HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-09-18 Margie Williams 3
Charlene Way
From:Margie Williams <margie.g.williams23@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, September 18, 2025 1:31 AM
To:City Clerk; Sonya Allen
Cc:Kate Bartles: Attorney
Subject:Subject: Correction to Record – Easements, Access, and Staff Misstatements (Cherry
Blossom East, H-2025-0030)
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Dear City Clerk,
Please enter the following correction into the record for the August 21, 2025 Planning & Zoning hearing on
Cherry Blossom East (H-2025-0030).
Key statements in the minutes:
Staff (Bill): “…this development is really benefiting the properties to the south. It’s also bringing a
fire hydrant 300 feet in that doesn’t currently exist for those properties. So, in the event of a fire
they would have access to water now.”
Staff (Bill): “…they only built an 11-foot driveway. So, they could widen their driveway and make it
meet Fire Department standards. So, it’s on them to correct that issue, not the City. … So, it’s not
this applicant’s issue to resolve, that can be resolved very easily by those two properties that take
access from that easement currently today.”
Staff (Bill): “…if we can have the applicant come forward with an application that says we worked
with the neighbors, we figured out the water easement issue… the PI issue… we have the access
issue figured out now… I think that’s going to go better for them in front of City Council.”
Commissioner Rust: “…the developer … kind of took the position that they are not going to pay for
something that they don’t have to do and they are already going to be providing something of
benefit to those three homes to the south.”
Correction for the record:
Hydrant/turnaround are not “benefits.” These are required improvements for the Cherry Blossom
East subdivision only. They do not provide legal access or compensation to existing homes.
Burden is on the applicant. Idaho Code § 50-1331 and the Unified Development Code require the
applicant to demonstrate compliant access and fire protection within the plat. Staff’s statement
that “it’s on them \[neighbors\] to correct that issue” is legally incorrect.
Misrepresentation of responsibility. Staff’s statement that “it’s not this applicant’s issue to
resolve” improperly shifts the applicant’s legal burden onto adjacent homeowners.
1
Optics vs. compliance. Advising that it will “go better before Council” if the applicant appears to
work with neighbors does not cure legal deficiencies. Plat approval must be based on
compliance, not appearances.
Compensation excused. The minutes show both staff and a commissioner framing the
applicant’s required improvements as a reason he should not have to compensate neighbors.
This is factually false and, if relied upon, constitutes approval based on misstatements.
Access rights undervalued. The applicant obtained an easement from a neighboring property
owner for a fraction of its fair market value — well below the typical $30,000–$50,000 range for a
permanent 20-foot access easement. This was not an arms-length negotiation but was secured
under the threat of litigation. Access rights cannot be treated as “available” without just
compensation.
Misuse of the 30-foot easement. Staff suggested neighbors could or should open the entire 30-
foot easement corridor to cure the applicant’s deficiencies. That easement runs through
established yards, fencing, and landscaping that were never intended for roadway use. Requiring
neighbors to tear up their yards to serve a new subdivision would constitute a taking without just
compensation.
Misrepresentation of width / self-created hardship. The applicant repeatedly claims to have 20
feet of access. In fact, the power pole reduces the usable width to approximately 19 feet. Fire
code (IFC 503) and UDC standards require 20 feet of clear, unobstructed width. A recorded
easement dimension does not cure a physical deficiency. Because the applicant overbuilt and
blocked his own access, this is a self-created hardship. Variances cannot lawfully be granted to
excuse self-inflicted code violations, particularly not for fire safety.
Final Correction:
The record must reflect that staff statements misapplied the law by treating required improvements as
“benefits,” shifting responsibility onto neighbors, excusing the applicant from compensation, and
ignoring the fact that the applicant does not have a compliant 20-foot access. If the City relies on these
misstatements to approve the plat, it is effectively condoning a taking of private property to benefit a
developer. Such action would be arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, and subject
to reversal on appeal.
Respectfully,
2
Marjorie Williams
1251 NW 4th St.
Meridian, ID 83642
3