HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-11-05 Margie Williams
Charlene Way
From:Margie Williams <margie.g.williams23@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 5, 2025 8:00 AM
To:Sonya Allen; City Clerk; Steven Taulbee; Steven OBrien; CityAttorney; Fire
Cc:Doug Taylor; Kate Bartles: Attorney
Subject:Subject: H-2025-0030 Cherry Blossom East — Request for Postponement; Fire-
Access/UDC Violations; Record Corrections
External Sender - Please use caution with links or attachments.
Dear Ms. Allen and Members of the Planning & Zoning Commission,
For inclusion in the public record of H-2025-0030 (Cherry Blossom East), I respectfully request that the
November 6, 2025 hearing be postponed until the applicant demonstrates compliance with the Meridian
UDC, the International Fire Code (IFC), and Idaho Code § 67-6511 and § 67-6519.
Update Based on November 6 Staff Report
The staff report states the Cherry Blossom East access easement is “separate” from the existing
southern easement serving 1251 NW 4th Street, yet recommends no fence “to allow more room for
emergency vehicle maneuverability” on the abutting southern properties. That language shows the
proposed fire access depends on maneuvering across private property the applicant does not control.
Because UDC § 11-6C-3(E)(4)(a) and IFC § 503 require a 20-ft unobstructed fire-access width within the
applicant’s own easement, the record is internally inconsistent and cannot support approval until
corrected.
Correction of Staff Report Errors — Idaho Code § 67-6511; UDC § 11-6B-5(C)
The staff report’s assertions that “issues have been resolved” and that “access easements have been
verified to not conflict” are unsupported. There is no recorded cross-access, no fire-apparatus
turnaround within the applicant’s property, and no City Engineer approval verifying a 20-ft unobstructed
fire lane. Findings must be based on competent evidence in the record (Idaho Code § 67-6511; UDC § 11-
6B-5(C)).
1
1) Fire-Access Violations — IFC § 503.2.1 & § 503.2.5; UDC § 11-6C-3(E)(4)(a)
• Driveway length ≈ 370 ft (>150-ft threshold) with no fire-apparatus turnaround shown (IFC § 503.2.5).
• Three Idaho Power poles obstruct the required 20-ft width within the Fusselman easement (entrance
SE corner, SW corner, near the pump-house area).
• Staff/FIRE acceptance relies on removing the separation fence to allow maneuvering on the southern
private properties. Compliance must exist inside the applicant’s easement; dependence on adjacent
land violates IFC/UDC.
Lack of Documented Fire Approval — Idaho Code § 67-6511; UDC § 11-6B-5(C)
The file shows no formal Fire approval letter or signed review form—only email references implying
approval. Findings must rely on written agency verification before decision; absent that, “Fire has
approved” is unsupported.
2) Common-Driveway Cap Exceeded — UDC § 11-6C-3(D)(1)
The corridor from NW 4th already serves three existing dwellings (Fusselman, Hanson, Williams). Adding
three more yields a six-home corridor, exceeding the four-unit limit for a common driveway. The project
must be redesigned to private-street standards under § 11-6C-3(E).
3) No Recorded Cross-Access Agreement — UDC § 11-6B-5(C)(4); Idaho Code § 67-6511
No recorded easement grants reciprocal access between the applicant and southern owners.
Eliminating the fence effectively merges two private drives without legal authority, creating
trespass/liability exposure and preventing a lawful “no adverse impact” finding.
4) Concerns Regarding Easement Procurement
2
The 20-ft Fusselman easement was obtained only after the applicant blocked his own access and
pressured the former owner (approx. $5,000 consideration, threat of legal action). Reliance on a coerced
private agreement to satisfy access invites adverse-impact and good-faith concerns under UDC § 11-6B-
5(C)(4) and Idaho Code § 67-6511.
5) Applicant Misrepresentation / Failure to Cooperate — UDC § 11-6B-5(C); Idaho Code §
67-6511
Multiple neighbors received conflicting/inaccurate statements from the applicant regarding access, use,
and maintenance. Findings must be based on verified facts, not assurances that have proven unreliable.
Approval is premature absent accurate, consistent documentation of all access rights.
6) Incomplete Engineering Record — Idaho Code § 67-6511
The file includes only the developer’s engineer letter (Breckon Land Design, 5-21-25). A Public Works
memo (7-03-25) states review was pending receipt of construction drawings. There is no independent
City Engineer approval on the latest plan set, leaving the record incomplete.
7) Procedural Defects — Idaho Code § 67-6519(3); UDC § 11-5A-7(E)
Post-August 21 revisions (removal of fence, driveway realignment, pump-house access) are material
changes requiring new notice and agency recirculation. Proceeding on Nov 6 without re-notice denies
due process.
8) Adverse Impact on Existing Homes — UDC § 11-6B-5(C)(4)
The recommendation to keep the corridor open “for emergency maneuverability on the abutting
properties” confirms the project uses neighboring private land to meet its standards, preventing existing
homes from ever achieving independent compliance.
3
9) Public Services & Access Impairment — UDC § 11-6B-5(C)(4); Idaho Code § 67-6511
The design restricts safe access for emergency vehicles, delivery/sanitation services, and utility
maintenance to the southern homes. Without a compliant turnaround and clearances, existing residents
are effectively cut off from routine municipal services. The City must verify no adverse effect on adjacent
access/services.
10)
Prohibition on Informal Combination of Private Properties
— Idaho Code § 67-6511; UDC § 11-6B-5(C)(4)
The City cannot rely on implied or informal use of neighboring private driveways to satisfy the applicant’s
fire-access or circulation requirements. Absent a recorded cross-access or formal replat, each property
must meet code independently within its own boundaries.
11)
Improper Demand for Neighbor Easement
— Idaho Code § 67-6511; U.S. Const. Amend. V; Idaho Const. art. I § 14
Staff have implied adjacent owners should grant new easement area so vehicles can turn into the
subdivision. Adjacent owners have no legal duty to dedicate property to cure the applicant’s design.
Conditioning or informally relying on such consent is an uncompensated exaction.
12) Misuse of 30-ft Easements — UDC § 11-6B-5(C)(4); Idaho Code § 67-6511
Suggestions that neighbors should “re-open” historic 30-ft easement areas within their yards to
accommodate this project are improper. Those easements predate the plat and were not granted for the
new subdivision’s benefit. Forcing alterations to private yards to serve the applicant is an adverse impact
and an uncompensated taking.
4
Property Impacts & Legal Exposure
The current recommendation encumbers our private property without consent, reducing value and
safety. Any approval that relies on our land for emergency access effectively takes private property for
public use without compensation. We will preserve all rights and remedies under Idaho Code § 67-6521
and other applicable law.
Requested Action
Please postpone the November 6 hearing until:
1. The applicant demonstrates full compliance with IFC § 503 and UDC § 11-6C-3, including a
compliant on-site turnaround and unobstructed 20-ft fire lane within the recorded easement;
2. City Engineering and Fire issue independent written approvals; and
3. Revised plans/findings are properly noticed for public review.
If these deficiencies are not corrected prior to any vote or approval, the record will remain incomplete
and non-compliant under Idaho Code § 67-6511 and § 67-6519. Any approval issued on that basis
would be contrary to law and subject to appeal.
Please confirm receipt and inclusion of this correspondence in the official record for H-2025-0030
(Cherry Blossom East).
Sincerely,
Margie and Justin Williams
1251 NW 4th Street • Meridian, ID 83642
cc: City Clerk | City Attorney | Fire Marshal | City Engineer | Council-member Doug Taylor (District 3) | Kate
Bartles, Esq.
5