Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetters from Citizens Testimony concerning proposed Black Rock Castle Greens Sub-division on Eagle Road between Lake Hazel and Amity Roads By: Barbara Fulcher 5215 S. Eagle Road Meridian, ID 83642 -R,E~ (--; ]j~ ]."\l~F;r) FEB 0 8 2007 City Of Meridian CitY Clerk Office BACKGROUND The Fulcher family has owned this property since 1920. My husband has personally farmed and cared for this land for 60 of his 78 years. He is no longer physically able to farm and it was necessary for us to decide our future. We had several offers and decided to sell to the personal representative of a development company because we had personal ties with the representative. We felt we were friends. The plan as reported to us was: They were only interested in the property on the adjoining hill side. The rest of the land would remain farm land for 15 years. This was the LAW. However, we were told if the sewer and water were to come this way their plan was to build a sub-division comparable to Banbury on Chinden and Eagle. We sold at a ridiculous low price to secure our future with the easiest transition which was packed with emotion and sentiment. REALITY The land was sold to Hubble Homes and we were presented with the current development plan. We understand the water and sewer was extended a short distance at the expense of Hubble. I have read through all the testimony of the sewer capacity problems* concerning the application for Black Rock sub-division on the hill. I understand all the pros and cons when the council was threatened with the advent of United Water. My understanding is very limited on such subjects, but I can't help but ask the question if capacity was limited how can they service 644 new homes? It seems to me that the developers are patterning a sub-division as if this were a New York City where the lack of space determines such a density for housing. Here we are on the outskirts of Meridian and have wide open spaces where we could have a beautiful development which would lend itself to healthy, happy living. OUR RIGHTS As the seller of said land I realize we have no rights to determine what is done with the land. However, as adjoining property owners we must protest to the fact that this is in no way compatible with the existing land use in this area. We have a single dwelling on 6 acres, our son has a single dwelling on 1 1/2 acres. Both of these parcels are adjacent to the planned development. I cannot give accurate information on other land touching the Hubble property. However, the only planned sub-division in this square mile has been put together by the same rep to which we sold our land and forms the contiguous line which enables an annexation. We are out of the impact zone. One quarter mile to the north we have single dwelling houses on 10 acre parcels. One-half mile to the north Kingsbridge is offering 3/4 acre lots. Crossing Amity to the south we are still open area farm land and are zoned RR. "-- --------.- Also, there are beautiful homes on the bluff overlooking this planned development. IF Castle Greens is approved, I can only see plummeting valuation and deep disappointment to the existing land owners.. FUTURE When I look beyond the effect this development is having on us, I see disastrous results. I realize the annexation problems of sewer, water, services, taxes, etc. have to be left up to the professionals. But as a mother and a grandmother I feel extremely qualified to comment on healthy living conditions. We have visited and toured existing Hubble Developments. They appear as two story boxes that have small windows, no lawns, and narrow alley access to garages. They are stacked side by side like blocks. Children coming home from school will be forced to enter their box, called home, probably without parental supervision because usually both parents work. They will have a filthy TV, Video games, and Computers (which open the window to vile living). They cannot throw a ball, have a garden, play with a puppy, even have a trampoline in the space provided by this developer. I know you cannot make a blanket statement covering all, but it provides perfect breeding grounds for juvenile delinquency. Families are forced to go outside the home for entertainment, because of the lack of room. This means, bicycles, motorcycles, boats, RVs, and trailors for transport. Where is the storage? There isn't even a culdesacin this plan. I fear for the longev~1f 2f ~e~e _ho~es and that if this sub-divsion is approved this council will be setting up t1f~omortow. At the age of my husband and myself we will witness this development taking place. (Not too sunny for our twilight years.) But I'm afraid Meridian will pay a terrible consequence in the future. We now have a beautiful wide-open space where the right plan could provide a healthy atmosphere for growth. I plead with you please do not set up a situation that will only develop into ~he l (, ~J:UJ.l ~ within a few short years. fJrtJ b le,)?16' +~"" me-i-t-dllt *Meridian City Council June 7, 2006 P.26 J ~ J/1/tJC~d [)o-# ;fd' ;:. 'J^ v" odd ,,__ ()d~"o~ AJ j CZ-'-?' - - bi-l c:U /' g/ S b q 2-,-- FoR. pq. Z CoM MI '5 SIVA.) C I'T"'I CO (,L(\.J C,l L ((&....-gLAC~l?oc ~ C4'$TLb GRr5'f:1VS BACKGROUND 1. This property has been in the Fulcher family since 1920, We are the 3rd generation and my grandchildren are the 5th. 2. The property was sold with promises that were never honored, A The plan was to cluster houses on the hill. The rest of the property was to be left in fann land for 10 to 15 years, That was the LAW, B, At the end of that time, or if the sewer & water would arrive, which ever came first, a sub-division would be developed similar to Banbury (on Chinden & Eagle), 3, Family situation at that time: We were no longer able to farm this property. It seemed like a pleasant transition, We sold at a very low price to accomplish this, 4. We maintained 6 acres, This was a natural division of the property by the Ten Mile Drain. REALITY 1. The initial buyer immediately sold the land to Hubble Homes. IMP ACT ON US L This totally reduces the value of the Gale Fulcher property. 2, It will destroy any rights on the Scott Fulcher property which lies across the Ten Mile Drain and is adjacent to the Hubble property, Originally they said they needed the 1-1/3 acres belonging to Scott Fulcher to extend the <'green belt" along the Ten Mile Drain to the highway. Even though they were in the midst of dealing on this land they suddenly called the deal off stating they no longer needed that land because they had been approved, since they had paid for the extension of the sewer and water, Now they were free to go around the Fulcher property. This destroys any rights Scott Fulcher may have for any future use. 3. This determines the Ada County Slums in view of the future, diminishing the value of the Gale Fulcher property even more. 4, It sentences us to at least 5 to 10 years (I really don't know) of development, dirt, mud, noise, trucks, concrete, traffic, etc. AND a lifetime of living in a slum environment, (This is probably our twilight years. It is not a sunny outlook.) 5, The traffic will be unbearable. such a load. The highways will not be able to accommodate RECEIVED JAN 2 ~j 1.007 CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY CLERK OFFICE f44i I eft J QUESTIONS 1, I understand the law giving the city authority to annex land beyond their impact zone if there was a connection forming a contiguous line with another subdivision. 2. This is a very questionable and poorly written law which balances on a judgement call. I know that Kuna has used that law in order to build their water-sewer system. I also know they were highly criticized stating that they, indeed, followed the law but totally without ethics, 3. Now Meridian is following the same pattern to gain a Hubble Development????? 4. Why would Meridian want to encourage a development like this???? IMPACT ON AD;,. OOUNiY (!..,;1y af }J1ef.'dt411 1. These kind of developments are depleted oflawns: I am assuming since this will be low income housing that young families will be purchasing, This means children. There is no play area. So, children are confined to living indoors. There will be no place to throw a ball, gardens, pets, not even chores. It only allows the child to come home from school, go into his little box, and be alone with TV s, computers, videos, etc" etc, The planned parks won't begin to accommodate the children in such a development. 2. Let us look at those parks: They are snuggled in the midst of houses. Using a practical realistic view, these houses are empty during the day time, After all, both parents work, These parks are entirely out of the public view. (Look at Storey Park, It is out in the open where it is in full view of traffic,) It would be more obvious if a child was in danger. (We do have Joseph Duncans.) 3. There is no storage: Because of lack of space people will be forced to seek entertainment outside the home. This means bicycles, motorcycles, R V s, snowmobiles, etc, etc. Where will they store them? 4. The density is absurd: It only benefits one person and that is the developer. There isn't even a culdesac_ After it is established and money is in the pocket, the neighbors will have to live with it and the developer is long gone. 5, Developers copy "big city" problems and bring them to us: We now have a beautiful open space. It could be developed in an attractive manner beneficial to all. It could be made conducive to healthy living by building a healthy community environment. As it has been presented it will only create a multitude of problems, / 6. I can see no good in this development except for the developer, b;iei~ IIJ.s/'J-007 f1 ~~. '1< J7,~cr: ~ ;, /,J1 ~ ([ t#. ' f(2{? j BtL~. , LJ' ~ r Au"" J. fJF'd- 9 () I ~ p-.~ I J b I()/ ~ % 'f' ')2 (<<["-' ULACt<(U)cK CA-.STt~ 6~C),-1 S \", ,.';, ,~"': ~~; ~ . ~...- ~--V:'/ ; BACKGROUND 1, This property has been in the Fulcher family since 1920. 2. The property was sold with promises that were never honored, a. The plan was to cluster houses on the hill. The rest of the property was to be left in farm land for 10 to 15 years. That was the LAW. b. At the end of that time a sub~division would be develeoped similar to Banbury (on ~~ Chin den & Eagle) ,,",,- " 3. Family situation at that time. We were no longer able to farm this property. It seemed like a \, pleasant transition. 4. We maintained 6 acres. This was a natural division ofthe property by the Ten Mile Drain, J> ;:~ ".,-:;::;:' ---. I" I " ~ A~ l-~~Zl' !.,C-.' 'I - '.. l_"': . , ,I '~ , ;.~;::,::: ~:":j "="1 REALITY I. The initial buyer immediately sold the land to Hubble Homes. QUESTIONS I. Since this property is zoned RR (Rural Residential), how can Hubble Homes plan and plat a developement with an R8 zoning on county land? 2, Why do they not have to abide by the LAW of open fann land with clustered houses on the hill? 3. How can the city of Meridian supercede authority over the county to authorize this developement? 4. How can a City Council, whom we never elected have jurisdiction over property outside their impact line? IMP ACT ON US 1. It will totally reduce the value of our property. 2. They have assumed that they will be approved. Thus they do not want the acre belonging to Scott Fulcher and have refused to deal with him on it. He was told their "green belt" could be routed around his property. This will leave him with no value at all since he will be sandwiched in their development, but with no rights, 3. This determines the Ada County Slums in view of the future, diminishing the value of our property even more. 4. It sentences us to at least 5 to 10 yearn ( 1 really don't know) of development, dirt, mud, noise, trucks, concrete, traffic,etc. This is probably our twilight years. It is not a sunny outlook IMPACT ON ADA COUNTY 1. These kind of developments are depleted of lawns. I am assuming since these will be low income housing that young families will be purchasing them. This means children. There are no lawns, no play area. This means that these children are going to be reared in doors with computers, T. V,s, DVDs, etc. There will be no place for play, gardens, pets, not even chores, The planned parks won't begin to accomadate the children of such a development. Public parks are not safe unless supervised. It is O.K. for a supervised party but useless for 7/24. This accounts for a lot of juvenile delinquency--------too much time and not enough to do, 2. There is no storage. Because of the lack of space people will be forced to have toys such as motorcycles, bicycles, R. V.s, snowmobiles, etc, etc. Where will they store them? 3. The density is absurd. It only benefits one person and that is the developer. After it is put in everyone else can suffer because they are far gone. There are not even any culdesacs. 4. Developers copy "big city" problems and bring them to us. We now have a beautiful open space. It could be developed in an attractive manner beneficial to all. It could be made conducive to healthy living building a healthy community. As it has been presented it will only add problems -----~-~-~~not solve any. &./- k / / . ..... .~. . / ~;;;;!d~ I "f.-"-{//..,.{J- ttd N .. I - I ' "b Ff<f'~bbJf3