Lots of disadvantages to proposed Kootenai project

We are totally opposed to the Milhous Group's proposal for the Historic Lodge Condominium Subdivision for the following reasons.

The statement that the Kootenai Lodge property has historically been used as a resort is not correct. This has been a "private retreat and estate." There is a significant difference in how the property has historically been used and what is proposed. This should be considered a commercial development, and is totally out of character for the area.

The development poses probable negative impact to a multitude of resources including historical, cultural, water quality, water quantity, wildlife, and fisheries, just to mention a few. There will be several years of heavy construction to complete this project, which will cause significant damage to the road system. Area roads are already substandard and experience breakup conditions much of the year, with little repair. There will be a significant increase in air and noise pollution. The rural sky will be lit with city lights.

This area of is an island in Lake County, totally disconnected geographically from the county service area. It is already underserved in road maintenance, law enforcement, etc. Area residents have learned to live with the lack of road maintenance and services and some of us prefer it that way. The developer says he is willing to pay "proportionately" for road improvements, but should pay the full cost to increase the width of Sunburst Drive and to maintain local roads during the construction period.

The developer also states that this subdivision would increase tax revenue to the county, and would require very little services. These will be high dollar homes and would only be occupied for five or six weeks a year. When reviewing this proposal, it should be assumed that these condominiums could be occupied year round and would require additional local services. There is no doubt that tax revenue would increase. Local area residents would see the most significant tax increases as appraisal values would reflect being in a neighborhood with "high dollar" homes.

We believe that this is part of the developer's strategy to acquire more properties for development purposes in this area. The developer plans to create more of these subdivisions in as he has attempted to purchase other properties from long time residents. Increased appraisal values would be fine if we were all real estate investors and wanted to sell our property. How has the developer shown that increased revenue will equal or exceed the cost of additional road maintenance and other local services?

The proposed sewage disposal system and drainfields are proposed on a covenanted subdivision lot. Montana Codes state that covenants go with the land. Covenants are intended to protect the rights of other property owners in a subdivision. By allowing covenants to be violated, county officials are "taking" those rights from the other property owners.

The impacts of this proposal cannot be adequately addressed in an EA (Environmental Analysis). A full EIS (Environmental Impact Statement) should be required including an economic analysis of costs to provide services and maintain roads during and after build out, vs. increased revenue that the development will bring into the county.

There are three variances of the Lake County Subdivision regulations requested in conjunction with this development. One of these is that the internal road easements be reduced to 40 feet rather than the 60 feet as required by the adopted regulations. If these variances are not granted, the developer claims he will suffer undue hardship. The density that is proposed is way too high. Granting the variance to reduce the road easement to 40 feet would allow the developer the absolute maximum density. We believe this is whole intent of requesting this variance. It is not the place of our county officials to assure that a developer maximize their profit on their real estate investments.

The Milhouse Group has done small development projects in this neighborhood for which the end result was much different than the original proposal. They have misrepresented their proposals and avoiding certain permitting processes. The result is quite different from the original proposal. There is no compliance monitoring during these projects or "after the fact" enforcement.

The timing of the Lake County Planning Director's resignation, shortly after elections, brings another point to light. The Lake County Planning Director is the planning consultant for the developer. Although, it may be totally legal, it creates the appearance of a conflict of interest.

It is interesting to note, also, that this same planner is the person who prepared the Draft Growth Policy for Lake County, in which our community is specifically mentioned as an area that will experience the majority of growth pressures.

Our county officials should not expect long term residents and members of our community to subsidize the exploitation of our rural environment by out-of-state developers, through increased property taxes and degradation of resources, to accommodate for "high dollar homes" for "second, third, and fourth homes that might only be occupied for short periods during the year."

The developer nor the future owners of these condos are likely to pay income taxes in Montana. If this development is approved, existing local area residents should protest higher appraisal values and property taxes. The "cons" of this proposal certainly seem to outweigh the "pros" and should be denied.