SANDPOINT — In a public meeting held on Monday, county commissioners unanimously voted to nullify the minor land divisions and family exemption moratorium. As a result, a new moratorium will be put into place May 19.  

In a packed meeting room, county commissioners came to an agreement that during the March 25 business meeting, the board had committed an open meeting violation. Agreement of this violation nullified the action item that caused the violation, an emergency MLD and family exemption moratorium.  

As a result of the nullified moratorium, commissioners moved to approve a new moratorium that would only be applicable for MLDs, not family exemptions, starting May 19 through Oct. 1.  

The first action item of Monday’s hearing was added by Commissioner Ron Korn, where he requested the board self-recognize violating the open meeting law during the March 25 business meeting.  

The March 25 business agenda was amended at the start of the meeting, in an effort to effectively pass a moratorium on MLDs and family exemptions without the flooding of last-minute applications. While Korn was against the way the amendment had been brought up and voted against the action, commissioners Brian Domke and Asia Williams approved the agenda and the amended action item, in agreement that the situation was appropriately deemed an emergency.  

The open meeting violation came after Domke motioned the approval of the moratorium without defining/declaring the emergency that MLDs and family exemptions posed on the county. 

Korn requested Monday to cure the violation that the board had committed, arguing that the use of the words “imminent peril” and “emergency” were loosely used and misrepresented.  

Legal representative Bill Wilson was asked for advice on the matter, where he mentioned three criticisms that have been voiced by county residents: withholding an item from an agenda that was known about, the type of the meeting where the agenda was amended and that the commissioners had not properly stated the reason for an emergency in the motion. Wilson believes that the county has sufficient standings to rebut the first two criticisms, while the latter criticism was gray territory.  

“The basis for the emergency was explained and debated. But when the motion was made, it did not specifically identify an emergency or state the basis. So, the question then is, does that constitute an open meeting violation? And my answer is, ‘I'm not sure,’” said Wilson. "The code does say that a declaration of emergency has to be declared, and so a court that just read the very technical definition or the language of the statute might fight against us.” 

Wilson shared that there were two ways to go about the potential violation: affirm the decision and increase the likelihood of litigation, or acknowledge the error, void the decision and go from there.   

Domke wrote out his opinions to share, addressing the March business meeting and the public scrutiny that came from it. 

“Some allegations have assigned the motive of the board's desire to act as rulers who treat the public as peasants. Such assertions are both inaccurate and inappropriate. This board has demonstrated numerous times that it seeks to conduct its business publicly and lawfully,” said Domke. “Spreading slander throughout the community instead of directly addressing the person, or in this case, the board with whom you have a grievance, is not the appropriate method for addressing concerns and disagreements. Such actions do not align with general moral principles or Christian values. I mentioned the Christian values because many of the people spreading such slander openly state they're prescribed to such Christian values.” 

Domke agreed that a violation was committed, saying that while the intent of the law was followed, the exact letter of the law was not. He said his intent is to protect the county from future litigation, requesting a motion to cure the open meeting law violation.   

“While my desire is to preserve the moratorium under Ordinance 720 in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public, I believe that we would be unlawful to do so under the current circumstances,” he said. 

Williams seconded his motion, further agreeing with the points made by Domke on the violation and behavior of the public.  

“We’re human. We made mistakes, and we can do things better, and I hope that after we move out of this hearing, that some people take that to heart,” said Williams.  

About 20 community members spoke on the open meeting violation, all sharing slightly different perspectives on the matter. Several commenters didn’t appreciate the way the moratorium was put in place but appreciated the efforts to mend loopholes in the MLD application process. Some felt that the moratorium impeded their ability to provide land to loved ones, while other community members felt that the board hadn’t violated any laws.  

However, despite how they felt about the board’s actions, a majority of attendees felt that MLDs were being abused by commercial developers.  

Taking public comment into consideration, commissioners voted unanimously to null and void Ordinance 720 due to an open meeting violation.  

County commissioners went on to discuss the next step forward toward protecting the community from MLD abuse. Factoring in public comments that were previously made during the hearing, commissioners agreed that a moratorium on just MLDs, not family exemptions, would allow the planning department to continue in revising necessary code, but authorize individuals to still gift/give land to family members.  

It was determined that the new moratorium would start on May 19, allowing community members a four-week timespan to submit MLD applications. The four-week gap for submitted applications serves as an attempt to create fairness out of the fact that a single developer became aware of the March 25 moratorium and was able to submit a slew of applications before the deadline.  

Williams shared her support for enacting the new moratorium immediately, agreeing with public concern of addressing the emergency immediately. However, she also told attendees that she recognized an immediate moratorium wouldn’t pass, ultimately putting her vote toward Domke’s motion to help “address the issues that we already knew.”  

Domke and Williams voted for the new moratorium, with Korn voting against.