Please add my name to the petition for the hearing that is being requested in the following letter.
Tim Reed
450 South Fork Road
Garden Valley, ID 83622
______________________________________________
April 24, 2007
Fred Lawson, Terry Day, Linda Zimmer
Boise County Board of Commissioners
413 Main Street
Idaho City, Idaho, 83631
Commissioners,
>
>I am sending you this petition in the hopes that you will review it and choose to hear the appeal and feedback that myself and other Boise County residents and taxpayers have with respect to the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to recommend to you final approval of the Southfork Landing PUD and final approval of the Southfork Landing Phase I Plat at a public hearing held by the Planning and Zoning Commission on April 5th.
>
>
>
>On April 20th Craig Wolford informed me that the issues raised were valid grounds for appealing to you, the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning and Zoning Commission's action from April 5th. He indicated to me that the appeal would have to be received within the time limits set forth in the Zoning and Development Ordinance which would be by April 26th at 5:00 PM. An appeal was prepared and sent to Craig Wolford along with the $400 fee. Craig received this appeal on April 24th.
>
>
>
>On April 24th Craig emailed me indicating that I could not appeal. I have included Craig's exact comments (and included the official letter I received from Craig Wolford indicating that, not only was the appeal received on time, and being returned, but that it was being disallowed -- see the end of the attachment)
>
>
>
>
>The rational for this conclusion is as follows:
>
>
>
>1. Section 10-1 and Section 10-3 refers to an "any decision" made by the Planning and Zoning Commission that may be appealed to the Board.
>
>2. The April 5, 2007 Hearing did not result in a decision, but rather a recommendation for approval to the Board, who will make the final decision.
>
>
>
>I have further reviewed the Ordinance, and I believe that the intention is being grossly misconstrued. I believe the intention of the appeal process outlined in Section 10 is to facilitate the Board of County Commissioners hearing County residents and taxpayers who are affected by an action made by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe it is a misuse of language specifics to say that the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendation on April 5th was not a decision – it was.
>
>
>
>Regardless of how you may feel about the legal duty – I respectfully request that you hear my appeal. If nothing else, please consider this appeal as additional information to factor into your decision making process, and as additional input to any additional conditions or stipulations that you may deem appropriate to place upon the final approval of the Southfork Landing PUD to ensure that it is a true asset to Boise County, Garden Valley, and to her residents.
>
>
>
>In good faith I have voiced moderate, fair, and actionable concerns that myself and many other Residents have regarding this development as well as some simple conditions that can be used to ensure that it meets the Boise County Zoning and Development Ordinance. It is unfortunate that the Planning and Zoning Commission does not want you to hear my voice, and those of other like-minded Residents. I truly hope you can spare a moment and hear my appeal.
>
>
>
>
>Please see my attached appeal "SFL Appeal 042007 m-1.doc" that I submitted according to the Planning and Zoning Commission Administrator, Craig Wolford, on April 22nd including the $400 fee. I have also attached Craig's response "SFL Appeal 042407.doc".
>
>
>
>
>Note that this petition and those of like minded citizens could meet Section 10-5 of The Zoning and Development Ordinance. In that case if you receive sufficient petitions a public hearing on the matter should be held. Please support us in our effort to use appropriate process to have our voices heard.
>
>
>
>I appreciate your time and consideration
>
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>
> AUTOTEXTLIST Gary Zimmerman
>
>90 Blue Shadow Drive
>
>Garden Valley, ID 83622
>
>Ph: 208-462-3466
>
>Email: gary@z.to
>
>
>
>Attachments: SFL Appeal 042007 m-1.doc (appeal); Sothfork Appeal 042407.doc (Craig Wolford's response)
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Gary Zimmerman
>
>90 Blue Shadow Dr.
>
>Garden Valley, ID
>
>83622
>
>
>
>April 22, 2007
>
>
>
>Craig Wolford
>
>Planning and Zoning Commission Administrator
>
>413 Main Street
>
>Idaho City, Idaho, 83631
>
>
>
>Craig,
>
>
>
>I would like to appeal the April 5th, 2007 decision made by the Planning and Zoning Commission (Commission) regarding Final Approval of the Planned Unit Development and Phase I Plat for Southfork Landing pursuant to the Boise County Zoning and Development Ordinance (Zoning Ordinance) Section 10-3. On that date the Commission decided to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners (Board) to grant final approval of the abovementioned PUD. It is my contention that the Commission did not adequately ensure that requirements of the Zoning Ordinance were met by the Developers and that Southfork Landing is, as a result, not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
>
>
>
>As you have mentioned Craig, the April 5th hearing was technical in nature in that final conditions of the development and the Southfork Landing Developer (Developer) were being reviewed for the context of determining appropriate recommendation to the Board on the Final PUD and Final Phase I Plat. As part of that review the Commission evaluated the Developer's responses to how they were going to comply with the Zoning Ordinance Section 13-17 subsection B. This subsection of the Ordinance refers to a set of conditions which the Commission must establish that Developer has met.
>
>
>
>By this appeal I do not aim to stop development; rather it is my hope that the Board will establish additional conditions upon the Developer's PUD and Phase I Plat to ensure that the conditions stipulated in section 13-17 subsection B of the Zoning Ordinance are met. I brought this specific concern up during the aforementioned April 5th hearing which went largely unaddressed by the Developer and the Commission. In fact the Developer only indicated they were confident that surrounding properties won't experience a detrimental effect; that traffic impact will be minimal on the highway; and that they were confident that they met the Boise County Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan). The Commission simply took these statements as truth.
>
>
>
>To address the concerns for which I am appealing, I would like to see the Board and it's Commission address the below requirements of the Zoning Ordinance by applying additional conditions upon the Southfork Landing Developers and the Southfork Landing Development. These conditions are consistent with the Zoning Ordinance which specifies in Section 1-10 that conditions of approval may include (but are not limited to):
>
>
>
>· hours of operation
>
>· setbacks
>
>· grading
>
>· fencing
>
>· landscaping
>
>· signage
>
>· screening
>
>· road volumes, traffic control, maintenance
>
>· natural resources impact mitigation including wildlife habitats, historic sites,
>
>· shorelines, floodplains, fire hazards, etc.
>
>· sight obstruction mitigation
>
>· visibility from roads
>
>· noise mitigation, etc.
>
>
>
>As such, I request that the Developer and the Southfork Landing PUD be subjected to the following additional conditions and stipulations so that it may be in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
>
>
>
>1. Regarding Zoning Ordinance Section 13-17 subsection B2 which reads:
>
>
>
>Each individual unit of the development, as well as the total development, can
>
>exist as an independent unit capable of creating an environment of sustained
>
>desirability and stability or that adequate assurance will be provided that such
>
>objective will be attained; the uses proposed will not be detrimental to present
>
>or potential surrounding uses.
>
>
>
>I do not believe that the Commission adequately evaluated that the uses proposed will not be detrimental to the present or potential surrounding uses. In particular the Developer has proposed several aspects of Southfork Landing which will be detrimental to the residential use and enjoyment of my properties to the north of Southfork Landing.
>
>
>
>These aspects include:
>
>
>
>A helipad
>An ampitheater
>A 60' high hotel (the Developer described this height measured at the midpoint of the gable) and convention center
>Strips of closely spaced homes (possibly with less than 10' side set backs)
>
>
>Helipad
>
>
>
>The helipad will create a significant additional amount of noise to the valley. I am fully supportive of being able to bring in emergency helicopter travel to support medical and fire emergencies but note that Garden Valley already has an emergency helicopter pad nearby. Additionally using a helicopter pad as a means of travel to Southfork Landing is detrimental to surrounding properties. Helicopters are extremely noisy and disruptive to residential and recreational use.
>
>
>
>To manage these concerns I ask for the following conditions on the Helipad:
>
>
>
>The Southfork Landing Helipad is primarily to be used for Emergency Services for medical or fire needs.
>
>
>Non-emergency use of the Southfork Landing Helipad is restricted to no more than one trip in and out of Southfork Landing per day.
>
>
>Non-emergency use of the Southfork Landing Helipad is restricted to daylight hours and further restricted to those hours of the day between 9 AM and 6 PM.
>
>
>The Southfork Landing Helipad is not to be used for recreational tours of the Garden Valley area as these generate a tremendous amount of noise and disruption to surrounding properties and their use.
>
>
>Amphitheater
>
>
>
>Like the Helipad, the Southfork Landing Amphitheater (Amphitheater) without having any conditions to restrict its operation and means of use will have a definite detrimental impact upon Garden Valley and, in particular, those properties and residences within the Valley proper. This detriment will in general come from noise, light and traffic. The Amphitheater is located at one of the higher (about 3200') developed areas within the Southfork Landing Development and has an extremely high potential to create significant light pollution and noise disturbance which will be exacerbated by echoing in the valley.
>
>
>
>To manage these concerns I ask for the following conditions on the Amphitheater:
>
>
>
>To avoid noise issues caused by the Amphitheater, the Amphitheater shall not create sounds greater than 65 dBA outside of the amphitheater. This is consistent with Federal Government recommendations (US Department of Housing and Urban Development regards 65-75 dBA generally unacceptable).
>
>
>To further avoid noise issues caused by Amphitheater, the Amphitheater shall not be utilized for shows, concerts and similar events between the hours of 10 PM and 10 AM.
>
>
>To avoid light pollution issues caused by the Amphitheater, the Amphitheater (and I would recommend the entire Southfork Landing Development) shall not have lighting which creates a nuisance for any neighboring property. To avoid any doubt no high intensity lighting shall be permitted to be on when the Amphitheater is not in use, and all lighting shall be directed away from all other residences in Garden Valley.
>
>
>To avoid traffic problems caused by the Amphitheater, a further condition should be placed upon the Developer stipulating that the Amphitheater is not primarily intended for destination events where a majority of event attendees would be anticipated to travel to the Amphitheater from other towns, cities and communities. The primary use is to be events intended for Southfork Landing residents. Any other use is required to be approved beforehand by the Board.
>
>
>Hotel and Convention Center
>
>Having a tall structure in a highly visible area of Garden Valley is incompatible with the Garden Valley area, its rural character, and is detrimental to surrounding residential land use. At the preliminary hearing the Developers indicated that this structure would be at least 60' to the mid point of the gable.
>
>I want to ensure that this visual impact is mitigated by either completely shielding the structure with trees taller than the structure, or, preferably, by restricting the height to a more reasonable 55' to the roof peak (this should comfortable allow a three story facility). I note that within residential areas McCall, ID restricts building height on 50'6".
>
>Strips of Closely Spaced Homes
>
>
>
>Although the developer has made some changes to the plat since the Preliminary Approval, the fact remains that having highly visible rows (or strips) of closely spaced homes is very uncharacteristic of the Garden Valley area and is detrimental to use and enjoyment of residential properties. It takes away from the natural beauty of the area as well as destroys the rural character of the area. Thus it is clearly detrimental to surrounding residential use and enjoyment.
>
>
>
>To maintain this rural character I ask that the Board ensure that setbacks and lot occupancies are sufficient to avoid the appearance of tract housing. For avoidance of doubt residences should be prohibited from being spaced less than 30' apart and lot occupancies shall not exceed 25%. This will facilitate occupancy of about 1750 square feet on the smallest lots. Furthermore front setbacks on lots smaller than 1/3 acre should be staggered to help break up the "strip" effect.
>
>
>
>These conditions will provide a more spacious, less big city-like view to surrounding residences and land users as well as preserve their enjoyment of their properties.
>
>
>
>2. Regarding Zoning Ordinance Section 13-17 subsection B3 which reads:
>
>
>
>The streets proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic, and
>
>increased densities will not generate traffic in such amounts as to overload the
>
>street network outside the PUD;
>
>
>
>As a condition of granting the Final PUD to the Developer, I request that the Board and its Commission give further study to the impact that Southfork Landing will have upon traffic on the Banks Lowman Highway and ensure that both traffic carrying capacity, and the Southfork Landing impact upon its traffic, is adequately addressed.
>
>
>
>It is in Boise County's best interest to ensure that this subsection of the Zoning Ordinance is met as the future negative impact on the County will be dramatic if traffic cannot be adequately accommodated. At full build out Southfork Landing will place very significant additional traffic demands upon the Banks Lowman Highway as there is no other arterial out of the Valley. I would request that the Board and its Commission work closely with the Idaho Department of Transportation and the Developer to clearly understand accurate capacity of, and impact to, the Banks Lowman Highway during times when it is dark, inclement weather or other natural hazards such as animals on the road, rock on the road, et.al.
>
>
>
>To additionally manage traffic on the Banks Lowman Highway the Amphitheater should be prohibited from having destination events that will significantly increase traffic as described earlier in this appeal.
>
>
>
>3. Regarding Zoning Ordinance Section 13-17 subsection B5
>
>
>
>The PUD is in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan
>
>
>
>I have previously written to the Commission regarding lack of compliance of the Southfork Landing development with the Comp Plan. The Commission publicly taking the word of the Developer at face value as truth that they are confident that they will meet the Comp Plan is not sufficient to meet the Zoning Ordinance. The Board and its Commission must have conditions in place to ensure that the Comp Plan is adhered to. I believe the Commission has been dismissive of the Comp Plan and thus has not done their job in ensuring general conformance of the Developer and Southfork Landing with the Comp Plan.
>
>
>
>I am attaching my letter (at the end of this appeal) to the Commission from March 2006 which further details the breadth of this lack of conformance with the Comp Plan as reference. In this appeal I focus on the key areas of non-conformance where the Board and its Commission will need to set conditions upon the Developer to ensure that Southfork Landing meets the Zoning Ordinance's stipulation of the Commission ensuring that that the PUD conform to the Comp Plan.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing, as proposed, does not conform with the Comprehensive Plan's goal for preserving the rural character of Boise County. I have excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan below:
>
>
>
>GOAL:
>
>To provide for the planned and orderly use of land within the county in a manner which recognizes and maintains natural resources uses and the rural lifestyle of Boise County.
>
>
>
>OBJECTIVES:
>
>…
>
>· To conserve and protect the quality of life, as defined by the residents, in Boise County.
>
> [From the Boise County Comprehensive Plan is the following definition of "quality of life":
>
>1) Quality of life issues were identified as including:
>
>- Maintaining low population
>
>- Creation of appropriate growth standards
>
>- Maintaining open space
>
>- Maintaining privacy
>
>- Maintaining wildlife
>
>- No excessive traffic
>
>- Quiet environment
>
>- Maintaining low taxes
>
>- Accessibility to government officials
>
>- Natural resources
>
>- Recreation
>
>- Opportunities to make a living
>
>- Opportunities to retain individuality/independence
>
>]
>
>…
>
>· To discourage development in proximity to water resources including streams, rivers, lakes, and floodplains.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain the rural character of Garden Valley: A 60 foot high hotel (at the mid point of the roof height – the actual top of the roof will be higher!) is not compatible with a rural environment. Hundreds of homes on lot sizes of one-sixth and one-third acre are not compatible with a rural environment. Five and seven foot setbacks are not compatible with a rural environment.
>
>
>
>Point 1 earlier in this appeal specifies conditions which should be placed upon spacing of residences arranged in strips (and lot occupancies) as well as the hotel and convention center height. The goal of having a minimum 30' foot separation between residences, and staggered front setbacks, is to space houses far enough apart to break up the strip home appearance.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain wildlife in the area. Although the developers are making significant attempts to lessen their impact, the development will have significant adverse impact upon herds of Elk and other wildlife which currently rely upon the land upon which Southfork Landing is to be developed.
>
>
>
>The US Department of Fish and Game has provided input to the Commission regarding wildlife which has been ignored. This advice needs to be incorporated into Southfork Landing to be in conformance with the Comp Plan.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain "no excessive traffic". I have discussed this in point 2 above. Essentially well over 600 homes, a Hotel, Amphitheater, and other commercial facilities at build out will put a significant strain upon the Banks Lowman Highway as it is the only major road in and out of the valley.
>
>
>
>I request that the Board and its Commission perform further studies to understand the true impact to traffic on this highway during non-ideal conditions (dark, snow, rock, animals on highway, etc.) and impose appropriate conditions upon the Developers to ensure the problems are mitigated.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain a quiet environment. The Heliport and the Amphitheater are highly incompatible with a quiet environment. The conditions pertaining to both, described in point 1 above, should be placed upon the Developer and Southfork Landing. I also note that there are both existing aviation and emergency helicopter services near Southfork Landing. So the need for the Helipad is questionable.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain low taxes. The projected lot values for 1/3 acre and smaller lots in Southfork Landing will significantly increase property taxes for all residents in the surrounding area.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing is in conflict with discouraging development in proximity to water resources. The developers are developing directly on floodplain of the Southfork of the Payette River. It would be impractical to believe that there would be no adverse impact to the River.
>
>
>
>
>
>Taken as a whole the additional conditions described in these three points do not significantly affect the Developer's private property rights as outlined in the March 2006 version of the Boise County Comprehensive Plan as they neither significantly impact the Developer's economic interest, nor do they deny the Developer a fundamental attribute of ownership.
>
>
>
>As such, I request that the Board incorporate these conditions into those to be placed upon the Developer and Southfork Landing as a condition of granting the final approval on the PUD.
>
>
>
>Please inform me at your earliest convenience about the next steps with regard to this appeal.
>
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>
>
>
>
>Gary Zimmerman
>
>
>
>Attachments: March 2006 letter to Planning and Zoning
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>Gary Zimmerman
>
>90 Blue Shadow Dr
>
>Garden Valley, ID 83622
>
>
>
>March 11, 2006
>
>
>
>Planning and Zoning Department
>
>PO Box 1300
>
>413 Main St.
>
>Idaho City, ID
>
>83631
>
>
>
> AUTOTEXTLIST Dear Planning and Zoning Department,
>
>
>
>I am writing this letter to express some concerns that I have with the Southfork Landing preliminary application. I am hopeful that you will take these concerns to heart and act to ensure that Southfork Landing meets the goals of the Boise County comprehensive plan, the spirit and letter of the county's ordinances, as well as all state and federal requirements.
>
>
>
>I will raise issues below and show that they are in conflict with passages in the Boise County ordinances and the Boise County Comprehensive Plan. I will then recommend changes to the proposed Southfork Landing development to remove the conflicts.
>
>
>
>Let me first state that I am not against development – but simply want well planned development that is consistent with the goals of the county and the wishes of the Garden Valley residents. I believe it would be productive for the county and the Developers to take the time needed to modify the plan appropriately to address these concerns.
>
>
>
>In writing this letter I am extremely concerned that the Boise County government is not willing to address these issues due to expressed concerns over potential lawsuits. I think it is extremely unwise to have Boise County known as the county where every developer can have their way without regard for the wishes of the county! I will definitely make future voting decisions based upon the actions of the Planning and Zoning Department and the County Commissioners in their handling of this matter.
>
>
>
>
>
>1. Southfork Landing, as proposed, is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan's goal for preserving the rural character of Boise County. I have excerpted from the Comprehensive Plan below:
>
>
>
>GOAL:
>
>To provide for the planned and orderly use of land within the county in a manner which recognizes and maintains natural resources uses and the rural lifestyle of Boise County.
>
>
>
>OBJECTIVES:
>
>…
>
>· To conserve and protect the quality of life, as defined by the residents, in Boise County.
>
> [From the Boise County Comprehensive Plan is the following definition of "quality of life":
>
>2) Quality of life issues were identified as including:
>
>- Maintaining low population
>
>- Creation of appropriate growth standards
>
>- Maintaining open space
>
>- Maintaining privacy
>
>- Maintaining wildlife
>
>- No excessive traffic
>
>- Quiet environment
>
>- Maintaining low taxes
>
>- Accessibility to government officials
>
>- Natural resources
>
>- Recreation
>
>- Opportunities to make a living
>
>- Opportunities to retain individuality/independence
>
>]
>
>…
>
>· To discourage development in proximity to water resources including streams, rivers, lakes, and floodplains.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain the rural character of Garden Valley: A 60 foot high hotel is not compatible with a rural environment. Hundreds of homes on lot sizes of one-quarter and one-third acre are not compatible with a rural environment. Five and seven foot setbacks are not compatible with a rural environment.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain sufficient open space: The rural character of Garden Valley will be significantly damaged by the proposed development for Southfork Landing. Although the Developers are highlighting that they are providing a high percentage of open space, they are obfuscating the truth that with 650 units Southfork Landing creates some of the highest density housing in the Garden Valley area. Drawing parallels to Terrace Lakes is inappropriate as that subdivision is widely recognized as NOT being what the Garden Valley residents or emergency services wish for the County. Additionally, the Comprehensive Plan lists at least 100 undeveloped properties in Terrace Lakes which speaks to either the need to develop those prior to creating new high-density developments, or to the resident's needs for larger lots.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain privacy with five foot to seven foot side setbacks on the bulk of the lots.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain wildlife in the area. Although the developers are making attempts to lessen their impact, the development will have significant adverse impact upon herds of Elk and other wildlife which currently rely upon the land upon which Southfork Landing is to be developed.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain "no excessive traffic". 650 units including timeshares and condos, coupled with a hotel will create significant additional traffic for the Bank-Lowman road. This increase in traffic must be addressed by the Developers. Comments by the state that the road can handle ten times the traffic may be true on average, but not at peak periods and during common adverse weather conditions. There is currently no plan for addressing this traffic increase in the proposal. The agreements currently being discussed with the developer only address traffic on Alder Creek Rd – this is insufficient.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain a quiet environment. A heliport is highly incompatible with a quiet environment. I request that it be removed in favor of supporting air traffic at existing facilities in the area. Additionally the high density of housing will encourage an increase in noise which will be exacerbated by the amphitheater.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't maintain low taxes. The projected lot values for 1/3 acre and smaller lots in Southfork Landing will significantly increase property taxes for all residents in the surrounding area.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing is in conflict with discouraging development in proximity to water resources. The developers are developing directly on floodplain of the Southfork of the Payette River. It would be impractical to believe that there would be no adverse impact to the River. I would encourage large buffer zones to be created that completely avoid development near the river. I would also advise against redrawing floodplain maps hastily as appears to be the current mode of operation for Southfork Landing.
>
>
>
>2. The Comprehensive Plan passage examined in #1 is further supported as it is codified in the following excerpt from the Boise County Development and Zoning Ordinance.
>
>
>SECTION 1-3 PURPOSE
>
>The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide for the health, safety, and general
>
>welfare of the county. It is designed to:
>
>…
>
>d. prevent the pollution of air, soil, streams, rivers and ponds and safeguard the ground water and encourage the wise use and management of natural resources throughout the county in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the county and the value of the land.
>
>…
>
>e. preserve the natural beauty and topography of the county and insure appropriate development with regard to these natural features while maintaining the open space and rural atmosphere of the county.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't prevent the pollution of air, soil, streams, rivers and ponds in order to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the county. Building in extreme close proximity to the Southfork of the Payette River will cause some degree of unavoidable pollution to the river due to increase land use and run off from rain, irrigation and snow removal.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing won't preserve the natural beauty and rural atmosphere of the county. The development will negatively impact the beauty of the county through the addition of a highly visible 60 foot high hotel, open sewage pond, open (non-forested) high density homes (on lots as small as or smaller than many Boise homes!), visible and noisy amphitheater, and helipad noise and traffic. These offending elements must be modified prior to any plan approval.
>
>
>
>I also believe the proposed sewage treatment facility and settling pond are too close to the river and in conflict with the current visual appeal of the area. Furthermore the Water tank proposed is likely to be quite large and an eyesore as well.
>
>
>
>3. The conflict that Southfork Landing poses to county land use is highlighted in the Comprehensive Plan in the following excerpt:
>
>
>
>Natural Resource Land Use:
>
>… The county will keep in mind the following factors when making land use decisions …
>
>- Impact of surrounding, existing uses
>
>- Impact to the environment (streams, rivers, lakes, groundwater, wildlife, slide areas, erosion, seismic, etc)
>
>- Impact on the economy
>
>- Need for this type of development in this area (are there other areas already developed for this type of use?)
>
>…
>
>- Impact on schools
>
>
>
>Proposed development that falls outside traditional natural resources land uses would have to demonstrate (through the above conditions) that such development would have minimal impact upon the surrounding natural resource uses.
>
>Southfork Landing is in conflict with the surrounding land use. Southfork Landing will negatively impact the neighboring low-density developments; will have unintended negative impacts to the environment through water pollution – as previously discussed, and will threaten wildlife including bull trout, elk and bald eagles. The sewage treatment facility and settling pond pose a risk to the river – particularly in the event of failure. These facilities need to be located further from the river, and be completely obscured from view.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing will negatively impact the economy. While additional tax base is created by the development, and while the developers have formed deals with many conditions to pay money toward the school and for Alder Creek road improvements; the severe financial strain that this development will place upon the county must not be overlooked. First the county is required to pay for road improvements within the development as well as on Alder creek road. Additionally, increased need for emergency services, broader education needs, increased transportation needs including the Banks-Lowman highway, and law enforcement will be paid for by all residents of Boise County not just by the residents of Southfork Landing. Lastly, increased property values that the high density development is bound to create (based upon the developers proposed lot pricing) will likely pose a hardship for many county residents in the way of increased property taxes.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing is not a type of development needed in the area it is proposed for. The Garden Valley area has an existing high density subdivision with Terrace Lakes. This includes resort and restaurant facilities. Between Terrace Lakes and neighboring Castle Mountain there are over two hundred available units for development. Throughout the county there are over 3000 available lots for development. It is hard to see that there is a need for high density housing in the proposed location when they exist elsewhere with sufficient capacity at this time.
>
>
>
>I would advise significantly reducing the density of the proposed housing and decreasing the amount of proposed amenities that are already available elsewhere such as air transportation services.
>
>
>
>I think a small clustered commercial area could be a good thing for the area if it is done in a manner compatible with the existing surrounding land use. A smaller hotel, a smaller amphitheater, etc., would go a long way to preserving the rural character.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing will negatively impact the schools. The developers have proposed an agreement for adding funding to the school district. Unfortunately this agreement is likely to be insufficient to pay for the full impact of 650 nearby additional housing units when Southfork Landing is fully developed. Also, the agreement stipulates passage of a school bond within seven years of development commencing. This may seem like a good deal, but the developers do not expect the development to complete for up to 10 years (or more), and do not expect the bulk of the build out at the beginning of the project. This will likely reduce the funding to the school district.
>
>
>
>I would highly recommend a longer-term agreement with less stipulations between the developers and the county for the purpose of providing for all impacts to services and schools.
>
>
>
>4. The aforementioned negative impacts to land use and economic impact is codified in the following excerpt from the Boise County Subdivision Ordinance:
>
>
>
>Section III. PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote the public
>
>health, safety and general welfare, and to provide for:
>
>…
>
>D) Adequate water supply, sewage disposal systems, drainage, transportation or other public services; with no unnecessary imposition of an excessive expenditure of public funds for the supply of such services;
>
>…
>
>F) Mitigation of effects on political subdivisions and school districts to deliver services without compromising the quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision;
>
>
>
>5. The following excerpt from the Boise County Comprehensive Plan identifies that additional studies will be needed for the Southfork Landing development:
>
>
>
>Areas of Special Concern
>These areas are of special concern and additional studies may be required when development involves any of the following areas:
>
>
>
>· River Banks/Slopes - are particularly sensitive to building and to degradation by poor management practices;
>
>· Surface and Groundwater Protection - Surface water quality of the South Fork and Middle Fork of the Payette River play a large role in the Boise County economy. Groundwater and surface water supplies the domestic drinking water to city and county residents that could be jeopardized by poor management of this resource. Eventually, the county may wish to restrict development from specific, identified areas which are critical to the health and welfare of all residents;
>
>· Floodplains - are identified along waterways on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps found at the county offices. Development should comply with the Boise County Floodplain Ordinance in these areas.
>
>· Wildlife – areas sensitive to wildlife feeding and migration needs should be protected from over-development. Any development within these areas should show how impact of that development would be mitigated.
>
>Southfork Landing will impact River Banks, Surface Water, Floodplains and Wildlife. Clearly additional studies will be required of the Southfork Landing developers in each of these areas described above. I believe the development should not commence until these impacts have been carefully reviewed and approved by both the county governmental bodies, as appropriate and required, as well as the county residents. Absolutely no development or roads should be allowed until all federal, state and county requirements are satisfied – including the Boise County Comprehensive Plan and supporting ordinances.
>
>
>
>There is significant additional risk to the environment that would be posed by failure of the proposed sewage treatment facility and its settling pond. I believe this facility must be located further from the river than currently proposed, and be 100% obstructed from view of any existing residences in the County.
>
>
>
>6. Documentation on Southfork Landing is not easily accessible to residents of Garden Valley.
>
>
>
>Southfork Landing's preliminary proposal is an important and sizable set of documents. These documents need to be carefully reviewed by the residents of Garden Valley if they are to respond appropriately to the proposed development. Currently the only easily accessible location where these documents may be accessed is the Garden Valley Public Library. Additional requests for the documents are responded to by Kathie Brady with a request for $307.
>
>
>
>If we wish to have 1000 residents be able to review the documents for about two hours each, and the library is open 50 hours a week, it would take 40 weeks for those residents to review the documents. To alleviate this issue I request that the Developers of Southfork Landing be required to post the documents electronically so that they may be available to everyone who would like to review them. Following this posting the residents of Garden Valley should be allowed four weeks for review prior to any hearings on Southfork Landing.
>
>
>
>
>
>7. Conclusions
>
>
>
>Reasonable, but significant, changes to the proposed application for Southfork Landing development are required to meet the needs of Boise County as spelled out in the Boise County Comprehensive Plan as well as the Development and Zoning and Subdivision ordinances.
>
>
>
>These changes should include:
>
>
>
>1. A significant reduction in overall density of housing units to an average of two acres per residential unit. Additionally minimum side setbacks of ten feet per story should be required. No lot should have an occupancy in excess of 30%.
>
>2. Significant performance bonds should be required of the developers to ensure quality work is performed in harmony with the rural character of the county. The bond should be sufficient for repairing any failure to meet requirements.
>
>3. Development of a sewage treatment system that is further away from the river, and completely obscured from any external view from existing structures in the Garden Valley area. This should include no offending odors present on any neighboring properties
>
>4. Building the water storage tank completely into a hillside so as to obscure it from view.
>
>5. Removal of the helipad in favor of locating one at the existing Garden Valley airport.
>
>6. Significantly larger buffer zones between the river and development to preserve water quality and existing elk habitat.
>
>7. The Developers of Southfork Landing to pay for all economic impacts to the County including full costs of road improvements and schools. The Developer to work in cooperation with County governmental and citizens groups to ensure that the studies are carried out in detail and are accurate.
>
>8. A detailed study of traffic impacts to the Banks-Lowman Highway and State Highway 55. The results of this study should be used for allocating funding from the developers for any enhancements needed to those roadways to maintain a low-traffic environment as spelled out in the comprehensive plan. If this cannot be met, the development should not be approved
>
>9. The Developers of Southfork Landing must make all proposals and documents available to the Garden Valley residents in a reasonable manner such as electronic access on the Internet.
>
>
>
>Thank you for reading my concerns, which I am sure, are shared by many others. I believe you and the Commissioners can act upon these concerns, and ensure a great Garden Valley and Boise County for years to come.
>
>
>
>
>
> AUTOTEXTLIST Best regards,
>
>
>
>
>
> AUTOTEXTLIST Gary Zimmerman
>
>
>Gary Zimmerman
>gary@z.to
>
