A good time

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's 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 million 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 it's fate.

At the May 3 Kootenai Lodge "public meeting," the board allowed the "public" only one half hour of testimony.

With more than 100 people in the room in opposition—do the math! No one can express their concerns in such a short time. To add insult to injury, the commissioner held up his finger to signal when your time was over.

It was obvious the commissioner missed many points due to the fact he was so preoccupied with our time allotment.

The Milhous Group, however, was allowed as much time as they wanted—apparently the commissioner's finger was tired.

Growth is inevitable, but it should be regulated using a fair and democratic process. 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

Get involved

What hath the real estate community wrought?

The sweet little village of Bigfork is being devoured by realtors and their offices.

Yes, our community is experiencing "boom times," but this real estate activity reminds me of sharks swimming toward the scent of blood.

The real estate professionals seem to have little or no concept of exactly what makes our village unique. It is not real estate offices.

Gone are some of our swee-test boutiques and bronze stores and the beauty shop (aka Steel Magnolias, Bigfork).

And remember the Wild Bird Store? Can the bookstore be far behind? Try to envision "Real Estate Central" in our little three-block town.

We'd have "big-box" real estate offices and maybe a real estate mall and a showroom featuring a scale-model of condos for sale where the Kootenai used to be.

And we say, "What happened?" We must educate and enlighten ourselves on the world of planning and preservation and yes, urban sprawl.

Elected officials in Lake and Flathead counties are making significant decisions about development that will impact our valley forever.

Volunteer planning groups log hundreds of hours struggling with variances and protests and potential litigation.Think Jackson Hole or Lake Tahoe. Yes, our property values are rising. That can be a good thing but not at the cost of losing so much of why we came here and what we love about being here.

A group of citizens in Bigfork is updating the master plan that was created about 12 years ago.

Did you return the questionnaire sent to all property owners last month?

Support their efforts and, if possible, get involved in this most important process.

Let us try to salvage the quaint and charming atmosphere that was Bigfork, Montana.

Nancy Idler

Bigfork

No support for condos

Debi and I appreciate the opportunity to express some of our thoughts and to clarify some issues that have recently been raised in the press regarding the sale and potential development of the Kootenai Lodge property.

We currently have our Kootenai Lodge property under a contract of sale with the Milhous Group.

We are not a part of the Milhous Group. The closing is scheduled to occur prior to June 15, 2005.

When we entered into the contract of sale we were not aware of any plans the potential buyer, The Milhous Group, had to develop the project as is currently proposed.

We first became aware of the proposed project and subdivision application when a neighbor brought over a letter and plat map for the "Historic Kootenai Lodge Condominiums" that had been sent to him by Lake County.

Debi and I were shocked and saddened.

Debi and I do not support the currently proposed project.

Contrary to many public statements that have been made recently, Debi and I have done significant refurbishment over the past fifteen years of our ownership.

The Kootenai Lodge is in excellent condition as evidenced by the following statement in a letter to one of the Lake County Commissioners on April 14, 2005.

Sarah Hansen, Program Officer of the National Trust for Historic Preservation states:

"A site visit just yesterday made clear that these buildings are structurally sound and in impeccable shape and that the plans to demolish several structures are unfounded and unnecessary."

Debi and I are both grateful and proud to have been the owners of Kootenai Lodge for over 15 years.

We feel strongly that any future development of the property must preserve its legacy.

For more information, please log on to our website www.KootenaiLodge.com

Mark Rolfing, Owner

Kootenai Lodge

Bigfork