HomeMy WebLinkAboutCraig P BrownSeptember 11, 2018
Attn. Planning Director, City Attorney, City Council
From: Craig Brown
7524 S. Locust Grove, Meridian, ID.
RE: Development Agreement: City of Meridian & L&G Murgoitio
This letter is written with the express purpose of representing my opposition to:
1). The current Development Agreement (DA) dated January 26, 2016 between the City of Meridian and
L & G Murgoitio, LLC.
2). The proposed amendment to the above Development Agreement.
I currently reside at 7524 South Locust Grove, Meridian Idaho, directly across S. Locust Grove and east of
the current Timbercreek operation. Our property currently falls within the Meridian impact area and is
subject to the current Meridian Comprehensive Plan and future annexation and R4 zoning.
My family and I have resided at this location for 25 years, having acquired 17 acres of agricultural land
from the Percy/ Murgoitio family, where we have built our primary residence and have farmed, raised
horses, cattle and most importantly, a family. We have been blessed to have had two family weddings in
our backyard and a granddaughter born in our house. To say that we are attached to this home and
what it means to our family now and into the future would be an understatement as it represents years
of commitment, hard work, blood sweat and tears and most importantly, our home. In addition, our
property represents a significant part of our future financial wellbeing as it is well positioned for
development potential now and into the future.
The Timbercreek operation has adversely impacted our rights to quiet enjoyment and put into jeopardy
future development of our land, creating a very tangible financial impact to property values. Expansion
will cause further negative impact to those rights and a resulting loss of land value.
1. Opposition to current Development Agreement. The following are key issues which support and
establish my opposition to the original DA.
• Improper Annexation and Conflict of Interest.
It is widely known that the City of Meridian has been in a race to establish its' area of impact
and block further expansion of the City of Kuna. In order to achieve this, Meridian made an
aggressive move to annex large portions of land to the south to Columbia Rd. To achieve this,
the City engaged with two entities, Murgoitio and Brighton Corp to accomplish this objective.
The City of meridian allowed annexation when there are no utility services available. Further,
the City bypassed other landowners and parcels which could have been a part of a more
comprehensive and open annexation process. When we inquired about possible annexation of
our property as it is now adjoining annexed parcels, P&Z staff advised there would be no
advantage to us and in fact would not be supported until services can be provided.
o If this is the case why would the city annex the subject site?
Development Agreement: City of Meridian & L&G Murgoitio
Page 2
Improper Annexation and Conflict of Interest- cont'd.
o I assert that the city annexed based upon a quid pro quo scenario structured around the
opportunity for a land grab and to create the original Development Agreement which
would provide a profitable opportunity to Murgoitio and a recycle operation that would
o be used by the city. This scenario is completely self-serving on the part of the city and an
inconsistent standard as it would relate to other property owners who are in the City of
Meridian impact area. This includes me!
o It is further known that the Murgoitio family has contractual connections with Brighton
Corp who the City provides special consideration which we believe has been afforded/
passed forward to Murgoitio. Again, this constitutes an inappropriate relationship for
the
City and provides for unjust enrichment to Murgoitio.
• Improper Notice and Violation of Open Meeting Laws
During the annexation process, the City provided notice of the proposed annexation to certain
property owners but not all owners that should have been notified. This is a known and
repeated problem that has occurred with the City of Meridian which has repeated itself during
the current amendment process. Further and even more important, the city failed to identify
and notify property owners that there would be a related Development Agreement that would
be a part of the annexation consideration. Knowledge of and or disclosure of any Development
Agreement did not become known to myself or any other adjoining property owner until there
was potential action related to an amendment. Because of this, no adjoining property owners
were provided the opportunity to object to the original Development Agreement (which I would
have) or afforded input.
Based upon the above and the fact that the City failed to provide proper notice and identify the
Development Agreement as a part of any agenda or identified "Action Item", I assert that the
City of Meridian has violated Idaho Statute; Title 74- Transparent and Ethical Government;
Chapter 2- Open Meetings Law. Section 74-208- Violations further provides that "if an action,
deliberation or decision-making that leads to an action, occurs at any meeting which fails to
comply with the provisions of this chapter, such action shall be null and void." Accordingly, this
would make the original Development Agreement invalid.
• Non -Conforming Use/ City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Annexation of the property places the zoning on the Murgoitio property as Low density
Residential R4. This zoning and use are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Prior to
annexation the property use was primarily an agricultural use. Allowance and continuation of
this use was a consideration under the Development Agreement. Since the DA went into effect,
Timber Creek has continued to significantly expand its' operation far beyond the use which was
contemplated by the DA., which violates the zoning standards and Comprehensive Plan.
As a result, the use and operation of this site is no longer an agricultural use but has become an
industrial use. The fact that Timber Creek is seeking an amendment to the original DA clearly
speaks to the fact that the use has expanded and changed. Expansion beyond intent of DA -
Industrial Use not Agriculture
Development Agreement: City of Meridian & L&G Murgoitio
Page 3
• Operations are an Industrial Use Not Agricultural Use
The expansion of the Timber Creek operation is not an Agricultural use but has become an
Industrial Use. Although there have been suggested definitions regarding this, there are very
specific and clear definitions as defined by the Department of Agriculture. It is my assertion that
those standards apply and if tested in Court would support an Industrial not Agriculture use.
Accordingly, this operation has gone far beyond the parameters of the zoning and allowed use.
• Lack of Performance Standards and Conditions for Enforcement
Because there was no opportunity for public input provided with the current DA, there are no
provisions for operational standards and enforcement. This has left the adjacent property
owners in an untenable situation with no recourse related to the negative impacts of noise, dust
smell, traffic, etc. It has been stated by the City staff that they are unaware of any complaints
which have been raised about this operation. This is a total lie. Since the DA went into effect
and Timber Creek has ramped up their operations, multiple complaints have been directed
toward the City. Responses by code enforcement has been that they are unable to do anything
because there are no clear conditions of operational standards. This is simply unacceptable and
a failure on the part of the City of Meridian to adequately protect the health, welfare and safety
of the residents adjoining this site.
2. Opposition to Proposed Amended Development Agreement
• Industrial Use not Agriculture
As noted above, the current operations are no longer an Agricultural Use but and Industrial Use.
Expansion to date and further expansion has and will trigger DEQ requirements which further
pushes this into an Industrial Use. This one factor alone must be a show stopper- period!
• City Position is Biased, Self- Serving and a Conflict of Interest
As previously noted above, the City has crossed the line. If the amendment is supported by the
City, this condition would be more clearly exposed and evident as the matter is taken in front of
District Court.
• Change should require a CUP
Although I believe that the original Development Agreement is not valid as noted above, most
certainly any amendments or changes, given the nature of the situation, should follow a
Conditional Use Permit process and not simply an amendment to a badly written document
Development Agreement: City of Meridian & L&G Murgoitio
Page 4
• Proposed amendment continues to lack appropriate mitigation and standards
My position is clearly stated that I do not support any amendment to the development
Agreement. That clearly stated; A new draft of the Amended Development Agreement was
shared with the adjoining property owners in a recent meeting conducted by Murgoitio. The
amendments and revisions do not address my and the neighbors' concerns and are
unacceptable. This includes:
o Abatement of Noise — A qualified acoustical study must be conducted. Not Mike simply
standing on site with a sound meter. Without a study, no qualified baselines have been
documented by which mitigation standards and their effectiveness can be measured. This
must be addressed with clear standards documented and enforced.
o Screening- no clear plan is provided other than some token gestures about planting some
berms and planting of trees. I am a licensed Architect and know what a landscape mitigation
plan is and should address including noise and visual abatement.
o Dust control- again no clear plan other than intent
o Fire protection- A significant fire at this location is not a matter of it but when. This is a
serious issue which requires a much broader and comprehensive plan to address including
how adjoining properties will be protected.
o Hours of Operation- 7AM to 6 PM is not reasonable. Saturday hours are also unreasonable.
o Traffic- This figure has bounced all over the place and keeps going up. Unacceptable.
o Duration of use -12 years -12 years is completely unreasonable and completely
unacceptable. My property currently falls within the City area of impact but is still within
Ada County. I am currently able to subdivide my land into 5- acre parcels. The value of those
parcels has been and will further be adversely impacted by Timber Creeks operation. 12
years is simply untenable and as such must be changed to no more than 5 years.
o Discontinuance of Operations- The proposed amendment continues to link discontinuance
of operations to building permits which are directly under the control of Murgoitio. This is
crazy as it places all of the control into their hands to determine if and when to shut down.
The adjoining property owners are left unprotected and damaged with this provision.
Additionally, the defined distance is currently tied to a moving object, the grinder. This is
ridiculous and must be established by the property lines and boundaries of the site.
o Transfer/ sale of operation- This provision expands the consideration of this use to others
and must be removed. Any sale of the property or entity must render any Development
Agreement null and void.
Development Agreement: City of Meridian & L&G Murgoitio
Page 5
As an Idahoan who has grown up in the country, an Architect and a certified LEED AP, I support and
embrace the concepts of renewable resources and recycling. The Timber Creek operation may be a good
business idea but it is not an appropriate use at this location. City Staff clearly recognizes the issues and
made a recommendation to City Council to deny the request at the last public hearing.
To act apart from this recommendation would be illogical given all of the facts.
For all of the reasons and issues outlined above, I am opposed to the current Development Agreement
and especially any amendments that might be contemplated.
I look to the City, it's staff and elected officials to act on this matter to protect my land use rights, rights
to a peaceful and safe environment and those rights of the other property owners impacted. Failure to
act accordingly will only escalate this matter into the Court system.
7Z;:Z
d,
Craig Brown
cc. Josh Leonard — Brian Webb Legal, Derek Pica — Attorney at Law