[MissoulaGov] Committee Update 2-18-09 - PAZ

[Ryan Morton]

To all:

 

Since I'm not at risk for litigation or intent on pursuing it, I'd be happy
to provide some supplementary commentary on the PAZ hearing for Chickasaw
Subdivision out in Orchard Homes.

 

The hearing started with a discussion about the road/sewer/annexation
policies of the City in the Orchard Homes/Target Range area.  On the road,
the northern neighbors have a conditional ROW easement on the southern
portion of their neighborhood but fear the traffic that will ensue from a
southern connection to Chickasaw.  Even the strong "neighborhood advocates"
on council were keen to have this connection for public safety (emergency
vehicle access) and good transportation planning.

 

The northern neighbors were also concerned that the sewer connection to
Chickasaw would require them to connect to sewer as well since an unused
sewer main currently sits under Stallion Lane with a public utilities
easement.  There was concern over the water quality of the wells.  WGM and
Public Works both noted the technical abilities to preserve the wells from
contamination.

 

On annexation generally, the Orchard Homes neighborhood folks were upset
about the piece-meal annexation done by the City and asked for a moratorium
until the neighborhood plan is completed.  I'm pretty sure the piece-meal
annexation is due to the interlocal agreement between the City and County,
but I'm willing to be educated on this.  Anyhow, the City agreed (in the
interlocal agreement, not the hearing) to not annex until the individual
property owners requested City services.  So, while it may make more sense
to annex larger, contiguous portions of the County, the City agreed to take
properties on request only.  Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. Anyhow,
the City Attorney also noted (in the hearing again. sorry for the time/space
shifts) that moratoriums on land use decisions were used for emergency
situations only.  I imagine that several council member will reiterate their
advice about requesting annexation for the whole neighborhood so that the
residents can exercise greater control over the City's policies in the area.
Again, I'm sure I'll be corrected about that.

 

I think the remaining controversy was about requiring 3 acres of agriculture
preservation.  If there were other controversies, I apologize.  

 

Anyhoo, the developer had agreed to gift 1.3 acres of land onsite but OPG
and Parks didn't think it was enough.  In discussions with the Community
Food and Agriculture Coalition, they concluded that at least 3 acres was
necessary for a viable agricultural business.  There was controversy over
the location of the agriculture preservation as well.  The developer had
originally gifted the northeast corner, but CFAC wanted the southeast corner
because there was a well and they believe the soil is less undulating.  The
3 acre corner is, in their opinion, the most suitable location for
agriculture and that if it is not preserved the subdivision should be
denied.  

 

MBIA (me) claimed that there was no verifiable evidence (or policy
supporting) that 3 acres was needed.  We had also claimed at Planning Board
and in an email last week that it was inappropriate for third parties to
utilize the subdivision process to acquire land they would otherwise have to
acquire on the market.  WGM stated that the condition of 3 acres was not
made available until the Thursday prior to the Tuesday Planning Board
meeting earlier this month.  Since then, they have proposed two alternatives
with 3 acres of farmland (even though I don't think they should have to).
MBIA (me) argued that this redesign was not based on proportionality (a
constitutional protection) and that OPG had no independent evidence
supporting that the 3 acres was proportional mitigation for the impact of
the subdivision on agriculture.  MBIA reminded the council that their job
was NOT to maximize the potential for agriculture, their job was to minimize
adverse impacts to agriculture (which has not occurred as a business on the
site since 2005).  Presumably the prime agricultural soil is the premise for
everything even though prime ag soil is NOT necessary for all forms of
agriculture (livestock).

 

So, there's my version of the narrative.  Hope that helps illuminate what
happened.

 

Ryan Morton

Government Affairs Director

Missoula Building Industry Association

406.543.4423 or 406.546.0902 (cell)

community at buildmissoula.com

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.cmslists.com/pipermail/missoulagov/attachments/20090219/b2705df7/attachment.htm>