One Ravalli Planning Board Member’s Take on Aspen Springs

By Guest Writer, 8-22-06

By Ben Hillicross

As a member of the Ravalli County Planning Board, I have been asked by a number of community members to explain my votes on the Aspen Springs subdivision and the variances. I cannot speak for the Planning Board but I offer the following to explain my personal position on this proposed subdivision and it’s eight requested variances.

Variance #1 would allow this project to be developed in 32 phases over 22 years. I did not support approval of this variance because I find it is nearly impossible to predict the projected impacts of this project and others in the neighborhood over the next 22 years. During the last five years, people in the Bitterroot Valley have seen major changes that could strongly impact this area in the near future. Some of the key factors of significant concern to me are 1) the apparent effects of global climate change, particularly the loss of and early melting of the snow pack in the mountains of Montana, (This could seriously impact the availability of water), 2) the rapid and accelerating rate of increase in the price of gasoline and electrical power, (this and the next several items will impact the cost and affordability of the houses), 3) our current national economic situation including our current enormous federal deficit, 4) our enormous balance of payment deficits, 5) our steadily increasing need to import enormous quantities of foreign oil, 6) the very rapid inflation of the cost of building materials, etc. Many of these changes have been rapid and appear to be accelerating, and thus increasing the risk of estimating any project of this size over a period of 22 years. If after 11 years when this project is half finished, if the developer cannot complete the project due to financial problems, the existing homeowners and county would be left paying for the remaining necessary infrastructure.

Variance #2 is to require this development to be interconnected to adjacent roadways and developments. I did not support approval of this variance because of its major impact on the efficient flow of traffic between this and surrounding subdivisions and also because of the health and safety issues that develop if you have a subdivision of this size and density without alternate auto routes out of the subdivision available to deal with traffic delays, traffic efficiency and possible emergency situations such as fires.

Variance #3 and #6 -- I supported the approval of these variances to bring this project into compliance with recent revisions to the subdivision regulations.

Variance #4 -- I did not support this variance to allow for building lots of less then 7,500 squire feet because this would be totally out of character with the other developments in this area.

Variance #5 -- I supported the flag lot variance because of the small number of flag lots and the rationale presented for them seemed sound. (A flag lot is a lot shaped like a flag with a pole.)

Variances 7 and 8 -- I did not support the road variances because I felt that for a subdivision of this size (643 lots), it is essential for the developer to agree to fix the road problems to the fullest extent possible, at his cost. I supported the concept of a latecomer fee reimbursement to be imposed on other future developments in this area where appropriate, but only provided that it includes a date limit of not greater than 10 years or one half of the life expectancy of the road improvements.

I cannot support approval of this subdivision as defined and presented. I liked many aspects of the plan including seeing the complete project design, the paved roads, curbs and gutters, centralized septic/sewer system, keeping the ridges and drainage as open space, providing adequate parks and park space, the interconnected trail system and providing space for some commercial development within the subdivision. However, at an average of almost 2 houses per acre over the total subdivision with many places having densities of around 10 houses per acre, this subdivision will be totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhoods.

I could support this subdivision if it was located adjacent to Highway 93 north of Florence and if there were regulations, financing or agreements in place to mitigate the impacts on the roads, schools, the Sheriff's Department and other health and human's safety issues. I am also very concerned about the cumulative impact of this subdivision and all of the already approved lots and pending subdivisions in Florence area east of the Bitterroot River.

I am particularly concerned about the future impacts on public health and safety, water quality and quantity. In 30 to 50 years, if all of the development in this part of the Valley causes the aquifers to start to dry up, what would be our solution? Would we take the approach that LA used when it bought up the water rights on the Owens River, the Sacramento River and the Colorado River? Would we dam up Rock Creek and the Clark Fork and pump the water over the mountains to keep the lawns green in these developments? I hope not, but I am afraid that the future homeowners would vote to do just that if they are running out of water.

These decisions to approve or to deny major subdivisions are very complex, and they become very difficult when you realize that once they are approved, they generally become irreversible. They may also cause enormous financial and quality-of-life impacts on the current and future homeowners and taxpayers in this valley. When I consider the probable changes we face in the next 20 years, and attempt to project the impact of these changes combined with the impact of all proposed mega subdivisions, plus the probability of homes being built on many of the approved 7,000 plus lots in the Bitterroot Valley, I become very concerned. The situation is also made much more severe than might be apparent at first glance, because Ravalli County does not have in place building codes, zoning, impact fees or sufficient tax revenue to help deal with the consequences of the problems that will result from this rapid growth. We need to fix these problems before we approve more projects of this duration, size and impact.

Finally, the planning board and commissioners must give serious consideration to the voices of the public and the current homeowners, residents and tax payers. The vast majority of comments received from the public, regarding this subdivision, during the planning board’s public hearing process were thoughtful concerns, and requests that we not approve this subdivision and many of the requested variances. Also, two key community leaders (the School Superintendent and the County Sheriff) who are responsible for key public functions, presented compelling testimony that major impacts of this subdivision would not be adequately mitigated.
[End of article]