Attention Developers

Attention Developers: Buy a parcel of un-zoned land in Lake County and let greed be your guide. It wouldn't hurt to hire three sharp lawyers, an engineer who are friends with a commissioner, and a former Lake County planner to represent you. But if you just meet those "five specific criteria in the subdivision regulations," preliminary plat approval is a "done deal."

Even though this is the 21st century, Lake County doesn't presently have a density map in effect for unzoned land. So "go crazy" — you may even get a density bonus for no reason. The growth policy requires officials to encourage developments that are compatible with surrounding areas, but they'll just ignore that little directive.

For example: It's their opinion that in a rural area eight miles from town, on 41 acres bordered by fragile lakeshore, building 57 condo units costing $1 to $2 million each fits right into the neighborhood.

The legal owner of the property is to sign the joint application form before county review, according to state law and county regulations.

But if you don't acquire the signature, don't worry. The county will make an exception for you. To try to appease your opponents, the commissioners may ask you to mitigate certain identified impacts. But change nothing of significance — your original proposal will be accepted. If your property happens to have the distinction of being on the National Register of Historic Places, disregard it. The county doesn't get involved in such "insignificant" issues — start your bulldozers. You don't need to submit a viable sewage treatment plan before getting preliminary plat approval. Even for a lakeshore development, this just doesn't seem to be a concern.

The neighborhood will write numerous letters and many articulate and intelligent speakers will address the negative impacts of such a dense project in the area. But don't fret, the commissioners will pay little attention to these public sentiments. Approval will be granted as the county's primary goal is to avoid a lawsuit form the developer — the additional tax revenue is a bonus.

We used sarcasm in this letter to express our frustration. It was very upsetting to see the issues mentioned above treated as trivial by the county during the recent Kootenai Lodge approval process. In the last two years, the county has approved, as submitted, four subdivisions near Swan Lake. Three are in approximately a one and a half mile radius from Swan Lake and the most recent one on the lake. And it's evident that during the county's approval process the local resident's concerns are "put on the back burner."

At the 2003 Kootenai Woods public meetings, many residents expressed specific reasons for lowering the density of 50 homes on 61 acres. One big concern was the impact of 50 individual septic systems on land located just across the road from Swan Lake. We felt our input was somewhat heard when the planning board recommended only 40 units. The three commissioners, however, subsequently raised it back to 50. If you're keeping score, that's: Developers 4; Residents 0. It's contrary to reason that only three people, with no connection to the neighborhood, decide its fate.

At the May 3 Kootenai Lodge "public meeting," the board allowed the "public"only one-half hour of testimony. With over 100 people in the room in opposition —- do the math. No one can express their concerns in such a short time.

Exploitation of an area must not be allowed. State statutes governing subdivision approval improperly places the interests of the developer above the interests of the public. These statutes must be reformed so they address our constitutional rights as the area's current tax-paying landowners.

Jack and Joan Wilfong

Bigfork