Facing growing and vocal opposition to a proposal to have a 56.9 acre parcel at the far end of District 2 Road rezoned to allow consideration of a conditional use permit to establish a gravel pit, applicant Kevin McNally is concerned that terminology might be getting in the of what he sees as an eminently sensible idea.

“I have property on the Kootenai River right where the river restoration project is going to happen,” he said. “The structures needed to place the structures in the river are too big to negotiate my 10-foot road, and there is no other access to the site, so the road must be widened to accommodate them. That’s going to take one, maybe two blasts.”

That’s where terminology comes in. To make the road, he has to move some rock. If he keeps it or gives it away, he wouldn’t need a county permit. Thanks to a natural disaster in 1997 when the side of the hill at the foot of District 2, he already has a state permit and reclamation plan.

But to sell it to the tribe to use in the restoration project, he needs a county permit. Current Boundary County Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances didn’t even mention gravel pits until a recent Idaho Supreme Court Ruling ruled that the lack of mention means “gravel pits,” can’t be considered in Boundary County. Knowing that the county needs rock, gravel, sand and other mineral resources, County Commissioners recently adopted an ordinance amendment that allows “gravel pits” to be considered as a conditional use in the Agriculture/Forestry zone districts.

Problem is, the nearly 60-acre parcel McNally needs to move the rock from is zoned rural residential, the result, he said, of an old zoning mistake.

In a letter submitted for inclusion in the application today, Kevin wrote, “My dad passed in 1965, leaving my mom with six kids. I am the eldest son and I have lived on the ranch for about 34 years. We allow anyone who asks to fish and hunt that access, and usually eight to 12 white tail deer and a dozen or so turkeys are taken from our place yearly.”

While the people on “the rim,” who have built some beautiful homes in the French Point Subdivision overlooking the Kootenai River Valley have been vocal in their opposition to his current proposal, he says that those very homes are an eyesore to him, and the noise of construction a nuisance. He accepts his share of the blame, however … French Point subdivision was once part of the land holdings he now oversees.

“Each of your homes on the rim is an eyesore to me,” he wrote. “The noise of the saws and the hammers pounding during building season for years, but it is partially my fault because after I showed people who wanted to be developers how to do it with French Point, everyone got in the act and now I have to look at the houses on the rim. Progress.

The current zoning of the road widening project area is rural residential,” he wrote. “This was caused by a clerical error by the county mapper at that time I had the zoning changed for French Point.”

Instead of following the railroad right of way, as he intended, he wrote, the lines were drawn to encompass a single 56-acre piece of land south of the tracks, all the way down to the river, land he says is clearly not suitable for high density residential use. Under the current zoning, he said, he could build 56 homes. There aren’t the roads or infrastructure to make that a viable proposition, he said, and the homes in French Point and along the rim are enough to convince him that he’d hate to see such development.

“I am retired and do not want or need a new job,” he wrote. “I want to build four or frive cabins around my place for birders, fishermen or hunters to use. I want to keep it much as I have for the last 34 years. Believe me, I have had more engineers and interested parties in the last year than Carter has little pill … in the years that we’ve owned it, we have selectively logged, rented pasture for cattle and developed the part on the rim to provide support for my mother and pay the taxes. After the river project is done and the pit put to bed, I, for one, will just enjoy the quiet and continue to be a good neighbor.”

Applications for gravel pits are always hard, but this one is complicated by several factors. The first issue the Boundary County Planning and Zoning Commission will have to consider following public hearing March 17 is the zoning issue, and this is an odd request. Most applicants ask for higher density and a greater range of allowed uses; this is the first in memory that seeks less, from a single family home per acre to a single family home per ten acres.

This is also the first time a seldom used provision of county ordinances have been invoked to allow consideration of two applications at once. If the Planning and Zoning Commission agrees that these 56 acres better fit the Ag/Forestry than the rural residential, they will forward a recommendation to county commissioners to affect the change … if they don’t, the conditional use permit application becomes moot.

If they agree to the zone change, they will forward that recommendation to the board of county commissioners, and then they can consider they conditional use permit application, on which the P&Z commission has approval authority … but in this case, approval is not valid until county commissioners approve the zone change, which will require a second public hearing.

And what really throws a wrench in the works is that Kevin already has an approved Idaho Department of Lands permit, complete with reclamation plan, issued under disaster provisions when the North Hill gave way October 16, 2008, wiping out highway and rail.

According to Kevin, he supplied over 35,000 cubic feet of rock in the weeks following to replace the railroad bed rock that was washed away. And it came from the very place the Union Pacific is concerned about now.

“When the big slide happened, the county came to my place and opened up a rock pit to replace the railroad bedrock,” he said, “and left me with shot rock which I have been selling a little at a time since.”

McNally says that the actual “pit” size is less than two acres, and that engineers he’s hired to examine the site have assured him that the blasts needed to widen the road will be low-charge and number no more than two.

“My contractors know what they’re doing,” he said. “There might be a ‘pop’ or two, but unless you’re standing on top of it, you’re not going to feel it. As remote as it is, the people who live on the rim might hear ‘poof.”

The river restoration project, he said is going to require some rock and if they can’t get it from him, they’re going to have to get it there on a private road across his land. Which needs a bit of widening.

“People hear ‘gravel pit,’ and they think of a hole in the ground and dust and noise,” he said. “This will be no hole in the ground. Instead of trucks coming in from miles away, traveling up and down the road, this permit will allow me to do the job I need to get done and sell the rock that’s going to be needed for a project that is going to happen from a few feet away rather than miles away. I don’t want to make a living off this, I’ve done that. I just think my proposal makes good common sense, and I’m worried by the comments I’ve heard. It’s not a gravel pit, it’s not going to be here forever. All I’m asking is to be able to sell the rock rather than give it away.”