A citizens petition to require general voter approval at a regularly scheduled election of all future annexations into the City of Hamilton was presented to the Hamilton City Council at its last meeting, held Tuesday, September 4. Petition organizers, Chris Linkenhoker and Bob Frost, claim to have collected 815 signatures. Some are from residents of the county who live outside the city, but "have passionate concerns for their quality of life and their personal finances." Nonetheless, they claim there are enough valid signatures from residents in the city to meet the requirement of 15 percent of the voters to force an election on the issue.

The two men state in a cover letter to the city, "The citizens of Hamilton have become very well informed about the issues surrounding annexation of prospective large housing and business developments, including Flat iron Ranch, Area 3, and the Donaldson/Wal-Mart properties. They wish to vote on any major annexation proposals because these projects represent life-altering changes to the future of Hamilton, and are not typical city council type of actions. These annexations would be major decisions that should not be left to four people at city hall who may not even be in office in the coming years to suffer the consequences that the annexations could bring."

"This is a community-wide issue," they conclude, "and should be fully discussed and ratified by our citizens."

The petition statement describes the petition as "an emergency measure to promote the public health, safety and general welfare for the citizens of Hamilton." It states specifically that it protests the annexation of, provision of city utility services to, or hookup to city utilities by, any vacant lands, housing subdivisions, condominiums/townhouses, commercial or residential developments, or any non-contiguous commercial or non-residential property that is outside the current city boundaries of Hamilton without approval of a majority of city voters in a regularly scheduled election.

An exception is provided for individual single-family dwellings, or individual commercial small businesses, that are contiguous to city boundaries, or which are wholly surrounded within the city limits.

The petition claims, in part, that annexation of property could result in a significant increase in property taxes and utility expenses to the existing citizens and could create a financial burden to some.

County hears pitch for Senior Housing Cooperatives

By Michael Howell

Paul Travitz, Director of the Ravalli County Council on Aging, told the County Commissioners on Monday that his agency was considering investing in a potential Senior Housing Cooperative development on its property northeast of town along Old Corvallis Road. Working with Julie Foster, director of the Ravalli County Economic Development Authority, Travitz invited a national expert on Senior Housing Cooperatives to visit the Bitterroot.

Senior Housing Cooperatives come in all shapes and sizes, according to Terry McKinley, President of the Senior Cooperative Foundation based in Minnesota. Essentially they are apartment complexes designed to accommodate seniors who are tired of traditional single-family home maintenance. Unlike the traditional option of purchasing a condominium, however, the senior housing cooperative offers members a chance to own the entire development within which they live. Each member owns a share of the building and the business of running it. This eliminates the landlord from the equation and the need to produce profits for the landlord. Not only do cooperative members maintain control over the building and grounds, there is also equity preservation in their purchase, retention of tax benefits, more affordability, and to top it off, the chance to live in an enlivened, active and connected community.

McKinley explained that in most co-ops not only are the buildings and grounds owned by the occupants, but even the interior assets such as refrigerators and other appliances, and even the carpeting. All maintenance and upkeep is done by the management, often members of the co-op, themselves. Another potential cost savings is that services are not provided that the members don't choose to pay for. The arrangement also offers security to those who would like to lock up and leave for a few months in the winter, knowing that their home is being monitored and even their plants watered if they should so choose.

Co-ops range in size from 10 to 2,000 units and are located in both urban and rural settings.

In response to a commissioner's question about the role of local government, McKinley said that understanding the concept and supporting it was an essential aspect to any co-op's success, but that most co-ops depend primarily on private investment for their development.

Travitz noted that in this case the Council on Aging might be involved to the extent of selling the land to be used in the development and possibly bankrolling some of the preliminary work on establishing a co-op. He also noted, perhaps for the benefit of Hamilton Mayor Jessica Randazzo who was in attendance, that it could depend on the installment of a pump station in the Hamilton city sewer system to bring city sewer services to the property.

The next step, according to Mckinley, would be to do a demographic study of the area to determine the suitable size for any such development. Then a tentative architectural drawing of the proper unit mix and size would be produced.

"Then we would hold a meeting and see who shows up," said McKinley. He said that the real size and scope of the development always depends on the local interest and what it can afford to support.

Decision on Stevi Flats subdivision continued

By Michael Howell

After lengthy considerations last Thursday, the Ravalli County Commissioners decided to continue the review of the Stevi Flats Subdivision at a meeting scheduled for September 18, at 9 a.m.

Developer Scott Twite proposes creating 20 lots on roughly 60 acres south of Stevensville off of Pine Hollow Road. The lots range in size from a little over two acres to just over three and a half acres. The Supply Ditch forms the western property boundary and the applicant is proposing to install a safety fence along the ditch. Seven inches of water from the Supply Ditch have been allocated to five lots in the subdivision. The other lots will be served by individual domestic wells and are only allowed to irrigate one half acre of lawn from the well, and are warned on the face of the plat that they have no water rights from the ditch. The developer has offered cash in lieu of parkland dedication. Because it is situated in the flood zone should a catastrophic failure cause the dam up the Burnt Fork to collapse, the houses will be built on ground raised two feet in height. Two of the lots interior to the subdivision are accessed by a dedicated utility easement road and shared driveways with adjoining lots. According to unofficial minutes of the meeting, the developer's consultant Gilbert Larson, of Professional Consultants Inc., stated they understand under current regulations that this would be prohibited. The pro-rata share, the developers portion for the cost of required road improvements to bring Pine Hollow Road up to county standards, was estimated at $25,848.

Several neighboring landowners spoke against the subdivision proposal. They raised questions concerning the effect of 20 septics in the area and the effects of 20 new wells on other existing wells in the area. Concerns were expressed about the increased traffic on Pine Hollow, and the status of existing fences. They also complained that pro-rata road payments are not necessarily spent on the road in question, leaving the neighboring landowners to suffer hardships that were supposedly mitigated by the payments. The same complaint was made about payment in lieu of parkland, which leaves the kids in the subdivision without a place to play.

Commissioners raised concerns about the irrigation plan for the subdivision. With only five lots to be served by the irrigation rights from the ditch, the other lots were only being allowed irrigation of one half acre from domestic wells when the lots range in size from 2 to 3.8 acres. Commissioner Carlotta Grandstaff questioned the feasibility of the irrigation plan and wondered what would become of the unirrigated acreage. She thought it would probably go to weeds. She called the plan unrealistic. She questioned the legality of the shared driveway, shown as a utility easement on the plat that would be used to access two of the proposed lots. Without a request for a variance from subdivision regulations, Grandstaff wonders how the Commission can approve such an interior roadway when the regulations require a paved roadway. She also questioned the lack of sidewalks in the plan. Commissioner Driscoll also expressed doubts about the irrigation plan.

Commissioner Greg Chilcott addressed the issue of a lack of school bus stops and Twite agreed to Grandstaff's request to build a structure to protect students from the weather while they are waiting for the bus .

The developer has not made any offer of payment to mitigate effects on schools or on the sheriff's office.

Commission Chairman Jim Rokosch requested other board members to submit their requests for mitigation in writing to be presented to the developer for his consideration before the next meeting.

The vote to continue the meeting until the September was passed unanimously.

FWP seeks injunction to keep Poker Joe Fishing Access Site open

By Michael Howell

The Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks (FWP) is back in court with local landowners over the right of public access along Simpson Lane to the Poker Joe Fishing Access Site on the Bitterroot River. The agency is asking the court for a preliminary injunction to prevent the local landowners from blocking the road and interfering with public access to the site, while a final judgment is pending. FWP is asking for a declaratory judgment that the public does have access on the road to the fishing access site.

The case was originally filed on February 2, 2007 against some local landowners, Dan Saunders, Ted Franklin and 1 to 50 John Does and Jane Roes (other landowners potentially affected by the decision), who had placed a barrier across the road leading to the fishing access site proclaiming that the road was closed. Franklin claimed at the time that he and his neighbor, both of whom live next to the access site, were fed up with the noise and traffic at all hours of the night. They claimed that vehicles were speeding and parking in the roadway blocking driveways and gates, that garbage was being left behind, firewood stolen from off their property, that there were sanitary problems at the site, and rudeness from the public when they tried to intervene to correct the situation.

A preliminary settlement agreement was arrived at between FWP and the landowners on March 21, 2007 in which the landowners agreed not to obstruct public access to the site "as long as progress is being made in resolving all issues identified by the parties." FWP agreed to order signs to inform the public of the limited resources for motor homes and boat launching at the Poker Joe Access Site, 'no parking' signs for the private portion of the access road, signs delineating the parking area, a sign for an on-site information map including boundaries, and a sign to identify Ted and Melodee Franklin's property as 'private property.' The agency also agreed to place speed bumps and study the need for additional dust abatement and to place a portable toilet facility at the site and maintain it from April 1 to September 30.

That settlement agreement has now begun to unravel. According to the affidavit of FWP Regional Supervisor Mack Long, a call was received from Dan Saunders on Monday, August 20, stating that several cars had been vandalized at the Poker Joe Fishing Access Site the preceding weekend and that he was going to close access to the site once again. The next day Long and Region Two Warden Captain Jeff Darrah visited the site and found no barrier blocking access. But the following morning, on August 22, on his way to work, Darrah found the access blocked by a ribbon. The following day it was reported that a sign had been placed on Simpson Lane reading "Road Closed Ahead." A second sign near a bridge over a small channel of the river read "No Trespassing." At that time, no ribbon blocked the road.

"The Department has not closed the Poker Joe Fishing Access Site," wrote Long in his affidavit, "but we do not have enough personnel to constantly monitor the site for signs and barricades. Whether the tape is across Simpson Lane or not, I feel that the public's right to access Poker Joe is threatened."

Long claims in his affidavit that FWP has lived up to its end of the settlement bargain.

FWP purchased the property in 1973 as a 13 -acre lot in the Florentine Acres Subdivision that bordered the river. The property was initially developed as a fishing access site in the spring of 1978. FWP has done two studies of the traffic on the road accessing the site. The studies were prompted by local landowners' complaints about the dust. In the 1999 study 30 percent of the traffic on the road was determined to be accessing the Poker Joe site. A second study done following complaints in 2006 determined that 36 percent of the traffic on the road was accessing the Poker Joe Site. The rest of the traffic, in both cases, was traffic accessing other properties.

"Right now," said FWP attorney Bill Schenk, "we are telling people that we do not consider the site closed. But we are also advising people to be careful and avoid any problems with the local landowners."

The Franklins disagree.

"We're closing her up," said Ted Franklin, in a telephone interview Monday. "This is private property. We'll have a gate up by the end of the week."

Franklin said that five cars were broken into in the past few weeks and they are concerned about their safety.

"We've had gunshots, fights, drinking, it's not a real nice situation," said Franklin. "There are loose dogs, people getting stuck, having health emergencies and we can't get law enforcement down here."

Franklin claims that FWP agents have the right to visit the subdivision lot that the agency purchased, but that the public has no right. He said that he believes he is right because the agency is currently trying to get him to sign a lease for public access.

"Why would they need a lease agreement if it is already public?" he asks. He said that the homeowners built and own the road, that it is a private road, and that it is going to be closed permanently.

Page One •	Valley News •	Op/Ed •	Sports •	Calendar •	Classifieds •	Links •	About Us •	Back Issues •	Email Us •	Home
©2006 Bitterroot Star This site was Done By Dooney