith family, who sought to subdivide their property, which the appellant argued was subject to restrictive covenants mandating a minimum lot size of five acres.

The appellant's position hinged on the belief that the Smiths' property fell under the 1983 protective covenants, which explicitly stated that lots must not be less than five acres. However, county staff presented a thorough analysis indicating that the Smiths' property is located outside the area governed by these covenants. The staff concluded that no evidence was provided to demonstrate that the Smiths had agreed to the 1983 restrictions, as their property was not included in the original subdivision that established those covenants.

The discussion highlighted the complexities of property agreements, particularly the relationship between the 1983 protective covenants and an amended road maintenance agreement from 1985. While the appellant's legal representative argued that participation in the road maintenance agreement implied acceptance of the covenants, county staff clarified that the two documents did not reference each other, thus negating the appellant's claims.

The hearing examiner supported the staff's findings, recommending that the appeal be denied and the Smiths' subdivision be approved. Commissioners expressed their views, noting that the appellant had not sufficiently proven that the property was bound by the 1983 restrictions. They emphasized the importance of documentation in determining property rights and zoning compliance.

As the meeting concluded, the commissioners leaned towards affirming the decision to approve the subdivision, indicating that the appellant still had the option to pursue the matter in district court if they disagreed with the board's ruling. This case underscores the ongoing challenges in balancing property development with adherence to historical covenants, a situation that could have broader implications for land use and community planning in Kootenai County.