Volume XX, Number 41

Wednesday, May 11, 2005

Page One News at a Glance

Stevi's E. 2nd residents don't want subdivision connection

DNRC considers state land swap; Sula forest lands affected

Fourth Grade Farm Fair held

Stevi's E. 2nd residents don't want subdivision connection

By Michael Howell

The Stevensville City Council decided Monday evening to require the developer of Creekside Meadows Addition to hold a public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Board of Adjustments to gain approval of planned changes in the order in which they construct phases of the subdivision. The developer, Ellison Development Company, proposes to change the 35-lot phase 5, originally scheduled to be the last phase of the subdivision, to be phase 2 and construct it next. The proposal has raised again the thorny question about the fate of East 2nd Street, an unimproved road which dead ends adjacent to the proposed development.

Gilbert Larson, of Professional Consultants Inc., who represents the developer, came to the Town Council last month asking for a letter from the town stating that the proposed improvements are within the town limits and therefore within the service area for the Stevensville water and sewer facilities. He also asked the Town to execute a municipal exclusion form as required by the Department of Environmental Quality. The provision of these two items would allow the developer to initiate the review process required before developing another phase of the subdivision.

Larson also explained that the current plan was to shift phase 5 of the proposed subdivision forward in the process and do it next as phase 2. That would mean developing 35 lots in the northwest portion of the subdivision that is near the dead end of E. 2nd Street and raised the question, put off during the annexation process, of whether the subdivision road serving the 35 lots should end in a cul-de-sac or continue or connect with E. 2nd Street.

At that meeting, according to unofficial minutes, Arlo Ellison complained that delays over water and sewer questions were holding up the works and he was suffering financially from the delays.

The Town Council and Mayor advised that a public hearing might be required and they suggested that a neighborhood meeting with residents along E. 2nd Street might be a good idea.

The neighborhood meeting was held at the town hall and Larson addressed about a dozen people concerning the effects of developing the next phase of the subdivision.

Larson assured those gathered that the change in order of the development phases was the only change proposed. He said that it is the same number of lots and subdivision design and the only thing being changed was the order of the phases. He said that the Town Council must approve the change in the order of phases and he was there that evening to discuss its impacts upon residents of E. 2nd Street and discuss their choices.

Larson said that three options concerning 2nd Street present themselves and that the developer has no preference for any one of them.

The first option he called the "null option" which means the subdivision road would end in a cul-de-sac and E. 2nd Street would remain as it is, an undeveloped dead end road.

The second option would be to connect the subdivision road to E. 2nd Street but leave E. 2nd Street as it is, an undeveloped gravel road.

The third option would be to connect to E. 2nd Street and begin improvements on the road, such as dust abatement or paving.

Residents of E. 2nd Street in attendance made it plain that they are not interested in connecting to the subdivision and are not interested in improving their road at the present time. Questions of jurisdiction and ownership of the road have plagued the considerations to date. The Town claims no ownership of the road. Some or all of it may be owned by the County but a portion may not and may be privately owned. No final answer has yet been arrived at.

After clarifying the E. 2nd Street residents' view rejecting connection of the road and improving it, Larson asked the group how they felt about the change in order of the phases.

"The question of connecting to E. 2nd Street is in your hands," Larson told the residents, but how do you feel about the change in the order of the phases, he asked them. "Should I wear my flak jacket, tomorrow night, before the planning and zoning committee?"

"Yes, wear your flack jacket," was the unanimous response.

Larson reiterated the reasons that he gave to the residents of E. 2nd Street for changing the order of the phases being developed. He said that during construction of phase 1, the location of sewer ad water mains had been altered so that they fell within phase 5 and could provide water and sewer to 13 of the proposed 35 lots. This makes it easier and cheaper to develop that phase. He said that originally the Ellisons had wanted to preserve that area as pasture, but that due to a change in agricultural practices the pasture was no longer required. He said that, in part, it was market driven, as people have been expressing an interest in those lots.

Town attorney Art Graham stated that a public hearing would be required to make such a change.

Building inspector Bob McCormick said that he was concerned that the subdivision, once phase 1 and 2 were built out, would result in a long road ending in a dead end cul-de-sac. He said that the Town's Growth Policy advised against it.

Larson disagreed, arguing that a cul-de-sac road is not measured back to the county road but to the first loop road in the subdivision and thus was not too long.

McCormick stated that other changes were also made in the plat affecting other phases of the subdivision.

Larson expressed some frustration saying that these types of changes are usually not considered significant.

"I apologize," said Larson. "I am trying to respond to a foreign process. I have never been back before a planning and zoning committee for changes like this."

He said phase 1 of the subdivision had not generated enough money to make a conservation easement, for tax relief, worthwhile.

"It hurts me to hear Arlo come down here and say he feels like he's been gut shot," said Larson.

The developer has projected selling 20 lots per year in both phase 1 and phase 2, but has only sold 11 lots in phase 1 and eight homes have been built.

However, despite the heavy flack from residents of E. 2nd Street, the planning and zoning committee decided it was not opposed to changing the schedule of the phases.

At Monday's Town Council meeting Larson reiterated the reasons for changing the order of the phases being developed.

Town attorney Art Graham reiterated his opinion that the change was substantial enough to require a public hearing. He said that things other than the order of phases had been changed such as right-of-ways into the common area. He said that the changes amounted to an amended plat and needed to go before a public hearing. McCormick reiterated his concerns about the de facto dead end road that was too long to meet requirements.

The Council agreed with the attorney in a 3 to 1 vote and set a date of June 13 before the Board of Adjustments for a public hearing regarding the proposed changes.

DNRC considers state land swap; Sula forest lands affected

By Michael Howell

The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) State Land Trust Division is considering a land swap that would involve giving up claim to 800 acres of land in the Sula State Forest in exchange for the addition of 1,460 acres of land into the state forest land base near Lincoln.

According to Tony Liane, of DNRC, the idea of a land exchange involving the Sula State Forest land, located in the French Basin area south of Darby, was first considered back in 1999 when adjacent landowner John Miller made a proposal to DNRC to exchange land elsewhere for the 800 acres of state land adjoining his Shining Mountain Ranch.

"At that time we were not interested in the land that was being offered in exchange," said Liane. But the recent sale of a large portion of land in the Lincoln area precipitated a deal that the DNRC found more enticing. Plum Creek sold a substantial amount of land in the Lincoln area to the Nature Conservancy, according to Liane, that fits well with the existing state forest land in the area.

The Nature Conservancy hoped to turn the land over to control by the state. The proposed scenario would be for Miller to purchase the land near Lincoln and trade it to the DNRC for the land adjoining his ranch in Ravalli County.

Liane said that scoping meetings were held last fall for public input and analysis. He said that the results were some pros and cons. One drawback is the loss of hunting opportunities in the Sula area but it increase recreational opportunity a great deal in the Lincoln area, he said.

DNRC submitted its proposal to the State Land Board, which would make any final decision, and received permission in April to further explore the possibility. As a result DNRC has initiated the Montana Environmental Policy Act procedures for analyzing the deal. A contractor has already been hired to do the analysis of public issues, access issues, wildlife and land ownership issues involved in the trade. Liane said that the MEPA analysis may be finished by June after which public hearings will be scheduled in both Lewis and Clark County and Ravalli County. After that the DNRC would prepare a final recommendation on whether to proceed with the trade or not. Liane said the DNRC hoped to get a recommendation to the Land Board by year's end.

As part of its efforts at including the public in the process, DNRC has recently held two tours of the affected areas in both counties. The first tour was in response to concerns raised by Ravalli County Senator Jim Shockley. Shockley had expressed incredulity at the appraised value of the Sula Forest land. Accompanying Shockley on the tour was retired DNRC unit manager from the area, Mark Lewing.

The Ravalli County Commissioners toured the Sula Forest land on Monday.

Both Shockley and Lewing questioned the appraised value for the Sula Forest land at $1,100 per acre. They both called that amount "ridiculous." Shockley said that having both properties appraised by people hired by the landowner who wants to swing the deal also raised some questions. Lewing expressed concern about the loss of hunting ground to Ravalli County hunters and said that it may also affect access to remaining state lands.

"It doesn't look like we're getting a good deal," said Lewis.

Greg Chilcott, chairman of the Ravalli County Commission, said that from the county's point of view it was not a good deal.

"There are two perspectives here," said Chilcott. "The State Land Trust is looking for a good business deal to increase the trust's value. The state land trust may be making money on this deal, but Ravalli County is losing public access recreational property that I don't think we can replace." Chilcott called the value added to the county tax roles by the 800 acres, "not very significant" compared to what was being lost.

Liane described the 800 acres of Sula Forest land as consisting of 300 acres of grassland and 500 acres of timber that was mostly burnt and salvaged already. He said it comprised 7 percent of the Sula State Forest lands. He said that the lands being gained in the Lincoln area total 1,460 acres with 60 acres of grassland and 1,400 acres of timber. He said that some of the timber was merchantable, but most was in young regrowth. He said that the current standing merchantable timber in each area was similar but that the Lincoln area land held a considerably higher future value due to all the young trees. He said the land exchange would produce three times the timber for the trust.

Liane said that the purpose of the trust was to support common schools, public buildings, and schools for the deaf and blind. The land given to the state trust is to be used to fund those institutions.

He said that the deal would remove 800 acres in Ravalli County from public access, but he denied that it would limit access to the remaining 93 percent of the Sula State Forest land. "Access to the remaining areas may be more difficult and take longer," said Liane, "but access to the remaining lands is there."

Liane also addressed questions about the appraised value of the land, saying that other properties that have sold in the area are along the county road or one half mile from the county road, while access to the 800 acres of state land was 10 miles from the county road.

"It affected the appraisal value," said Liane. But Liane also said, "We believe our land is worth more than that." And, according to Liane, the state is getting more than that for the land. He said the final proposal involves receiving $2,500 per acre for the land in the exchange. He also cautioned that appraised values that depend on recent land sales are always changing on any given day.

Fourth Grade Farm Fair held

By Michael Howell

The 13th annual Fourth-Grade Farm Fair was a rousing success as fourth graders from all over the valley descended upon the Meyer family farm to learn more about life on a farm and everything that goes into producing agricultural products for the market place.

The idea grew out of a program initiated by local farmer and school teacher Jay Meyer about 20 years ago. At that time Meyer worked to integrate a learning program about agriculture into his fourth grade class curriculum. The aim was to reconnect students with the realities involved in producing the agricultural products that lined the grocery store shelves and then ended up on the family dining table.

It wasn't long before Meyer realized the value of field trips to the "place of production." These field trips eventually morphed into the valleywide Farm Fair hosted each year by Jay and Colleen Meyer on the ranch up the Burnt Fork east of Stevensville.

The event has grown into a monstrous affair, this year involving close to 450 students and over 200 volunteers.

The students are divided into groups and tour the farm visiting 16 different stations of interest where they learn how to braid twine, how to shoe a horse, and rope a steer. They learn how to care for cattle, sheep, rabbits, and other animals. They also learn about growing vegetables and fruits. They learn how water is used for irrigation and how farm machinery works. They learn about 4-H and FFA. And they learn about how it all interconnects.

Judging by the smiles on all the faces, learning about farms can be a lot of fun.