Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMerliln & Janet Anderson 976 McJon Ln - Pinebrook Rezone 07-21-22 - LETTER DATED 3/30/22 - ALREADY IN THE PREVIOUS MINUTESTo: The City of Rexburg's Mayor, Planning and Zoning Committee, City Council Members, Alan Parkinson From: Homeowners in Pinebrook 1 and 2 and homeowners on Mdoh Lane, Rexburg, Idaho IlAe'v I% (A A- And � rs o-y) 9* A(C]co I)i Date: March 30, 2022 Re: Rejection of Planned Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map and Rezoning From Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to LDR1— MDR1 (Low -Density Residential 1 to Medium -Density Residential 1) as per the "Notice of Public Hearing to Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map for the City of Rexburg" which was placed at the entrance of the Pine Brook Estates, Division No. 2, lots 16 through 24 and rejection of the Applications — File #22-00102 and Application — File #22-00103 We respectfully reject and ask that the Planning and Zoning Committee, City Council Members, and Alan Parkinson Deny the Rezone Application — File #22-00103 and Comprehensive Plan Map change Application — File #22-00102 the proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan Designation (Exhibit 1) and Zoning Map change (Exhibit 2). Following are the reasons why we are asking for the City to DENY the proposed changes: 1. An actual plan, plat change application or proposal is conspicuously absent. One major travesty is that changing the zoning from Rural to the LDR1-MDR1 would significantly change the density and engineering and types of uses going from a zoning limiting development of % acre (21780 sq ft) to lots as small as 8,000 sq ft. and 10,000 sq. ft. for a duplex and two 5,000 sq ft. lots for a twin home in a MDR1 zone, for example. This is simply doubling the density the Developer(s) is allowed so that he may cram more homes into our community, at his great profit and the homeowners and the City's loss. Additionally, different types of uses are allowed in this LDR1-MDR1 zone. For instance, Boarding Houses would theoretically now allow for Drug Rehabilitation Centers in this family neighborhood or manufactured homes on 1/5tt' of an acre. A required Plat Change Application should be presented by the Developer for the Planning and Zoning Commission to know what is actually planned before the Commission should act or hold a public hearing. Increased density wasn't initially planned for or built by the Developer, Curtis Ferney. Before this change should even be considered or evaluated by the Commission to account for this density increase, a detailed Engineered Impact Study by the Developer detailing the increased sewer flow, traffic, rain runoff should be completed. According to Idaho Code 67-6511(2)(a) "Particular consideration shall be given to the effects of any proposed zone change upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services". The City of Rexburg has had previous instances of skipping this needed requirement and backed up sewer, storm water collection, and other engineering considerations have ended up damaging several businesses and homes in the last several years. 3. There is a very large and deep pond in the subdivision. What is the greater probability of more children and adults drowning in the pond? Is the City willing to take on this increased liability? Perhaps some arrangement can be made between the willing citizen who has provided this wonderful enticement to our neighborhood to be shifted onto the City as a condition to this Development proposal? We doubt the City would ever agree to this arrangement but again, it should have been included in an impact study before the City planned on a Public Hearing. 4. Proper Notice was not supplied in this case. Idaho Code 67-6509 clearly states, "The planning or planning and zoning commission, prior to recommending the plan, amendment, or repeal of the plan to the governing board... The commission shall also make available a notice to other papers, radio and television stations serving the jurisdiction for use as a public service announcement. Notice of intent to adopt, repeal or amend the plan shall be sent to all political subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction, including school districts and the manager or person in charge of the local public airport, at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing scheduled by the commission." Based upon these requirements, we do not believe that all of this has happened, at least as evidenced by the Staff Report before you now. 5. We do not agree with the Comprehensive Plan Map Application and Zoning Change because we have bought this property and placed our homes knowing that the Comprehensive Plan had a current zoning of Rural. It appears we have detrimentally relied on this understanding with the Developer and the City. These new changes will devalue our homes, put double the people that walk our streets, and increase the density of homes and will frankly, only make money for the City and the developer(s). This is an example of Land Speculators changing what has already been planned for and frankly, just making a bigger margin of profits for the Developer? There is plenty of vacant property in the Rexburg City limits and Area of Impact where this can be properly planned, executed, and developed and penciled out to make a profit for the City and the Developer. This isn't a matter of 'growth'. We have growth in the Rexburg area. We implore the Commission to manage that growth in a fashion that makes neighborhoods and communities in the great City of Rexburg a measure of consanguinity, efficiency, and just simply good planning. To go in and change nine lots out of the Pinebrook 1 and 2 area is not good planning. 6. Any time a developer requests to change the Comprehensive Plan before he can get his requested zoning is letting him eke a few extra dollars out of his development and a complete improvisation of detailed planning that the City has tried to do over countless years through previous Comprehensive Plan hearings and discussions. Yes, our community is changing with all the growth; however, this should be done in a thoughtful and detail -minded manner that actually 'plans' where and what we want our community to be. Anything less would just be capitulating to a developer for nothing more than his enrichment to the detriment of the existing homeowners. 7. The developer, Todd Webb, told Pinebrook II HOA members that he wanted to change the zoning and comprehensive plan because he wanted to put "townhomes" on the existing nine lots. As per the City's own rural zoning code, Mr. Webb and the other developers listed on your applications could put townhomes on those nine lots, with a fire wall in between, if the firewall sits on the existing lots' division line as is allowed in the current zoning. That means Mr. Webb, et al., already has the right under the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning to put townhomes on those nine lots if the townhome sits on one acre (1/2 acre per townhome). We speculate that Mr. Webb only wants to place more density, double his units on those lots to sell more homes. We are not in favor of this proposal. Perhaps if this matter is tabled to allow the Developer to develop a detailed amended Plat first before the zone change is approved this could alleviate some of our concerns. 8. We found out that what Todd Webb presented to the HOA is irrelevant now because he said he was buying all nine lots. We now understand that six of the nine are under contract to a new developer who plans on putting a parallel sewer line and tapping into the current sewer and water line. This subdivision was planned, engineered and constructed with ONLY nine homes to be built on those nine lots and no more. 9. What is alarmingly absent is the current Development Agreement, that was a Legal Contract between the City and Developer in P&Z packet, which has the full force of law that can guide you in your decision -making on this current application. What was previously promised? What was guaranteed? And what are the current deficiencies? This matter should be tabled before the Commission has complete understanding of the current requirements of the Developer to guide them in any new additional requirements. We purport that the current Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Plan are sufficient and legal for any contract or buyer to rely upon. No changes are required. 10. Furthermore, according to Idaho Code 67-6511 "An amendment of a zoning ordinance applicable to an owner's lands or approval of conditional rezoning or denial of a request for rezoning may be subject to the regulatory taking analysis provided for by section 67- 8003, Idaho Code, consistent with the requirements established thereby." This would give the current homeowners and lot purchasers an alternative to sue the City for the loss of value to their homes if the P&Z approves these applications. 11. It is unconscionable to allow a developer to change and significantly increase the density and design of a subdivision at this late hour after all of the other homes have either been built or lots have been sold. Each resident has purchased a home or lot with a certain expectation and reliance on what was previously agreed to between the Developer and the City. This is simply a Developer(s) coming in and squeezing out the most profit he can with no concern to actual good planning strategies for proper residential development to only line his pockets, move on to the next existing community and do it again. 12. We believe the application for the zone change would be "spot -zoning" contrary to Idaho and Federal law; i.e., well founded, with not only Idaho but United States law to the contrary that Spot Zoning is illegal. Spot Zoning refers to a change in zoning of a particular parcel or parcels that is out of character with the surrounding area and the Comprehensive Plan and is done for the benefit of the particular landowner rather than for the benefit of the community as a whole. Here there is nothing within a country - mile that resembles what The Supreme Court has held that: In Evans, this Court clarified that there are two types of spot zoning. The first type, referred to as type one spot zoning, "may simply refer to a rezoning of property for a use prohibited by the original zoning classification." Id. "The test for whether [type one spot zoning] is valid is whether the zone change is in accord with the comprehensive plan." Id. at 77, 73 P.3d at 90. "[T]he question of whether a zoning ordinance is 'in accordance with' the comprehensive plan is a factual question which can be overturned only where the factual findings are clearly erroneous." Friends of Farm to Market v. Valley County, 137 Idaho 192, 200, 46 P.3d 9, 17 (2002). The second type, referred to as type two spot zoning, "refers to a zone change that singles out a parcel of land for use inconsistent with the permitted use in the rest of the zoning district for the benefit of an individual property owner." Id. Taylor v. Canyon Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs ("Taylor II"), 147 Idaho 424, 436, 210 P.3d 532, 544 (2009) (Burdick, J.)). From the Idaho Land Use Manual, typically relied on as authoritative, "The Supreme Court has reiterated in Neighbors for the Preservation of the Big and Little Creek Community v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Payette Cty., 2015 WL 5655521 (Idaho Sept. 25, 2015) (Horton, J.), the type one/type two analysis. The Court has clearly settled in on the type one/type two analysis. The analysis begins by assessing whether the rezone is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan. In Neighbors, the Court said that all that is required to meet the type one test is that the Comprehensive Plan be amended prior to the rezone to say that the use is permissible. The type two analysis in Neighbors, the Court observed that the county justified its decision because there were five other industrial uses within five miles of the rezoned land (CAFOs and a landfill). That was enough to convince the Court that the County had not singled out this property for special and inconsistent treatment. For this application, during your, the Commission's discussion and review, this is clearly not in conformance with the current Comprehensive Plan because you will have to change it to enable the current application to LDR2-MDR1. Furthermore, it is a violation of Type 2 "spot zoning" because it simply singles out the application parcels of land for use inconsistent with the permitted use in the rest of the Zoning District for the benefit of an individual property owner. Like the Neighbors decision, the commission can't find that a similar subdivision was less than a mile away from the applied -for property and the area had filled in with homes. We may have rights to appeal, causing the City to spend even more time and money for nine lots.