Scenario involving Set Backs, Taxing Districts and Consolitation

[Brandon Ely]

Hi all,

I have a scenario that I would like to run by the forum members to determine if there are any next steps I can use:

In 2014, I bought a small 50 X 50 lot in Coeur d Alene, ID. The purchase transaction was through a surplus land auction conducted by the City of Coeur d Alene. Since I have an abutting property next to the 50 x 50 lot, I was invited to participate in the auction, and I ended up winning. So I am an owner of a 2500 square foot lot in the city.

Fast forward to 2019. I start to think about exploring development of this 'tiny' lot. My thinking was - maybe a small home, small footprint, but inline with the existing older homes. So, I look up the zoning and see that the lot is in an R-12 zone which requires certain setbacks. Knowing that the lot is too small to adhere to the required setbacks, I explored the possibility of obtaining a setback variance through the city planning and zoning.

After talking with the city planners, it was determined that there were no 'physical site characteristics' that would warrant a variance approval. (I want to come back to this)

Because of that, the planning commission then suggested that I consolidate the 50X50 parcel into my existing property to the north, and then build on the 50X50 lot under the Accessory Dwelling Unit standards.

I then reached out to Kootenai County Assessor office. They notify me that they cannot consolidate the two parcels, as each one sits in a separate highway taxing district. The line between the two taxing districts runs right through my two properties.

The county assessors office then suggested I reach out to the two highway taking districts to see about requesting a boundary change, from either one, to incorporate my two lots.

Both highway district representatives respond, saying that the district boundaries were set up in 1971, and that there haven't been any changes since. Then, they provided a process for the potential approval of a boundary adjustment - pay all attorney fees, get a survey done, a notification to the taxing district members and a vote.

Because of the potential cost involved in requesting a boundary adjustment, I re-approached the city planning commission to see if the scenario with the taxing entity boundaries (significant cost, time, etc.) would warrant an 'undue physical hardship' in which they could grant a setback variance (again, all I really want to do is keep that 50x50 lot separate, build a small tasteful home and go on my way). The city planning then re-confirmed their prior guidance in that the boundary issue would not warrant a reason for a variance.

So, I guess my questions are these:

It seems common sense to me to keep the parcel separate and build, for both the city, county and taxing districts. It's just easier and more cost effective for all parties.

Is there any other scenario that I haven't thought of that may warrant a justification for a variance? The lot is small, flat, literally no streams, rock outcroppings - things that would warrant a poor topographical characteristic. I value a real property attorney's perspective, just don't want to set aside thousands for retainer just for exploration on whether I have standing.

If that is not an option, it seems to me the next option would be to incur all of the costs, try to consolidate the parcels with the highway taxing districts and then seek out a permit from the city to build an Accessory Dwelling Unit under their standards. This seems to be an expensive option to then create a wonky two-structure property that would ultimately not make it easily saleable, financeable, etc.

Or, I let it be and the city can stare at an empty but very visible 50x50 lot.

Is there an easy button to push on this?