Loading...
PZ - Letter from Foley Freeman PLLC re WASD (7-12-18)FOLEY FREEMAN, PLLC ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 953 S. INDUSTRY WAY P.O. BOX 10 MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83680 HOWARD R. FOLEY MARK S. FREEMAN PATRICK J. GEILE LEAH F. SHOTWELL MATTHEW G. BENNETT LINDA E. WELLS July 10, 2018 Geoffrey M. Wardle Spink Butler, LLP P© Box 639 Boise, ID 83701 Re: Owyhee High School Site Client No. 1000-059 Dear Mr. Wardle: TELEPHONE: (208) 888-9111 FACSIMILE: (208) 888-5130 WEB SITE: a ivwfoleyfreeman.com I represent the West Ada School District ("WASD") regarding the parcel of land located on Ustick Road west of McDermott. I am in receipt of your letter dated June 20, 2018, and I have some concerns with your assessment of the situation. As I am sure that you are aware, a comprehensive plan reflects the desirable goals and objectives, or desirable future situation of use of land. Krempasky v. Nez Perce County Planning & Zoning, 150 Idaho 231, 235 (2010). It is not considered to be a legally controlling zoning law; rather it is a guide to "'advise the various governing bodies responsible for making zoning decisions." Bone v. Lewiston, 107 Idaho 884 (1984). I understand your concern with the proposed construction of Highway 16 across a parcel of land owned by your client. Although the construction of this road is speculative, your client will be compensated by ITD for any taking of land under Idaho's eminent domain laws. However, WASD's plans to build a high school to the west of your client's parcel is not a taking, and it will only benefit your client. WASD's development of its parcel, has nothing but a positive impact on the parcel owned by your client. Not only are water and sewer lines being extended to a place where your client will be able to easily access them for future development, but the new high school and roads will significantly increase the value of your client's property. Geoffrey M. Wardle July 10, 2018 Page 2 As set forth in the June 13, 2018 email from my client's consultant, Matt Adams with The Land Group, WASD has made a good faith effort to address the concerns raised by your client in WASD's plans for the development of its property. These proposals addressed methods whereby your client could obtain access to sewer, water, and roads to its parcel. Your client has apparently rejected these efforts and has insisted that WASD spend taxpayer funds to assist in the development of your client's parcel. This is neither my client's obligation nor is it appropriate. WASD has constructed numerous school sites in greenfield developments and is fully aware of the costs associated therewith. It will spend considerable resources in order to bring water and sewer to and through the school site, and to obtain roadway access. However, it would be inappropriate for WASD to expend public funds to run sewer and water lines to all of the surrounding parcels. Instead, WASD has communicated its willingness to provide easements across its property in order to accommodate the construction of water, sewer, and roadway improvements to serve your client's property. Your client, however, must be responsible for the cost of extending these services to its parcel. 1. Roadwav Access: With regards to your concerns over future road access, please keep in mind that the proposed highway has not even been funded, and your client currently has access to its property from both Ustick and McDermott roads. WASD has no desire to exchange its current surplus frontage on Ustick Road for your client's parcel. WASD plans on constructing a road on the western boundary of its property, but this in no way results in substantial prejudice to your client. The location of this road on the western boundary is necessary for traffic flow from and to the high school. If the Highway 16 is ultimately funded and constructed, WASD is not opposed to the construction of a road a quarter mile west of McDermott on the properties to the east of the school site. In fact, the future land use plan contemplates that a road will be constructed at this quarter -mile mark where your client would have access should Highway 16 be constructed. Regardless, WASD is not obligated to pay for the construction of an access road along the west boundary of your client's property. As set forth in Matt Adams' email referenced above, one of the options for roadway access to your client's parcel is the grant of a 47' permanent easement between the proposed access road to the school site and your client's parcel, through the southerly Geoffrey M. Wardle July 10, 2018 Page 3 portion of the WASD parcel. My client will consider shifting its proposed high school development somewhat to allow for this entire easement to be located on the WASD parcel. Although my client appears willing to provide the easement for this future road, your client will need to pay for the design and construction of this road. 2. Water Access: WA SD's proposal to connect to City of Meridian water for domestic and fire protection provide for the construction of a 12' water main in the right-of-way of Ustick Road along the entire southern boundary of your client's parcel, so your client will have direct access to water. 3. Sewer Access: WASD is not obligated to expend public funds to extend sewer lines to a parcel that is not impacted by its development. If your client would like to have sewer lines run to its parcel, then it needs to pay the cost of extending them. Again, as set forth in the email from Matt Adams, WASD is willing to cooperate by granting your client an easement to allow your client to construct a sewer line extension during WASD's construction of the high school. Otherwise, your client can deal with the property owner to the north of your client's parcel (Acclima) to obtain sewer access from the north. That is your client's choice, but WASD will not expend public funds for your client's benefit when there are reasonable alternatives for your client to obtain sewer access to its parcel in the future. Again, Highway 16 has not been constructed, and there is no definitive guideline on when it will be constructed. is a result, the assumptions being made here are all speculative and may never actually occur. Should the construction of Highway 16 occur and result in a "taking" of your client's property, it will not result in a total take given the access that your client will have to construct roads and connect utilities. In summary, the easements that WASD is willing to consider granting address any reasonable issues that your client has with access to roads, water and sewer to its parcel; however, WASD is not willing to, nor is it obligated to, "foot the bill" for extending access and services to your client's parcel to make it development -ready. Obviously, the proposals set forth herein and in the June 13, 2018 email from Matt Adams are subject to agency comment and approval and are also subject to the approval of my client's board of trustees. If our clients can reach a mutually acceptable arrangement that will not result in additional expense to WASD, I suggest that we attempt do so as soon as possible. Please Geoffrey M. Wardle July 10, 2018 Page 4 let me know if your client is interested in obtaining these easements for the construction of its future development. I look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, FOLEY FREEMAN, PLLC Mark Freeman mfreeman@foleyfreeman. com MSF/klh cc: Client