| TALK BACK: Now you can add YOUR comments about this article. |
print version
email
print version
email
There are 31 comments
The comments below are from the readers of mtexpress.com and in no way represent the views of Express Publishing Inc. 06/16/09 - 22:23
Truth and Transparency I have now received the information back from the Fairfield City Clerk regarding the various "Public Disclosure Requests" I submitted to get the most recent information the city has on file about the topics Planning & Zoning Administrator Sara Mecham has addressed in the posting. After re-confirming the information I addressed before, for the welfare of the Fairfield community, based on Ms. Mechams false statements, she should either resign or be fired! Any public official acting on behalf of any city or county as Ms. Mecham has will do nothing but damage the community and it's future. - - - - - Fact: No Approved Findings of Facts dated April 8, 2009 are on file with the city Fact: The proposed zoning map on file features a legend that combines 2 different zoning districts Commercial (C) & Commercial Business (CB). According to the legend these properties have 2 different zoning districts attached to the same properties, i.e. double zoning Fact: The minutes that are on file (not approved) from the April 8, 2008 are basically the same minutes as the shorthand version Sara took. No detail about what anyone said, if they were for, against or neutral, if they had questions, comments or concerns, etc. There is no way anyone can determine the tone or content of said comments. Fact: The Findings of Facts on file (not approved) have so many recommended material changes that Idaho Code would require another hearing. Having to schedule another hearing has nothing to do with wasting money that could have been used for further planning. Making the statement that because they need to cover our backsides to illegitimate lawsuits and fraudulent accusations is more than over the top; its about following the law. Fact: There are properties that are proposed to be rezoned to a higher density on the Zoning Map than is allowed on the proposed Land Use Map Fact: The legal descriptions posted in the paper of record do have errors. I have no idea what Sara Mechams true track record is in the City of Carey, but I do understand the misrepresented facts she posted in this blog. If anyone would like copies of these supporting documents I am more than happy to forward them upon request. - - - - - This isnt just a problem with Fairfields Planning & Zoning Administrator; its also with the Mayor, Mr. David Hanks. He has refused to address and resolve this and many other issues that have been presented to him in the past. One of the most egregious issues was the Mayor hiring an unqualified, uncertified building inspector, knowing he didnt have the proper certification as required by law. This individual approved a new cold roof to be installed at the local school without having to knowledge to understand if it was safe, was to code, etc. He also approved and signed off a final occupancy permit of a local public restaurant. I can go on with other issues, but in my opinion the mayor should also resign, as he isnt looking after the best interests of the city and only want the title. Like I say, Dj vu, Camas County and now we have a new 8500 ft airport coming that will be approved by the County Commissioners under the new and improved Multi-use zoning guidelines. The law means nothing as its all about the good old boy system. George Martin, Jr. 06/09/09 - 21:12
Quote: Sara Mecham, Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Fairfield As I've always stated in the past, any and all rational, productive comments are well recieved and we strive to implement them. However, we are doing our utmost to have a positive effect on our community that has intrusted their community to us. When you decide you would like to sincerely join the effort rather than being a protaganist and finger pointer, your efforts and concerns will be most avidly welcomed. - - - - - avidly 1 : desirous to the point of greed : urgently eager : greedy You use such thoughtful words, yet their "Not True" in their use. - - - - - - The last Fairfield Planning & Zoning meeting I went to was the Public Hearing held in September 2008. During that public hearing a P&Z member got within a foot of my face ( I was sitting and he was standing bending down towards me) telling me in a very loud voice that he didn't understand me, that is "Me the Person". It felt like I was back in Alaska in a redneck bar after guys came in off the pipeline, had way too much to drink and all they wanted to do was pick a fight! Again, this was during what Sara called a "Public Hearing". Normally the Fairfield Planning & Zoning and/or City Council sit elevated (new remodel) approximately 6 feet above the crowd in a very tight, narrow room. This way they look down on you, the public. The only way they will normally allow you to formally speak is if you stand, remove your hat and formally address the chairman. No podium is provided for guests to stand at or behind, nothing to set your papers, notes or documents one, etc.. Just stand before them, look upward and present your thoughts. I don't know about you, but one of the biggest fears people have (many case studies) is public speaking. The elevated platform the city built makes that senerio (public speaking) much more intimidating. To me, it's their unspoken way to eliminate public participation. But even with that said, for this P&Z member to be off the stand and in my face during what was to be a "Public Hearing", try to intimidate me in voice and posture was beyond belief. One person that attended the meeting was surprised I didn't take a swing at him I guess I just didn't understand that since he was so personal, this is the city's version of "Comments Well Received"! The worst part of . . . it's just a continuation of the main problem I have been dealing with from almost day one . . . . Instead of dealing with and addressing the issues, "It's all about personalities". If you don't believe, just read these and previous posts. Issues No - Personal attacks Yes! - - - - - - - - - So when you say my efforts and concerns will be "Avidly Welcome" - - - - - - all I can say is . . . . . "huh" - - - - - - - - Just another reason I didn't bother attending the last Public Hearing The public records requests I submitted are due back tomorrow . . . more to come 06/10/09 - 07:38
It's no wonder you have so much trouble getting what you want. If you babble on at public meetins like you do on these IME articles everyone in Fairfield is probably tired of hearing you. 06/08/09 - 19:03
Quote: Sara Mecham, Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Fairfield How about spending the hours you waste righting negative comments online or in newspaper articles toward asisting your community in cooperative positive growth and forward thinking? I can't speak for Camas County, but from the beginning your comments have been hostile, vindictive and self righteous. Negativity just breeds more negativity. Fingerpointing breeds more fingerpointing. Quite being a part of the problem and become part of the solution. Nobody likes a hypocrite. - - - - - - Just a few of the facts. - - - - - - Up until mid 2008 have attended more Planning & Zoning & Board of Commissioner's meetings than anyone in Camas County including the various leaders and local business owners. No one even comes close! - - - - - - - In 2006 after learning of power supply issues I got on the agenda of Camas County Commissioners and invited the Mayor of Fairfield, David Hanks. I invited 5 engineers and representatives from Idaho Power to speak to the problem regarding lack of power to our community. After leaders became aware of problem, Mayor David Hanks put together a group of local leaders and individuals to solve the problem. Even thought I coordinated the meeting with Idaho Power, I was not allowed to be on the meeting because I was classified as a developer. Other members that were invited to be on the committee had developed properties in Camas County (to date I haven't developed anything in Camas County), are real estate agents, etc., but they were part of the "Good Old Boy" network. RESULTS: Both Camas County & Fairfield still have not resolved this issue. - - - - - - I presented information regarding a grant that would have paid for "Professional Planning" RESULTS: The information was rejected and thrown in the trash - - - - - - - I presented a grant application that would have provided funding that would have provided Bus Service to the Wood River Valley for a period of 6 years RESULTS: The grant application was rejected and thrown in the trash - - - - - - - I can go on, (Smart Growth Meetings, etc.) but Sara has only been involved for a short period of time, has only attended a few meetings in the community (I think all of them have been on an hourly basis regarding pay) and doesn't have a clue as to what I have tried to do regarding "Positive Growth and Forward Thinking"! 06/08/09 - 18:08
The postings are becoming quite colorful As states in the approved Planning & Zoning Findings of Fact dated April 8, 2009: Again, Mr. Martin's misconstrue's the information given. The public hearing has, to date, not officially been scheduled due to other items currently on the P&Z agenda. Thus a formal recommendation (in the form of approved Findings of Fact) have not been forwarded. Since a formal date for the public hearing has not been approved by the Commission and which needs to happen in the form of a motion, no documentation can be given in a public disclosure request. - - - - - Question: Do you have an "Approved Findings of Fact dated April 8, 2009 or not? - - - - If you really want get this aggressive and personal on the Mountain Express website I have no problem continuing. - - - - - - I have asked basic questions in writing (have copies) and you have refused to answer. These questions were prior to the hearings held in September 2008 and March 2009. I have not been aggressive with the city other than asking basic questions. You have turned over my questions and public disclosure requests over to the city attorney versus answering my questions or giving me copies of the public documents. - - - - - - If you really want to get personal, I can upload a copy of the tape of the September 2008 public hearing in which a local resident and business owner addresses your personality and attitude towards the public, lack of sharing of information, etc. That is also a public record. I'm have no intention of getting into a name calling battle as it's not very mature, professional or helpful. - - - - - Based on your track record and missteps you have made as Planning & Zoning Administrator for Fairfield, I will say I don't feel you are qualified for the job, have wasted the city's money and resources and should be removed from the position. - - - - - You forgot to tell the public how to reach you: Sara's email address is: youshakeitbaby@copper.net I don't have her phone number. - - - - - I sure more to come 06/07/09 - 21:03
Quote: Sara Mecham, Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Fairfield A: If you have a low opinion of my professionalism I feel I have truly made a difference. After all, if you respected me, that could only mean you were getting what you wanted. Thanks George! You made my day! - - - - - Judge for yourself. Do you think this is professional? I have uploaded a copy of the handwritten minutes taken by Planning & Zoning Administrator Sara during the 2 "Public Hearings" held March 11, 2009. I received this copy by a formal written records request. I have supporting documents regarding any and all topics I have addressed in my various posts and lawsuits. To view her notes, click the link below: - - - - - - - Can you determine the following for "Each Public Hearing'? What time did the public hearings start and end? Which members of P&Z were in attendance? Did any member abstain because of a "Conflict of Interest" Which members spoke and what issues did they address? Were any documents read into the record? Any response from various political subdivisions? Which members of the public attended? Which members of the public spoke? Were they in favor, against or neutral? What concerns or objections did they have? Was a staff report presented to the public? Was any other summary or overview given? What changes were discussed? When did deliberations take place? Were the elements required by Idaho Code addressed? Did they address how the various maps complied with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan? Impacts to services? What changes were part of the recommendations? What changes are 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 & 21? Who voted? Both maps were approved, "Right"? - - - - - I have more questions, but since neither of the Public Hearings were taped in full, I guess we will never know. - - - - - This post originally started out responding to the issues in Camas County, but since Fairfield is the only town in Camas County I guess this is all relevant. As I told Mayor Hanks back in September when I was hopeful they would stop the rezone process, it's Deja Vu, i.e. Camas County rezone all over again. I'm afraid my hopes about doing what's right for the community (Sara, that's all I wanted) went down the drain again. more to come. 06/08/09 - 08:26
George if you actually wanted to do something good for Camas county you would move out. As a fairly new resident, not a good old boy, it didn't take me long to figure out that you are doing what is best for George Martin Jr. Your constant repitition of the "what's right for the community" bit has started to become aggravating. The citizens of Camas County (the community) do what they think is best every time they re-elect the commissioners that you have so many issues with. 06/08/09 - 17:19
Clarification: The handwritten minutes Mr. Martins referrs to were just that, shorthand to assist efficient translation of the recorded minutes. For a complete and thorough copy of the typed and approved minutes, feel free to contact me or the City Clerk anytime. Oh, and thanks for not making this personal, George. 06/07/09 - 09:20
Quote #002 Sara Mecham, Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Fairfield: “The P&Z held a hearing anyway, didn't tape the entire meeting or deliberations, yet I understand they made a recommendation for approval.” A: Wow. Fact! However, after finding there was a recording error of the last portion of the meeting the Commission is re-noticing and holding another public hearing before sending recommendations to the Council. Money wasted that could have been used for further planning but since we have to cover our backsides to illegitimate lawsuits and fraudulent accusations… onwards and upwards! - - - - - - Reply: You "Have To" cover your backsides regarding illegitimate lawsuits and fraudulent accusations? What ever happened to doing things right? If you don't follow the law your actions can be challenged by anyone that is affected. You are changing people's rights when you change the zoning of their property. You are also changing the value of these properties and the future of the city with these rezones. Why would it take a threat of possible legal action to do the job right? If the laws weren't followed, would a lawsuit be "Illegitimate" and/or if people were to address the legal and procedural errors would they be "Fraudulent Accusations"? The City of Fairfield Planning & Zoning Administrator has now scheduled four (4) separate "Public Hearings" to adopt a new Land Use Map and Zoning Map. The first series of hearings were held September 10, 2008. The second set of hearings were held March 11, 2009 The requirements by Idaho Code weren't followed for any of these hearings. Sara Mecham's professional response make's me feel like this must be my fault. - - - - - The opening line of the email was . . . After reviewing the various "Notices of Public Hearings" at both the Planning & Zoning and City Council levels for the SAME Comprehensive Plan & Zoning Map Proposed Changes, I find myself realizing this is Deja Vu, i.e. Camas County rezone all over again. I addressed several of the issues outlined in my original post, missing legal descriptions, major up-zoning, lack of water-sewer-power, plus others. My concerns weren't addressed and the public hearing was some what of a "Free for all". I have never seen a series of public hearings handled in such an unprofessional, illegal way. "Money Wasted" ? I agree but who's fault is that? With that said, I didn't even bother going to the March 11, 2009 series of hearings. As with Camas County, laws and procedures must be followed . . . but the bigger picture it should be about doing what's right for the community for the right reasons, legal or not! Quote: “The level of professionalism is at an all time low and the local leader's actions are going to impact the future of these areas in a very negative way”. A: If you have a low opinion of my professionalism I feel I have truly made a difference. After all, if you respected me, that could only mean you were getting what you wanted. Thanks George! You made my day! Response: Professionalism? See notes above and below. more to come . . . 06/05/09 - 19:54
Quote #001 Sara Mecham, Planning & Zoning Administrator City of Fairfield: "The other major issue facing the City of Fairfield is the fact they annexed 272 acres into the city for future growth, yet they have no current means or plans to provide services, i.e. water, sewer, power too the annexed property. What ever happened to making development pay for itself?” A: First of all residential development NEVER pays for itself. And there are currently no developments proposed on this specific parcel. However, when applications start through the process they will find they will pay their proportionate cost. - - - - - Question? Residential Development NEVER Pays For Itself . . . ??? LOOK OUT CAMAS COUNTY! I believe this to be true when it is treated the way both the Fairfield and Camas County are up-zoning properties for no reason, applications, available services and/or demand. Why was such a large parcel even considered for annexation? No application? Who wanted this annexation? Personal Opinion: Planning for the future is one of the most important, basic elements for Fairfield and/or Camas County to fix its current infrastructure problems and stimulate economic growth. Rezoning property in advance, eliminating the power to collect monies from the developers during the rezone process (I.C. 67-6511A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS - See: www.legislature.idaho.gov ) is a huge mistake in terms of having development pay for itself, vesus forcing the current residences of Fairfield and/or Camas County to foot the bill, increasing developer's profits. more to come . . . 06/05/09 - 14:12
Wow! Wow! Wow! Did I hit a nerve . . . For those of you that have read Planning & Zoning Administrator Sara Mecham's postings - stay tuned. I will respond with accurate information regarding her statements. Just for the record, additional Public Disclosure Requests will be made to the City of Fairfield to again prove the documents, recommendations, etc. that Sara's is referring are not available and/or in the file. After reading this post I called the city and according to the city clerk, as of 1:45 P.M. today, these documents ARE NOT ON FILE! No findings of facts, no written recommendations, no new or revised notices of hearings, etc. that Sara says have been done. Again, I will continue to address the issues and try not to make this a personal attack as the various leaders and officials continue to do. This isn't and shouldn't be about me, but deals with the issues that affect the future of both the city and county. More to come. George Martin, Jr. 208.720.6888 06/08/09 - 17:11
George, No, you didn't hit a nerve. I felt it necessary to provide facts to the public that do not have a thorough knowledge of the circumstances that you so deliberatley leave out. As I've always stated in the past, any and all rational, productive comments are well recieved and we strive to implement them. No, we (the City of Fairfield staff or elected officials) are not perfect. However, we are doing our utmost to have a positive effect on our community that has intrusted their community to us. When you decide you would like to sincerely join the effort rather than being a protaganist and finger pointer, your efforts and concerns will be most avidly welcomed. Until that time, it is difficult to put much weight behind your comments. How about spending the hours you waste righting negative comments online or in newspaper articles toward asisting your community in cooperative positive growth and forward thinking? I can't speak for Camas County, but from the beginning your comments have been hostile, vindictive and self righteous. Negativity just breeds more negativity. Fingerpointing breeds more fingerpointing. Quite being a part of the problem and become part of the solution. Nobody likes a hypocrite. 06/08/09 - 17:29
Again, Mr. Martin's misconstrue's the information given. The public hearing has, to date, not officially been scheduled due to other items currently on the P&Z agenda. Thus a formal recommendation (in the form of approved Findings of Fact) have not been forwarded. Since a formal date for the public hearing has not been approved by the Commission and which needs to happen in the form of a motion, no documentation can be given in a public disclosure request. I could continue to chase this line of reasoning in circles all day. Fortunatley, I have a more productive use of my time... actually making a positive difference. If any member of the public would like factual and complete information about any of the procedures past, future or in process related to the City of Fairfield, please do not hesitiate to contact me! 06/03/09 - 18:16
To Mr. Martin: It seems to me you are a sore loser. Buck up baby, if you don't like it...LEAVE. 06/03/09 - 18:31
Based on the majority of the various court decisions, I'm not losing. 06/03/09 - 20:20
Dear Unknown, Don't any of these issues concern you, or are you one of select few that will gain large rewards via the massive rezone? Isn't clean, non-contaminated drinking water important to you? What about just the availability of water. Do you have any idea how many wells are projected to be drilled because of the 20,000 acre rezone? What about services such as roads, police and schools? Are you willing to pay more in taxes so a select group of developers can make a larger profit? - - - - - This anonymous posting is the typical "Non- Response" regarding dealing with and addressing the real issues. It's all about me instead of what's best for the overall community. 06/08/09 - 20:54
So it seems that the only thing contaminating anything around here is YOU. And we care more than you think in ways incomprehensible to YOU. I say again...if you don't like it...LEAVE. 06/03/09 - 16:54
Lets face it, zoning is just a fancy way to make one persons real estate more valuable at the expense of someone else. All the arguments for zoning, pig farms in town chemical plants next to hospitals etc... are just empty excuses for the exterior decorators in an area to justify their personal vision of what they think the area should look like or to raise property values artificially by limiting what people can do with their land. In Boise ,at intersection of Emerald and Curtis, there is a hospital, a retirement home-nursing facility, a now empty junior high, and can you guess whats on the other corner? A fuel depot run by Chevron corporation. 06/03/09 - 15:01
Dear "Native" . . . Are you Marshall Ralph, Ed Smith or Ken Backstrom? Don't you love the internet were people hide behind screen names to make a slanted point, versus really standing up before the public and sharing their true thoughts and feelings without the fear of letting people know who they are. For clarification, 1. The 20,000 acre rezone is an "Upzone to Higher Densities" of the 20,000 acres in Camas County. 2. The lawsuits don't ask for any rezoning of any property I'm personally involved with. 3. The lawsuits never asked Camas County for any monetary damages, concessions or rewards to me personally in any way. These lawsuits are based on doing the right thing for the future of Camas County, along with it's current and future residents. Similar issues currently exist in the City of Fairfield. Recently, spear-headed by Sara Mecham, Fairfield's Planning & Zoning Administrator (also Planning & Zoning Administrator for the City of Carey), a Massive Citywide Rezone was started. Because I represent clients that own property within the city limits of Fairfield, I submitted several public requests and studied the limited information provided prior to a public hearing. I then submitted a series of questions in writing regarding concerns I had about the process and proposed changes. Some of the major points were: 1. All properties that were being re-zoned to some sort of commercial use were being double zoned. Map & Legends stated the properties will have both Commercial & Commercial Business Zoning. These two separate districts have different designated uses and different building set back requirements. My question was which district and guidelines do you use when properties have two zoning designations? 2. Some properties on the proposed zoning map have uses not allowed on the proposed land use map. How is this legal? 3. Some member's involved are making recommendations of "Upzoning" their personal property without any disclosure of ownership or "Conflict of Interest". How are you going to deal with this legal issue? 4. The written legal descriptions aren't accurate in the notice of hearing. Will this be corrected to include all properties prior to hearing? 5. The city park and schools are being rezoned to High Density residential. Why? Several other issues and questions were submitted, yet the only real response I got back from Sara was "Thanks for the Book - Chew On Those Emails As Long As You Like" Never once did I get a response to any of my questions. The other major issue facing the City of Fairfield is the fact they annexed 272 acres into the city for future growth, yet they have no current means or plans to provide services, i.e. water, sewer, power too the annexed property. What ever happened to making development pay for itself? This is the same issue Camas County has. No consideration for the cost of roads, police, fire, schools, protection or water, etc. Mayor David Hanks also received copies of the same emails and has refused to discuss these issues with me. The P&Z held a hearing anyway, didn't tape the entire meeting or deliberations, yet I understand they made a recommendation for approval. The level of professionalism is at an all time low and the local leader's actions are going to impact the future of these areas in a very negative way. - - - - - - For the record: Moore Smith Buxton & Turcke are the Attorney's for both the City & County. Both the City of Fairfield & Camas County "Signed A Wavier" Regarding Conflict Of Interest with this legal firm holding them harmless. This is similar to having the same attorney represent both parties in a divorce and/or lawsuit. This is the same firm that a Supreme Court Ruling regarding the Malpractice Lawsuit against Moore, Smith, Buxton & Turke by the City of McCall included the following: Count Four: the Attorneys negligently failed to advise the City of a conflict of interest County Five: the Attorneys negligently advised the City not to accept offer to settle for $500,000 - jury awarded them to pay $4,955,096 instead Count Six: the Attorneys have been unjustly enriched in the amount of legal fees paid for their services - - - - - Why would our leaders sign this type of agreement? How does this protect the interest of either the city, county and it's residents? Only time will tell. 06/03/09 - 22:50
I've been here longer than any of the people mentioned. That's what Native means. Educated here and like living here. It was better before all the developement started. We are still a nice place to live & care about our neighbors. 06/05/09 - 12:34
Nice story George, as always. It would have been an accurate read if you would have included the other 90% of informative facts that were the basis for the direction, procedure and decisions made by the City of Fairfield. The sad thing is every once in a while you have a good point, but those few points are consitently lost in the dizzying whirlwind of unfounded accusations, obvious personal agendas and pot stirring. Let's share some of the facts you left out, shall we? PURPOSE OF PROPOSED LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS: Land Use Map changes did not occur with the adoption of Zoning Ordinance #223 to reflect new zoning district adopted in Ordinance #223 in July 2006. In laman's terms, this means that, although the city went through the public hearing procedures and discussions to create or modify existing zoning districts, since no public hearings were held on the actual zoning/land use maps these changes only occured on paper and did not change the actual zoning of property. This was an procedure oversite by the City at that time. After consulting legal council, to correct this error and follow appropriate legal requirements the following was proposed: You were correct in saying I spearheaded this. When stepping into this position, through my research I found this procedure and been missed and brought it to the Council's attention to start the process of appropriate procedure to bring the related ordinances into uniformity. ACTION BY COMMISSION: To bring the city’s ordinance into compliance and continuity the Commission decided upon the following course of action July 16, 2008: Hold workshops and required public hearing(s) to amend the following: With this intent the Commission proposed the following: Amending City of Fairfield Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to reflect zoning districts adopted in the current zoning ordinance #223(adopted in July 2006). As states in the approved Planning & Zoning Findings of Fact dated April 8, 2009: The Commission’s overall intent was not to up zone or down zone a property unless specifically dictated by current uses or present property. Particular consideration was given to the effects of any proposed comp plan change how (if at all) the change affects groundwater and surface water. Idaho Code § 67-6509. The Commission found that since the majority of the changes to the land use map are uses already existing presently in these areas, they could find no specific reasons for concern regarding negative impacts to groundwater or surface water. 06/05/09 - 12:38
Nice story George, as always. It would have been an accurate read if you would have included the other 90% of informative facts that were the basis for the direction, procedure and decisions made by the City of Fairfield. The sad thing is every once in a while you have a good point, but those few points are consitently lost in the dizzying whirlwind of unfounded accusations, obvious personal agendas and pot stirring. Let's share some of the facts you left out, shall we? PURPOSE OF PROPOSED LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS: Land Use Map changes did not occur with the adoption of Zoning Ordinance #223 to reflect new zoning district adopted in Ordinance #223 in July 2006. In laman's terms, this means that, although the city went through the public hearing procedures and discussions to create or modify existing zoning districts, since no public hearings were held on the actual zoning/land use maps these changes only occured on paper and did not change the actual zoning of property. This was an procedure oversite by the City at that time. After consulting legal council, to correct this error and follow appropriate legal requirements the following was proposed: You were correct in saying I spearheaded this. When stepping into this position, through my research I found this procedure and been missed and brought it to the Council's attention to start the process of appropriate procedure to bring the related ordinances into uniformity. ACTION BY COMMISSION: To bring the city’s ordinance into compliance and continuity the Commission decided upon the following course of action July 16, 2008: Hold workshops and required public hearing(s) to amend the following: With this intent the Commission proposed the following: Amending City of Fairfield Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map and Zoning Map to reflect zoning districts adopted in the current zoning ordinance #223(adopted in July 2006). As states in the approved Planning & Zoning Findings of Fact dated April 8, 2009: The Commission’s intent was not to up zone or down zone a property unless specifically dictated by current uses or present property. By changing the zoning map to reflect the existing uses of the properties within the city limits to create conforming uses. Particular consideration was given to the effects of any proposed comp plan change how (if at all) the change affects groundwater and surface water. Idaho Code § 67-6509. The Commission found that since the majority of the changes to the land use map are uses already existing presently in these areas, they could find no specific reasons for concern regarding negative impacts to groundwater or surface water. 06/05/09 - 12:42
Now, to your questions. I'll try and explain this to you,,, again. (I have a George Martin, Jr. hour quota and it’s about filled up this month) 1. Fiction. A property is zoned Commercial or Commercial Business. “Several other issues and questions were submitted, yet the only real response I got back from Sara was "Thanks for the Book - Chew On Those Emails As Long As You Like". A: Shall we post all of the insulting, insinuating and threatening emails you sent to me prior to the above short statement. I think if anyone took the time to compare our responses, mine was by far the more humane and civilized. “Never once did I get a response to any of my questions.” A: You mean you never received a response you liked. “The other major issue facing the City of Fairfield is the fact they annexed 272 acres into the city for future growth, yet they have no current means or plans to provide services, i.e. water, sewer, power too the annexed property. What ever happened to making development pay for itself?” A: First of all residential development NEVER pays for itself. And there are currently no developments proposed on this specific parcel. However, when applications start through the process they will find they will pay their proportionate cost. If you doubt it, I suggest you research my track record for the city of Carey. I have no doubt any developer that has gone through the process will tell you they contributed their proportionate share to the community. “The P&Z held a hearing anyway, didn't tape the entire meeting or deliberations, yet I understand they made a recommendation for approval.” A: Wow. Fact! However, after finding there was a recording error of the last portion of the meeting the Commission is re-noticing and holding another public hearing before sending recommendations to the Council. Money wasted that could have been used for further planning but since we have to cover our backsides to illegitimate lawsuits and fraudulent accusations… onwards and upwards! “The level of professionalism is at an all time low and the local leader's actions are going to impact the future of these areas in a very negative way”. A: If you have a low opinion of my professionalism I feel I have truly made a difference. After all, if you respected me, that could only mean you were getting what you wanted. Thanks George! You made my day! 06/05/09 - 12:45
Now, to your questions. I'll try and explain this to you,,, again. (I have a George Martin, Jr. hour quota and it’s about filled up this month) 1. Fiction. A property is zoned Commercial or Commercial Business. “Several other issues and questions were submitted, yet the only real response I got back from Sara was "Thanks for the Book - Chew On Those Emails As Long As You Like". A: Shall we post all of the insulting, insinuating and threatening emails you sent to me prior to the above short statement. I think if anyone took the time to compare our responses, mine was by far the more humane and civilized. “Never once did I get a response to any of my questions.” A: You mean you never received a response you liked. “The other major issue facing the City of Fairfield is the fact they annexed 272 acres into the city for future growth, yet they have no current means or plans to provide services, i.e. water, sewer, power too the annexed property. What ever happened to making development pay for itself?” A: First of all residential development NEVER pays for itself. And there are currently no developments proposed on this specific parcel. However, when applications start through the process they will find they will pay their proportionate cost. If you doubt it, I suggest you research my track record for the city of Carey. I have no doubt any developer that has gone through the process will tell you they contributed their proportionate share to the community. “The P&Z held a hearing anyway, didn't tape the entire meeting or deliberations, yet I understand they made a recommendation for approval.” A: Wow. Fact! However, after finding there was a recording error of the last portion of the meeting the Commission is re-noticing and holding another public hearing before sending recommendations to the Council. Money wasted that could have been used for further planning but since we have to cover our backsides to illegitimate lawsuits and fraudulent accusations… onwards and upwards! “The level of professionalism is at an all time low and the local leader's actions are going to impact the future of these areas in a very negative way”. A: If you have a low opinion of my professionalism I feel I have truly made a difference. After all, if you respected me, that could only mean you were getting what you wanted. Thanks George! You made my day! 06/06/09 - 06:34
You probably came here because land was cheap and you thought we were a bunch of dumb farmers and you could do what you wanted. 06/06/09 - 07:36
Reply to Another "UNKNOWN" Native: Quote: We might not agree with everything that is going on but disagree with you a lot more. In a democracy the majority rules, and the majority is backing the planning & zoning. A different judge really made a difference. Questions: What issues that I think are of concern do you disagree with? Which Idaho Codes and Laws do you feel we should ignore? How can you support and back the local Planning & Zoning when you don't regularly attend the meetings to see how decisions are made? (I know this as many of the meetings I was the only person in attendance - or are you one of the members?) I guess it must be a silent, unknown majority as very few people are willing to state their opinions in public or share their names. Quote: In a democracy the majority rules. Response: Only if the laws, proper procedures and safe guards are followed. Again, I am willing to keep this post going if people want to talk about the issues, but just dealing with personalities won't help resolve the issues or help the community at large. 06/06/09 - 10:24
Another Reply to Another "UNKNOWN" Native: Quote: We might not agree with everything that is going on but disagree with you a lot more. In a democracy the majority rules, and the majority is backing the planning & zoning. - - - - - - - - Response: You say your a "Native" and that you agree with Planning & Zoning. Then why would you disagree with me? You must only be talking about the most recent version of Planning & Zoning and County Commissioners as the only thing that I have proposed and/or have been personally involved in follows the "Blue Print" of the last 3 (THREE) Camas County Comprehensive Plans designed, voted and implemented by "Local Natives", not me. I had nothing to do with these comprehensive plans, I only wanted to follow them. The issues outlined in Idaho Statues, Title 67 ( www.legislature.idaho.gov) have not been correctly addressed. Public record requests confirm no studies or updates since 1997 and/or before have been done prior to the most recent recordings, yet these massive changes have been made based on personal opinions and/or self-serving agendas. I can understand why people can have a no growth policy or attitude, but these actions are an extreme opposite to no growth and the local people don't have any immediate experience with or understand what it will create in the future. Questions haven't been answered and open dialog hasn't been welcome. It's just like the subdivision that was approved for a Gooding County Commissioner a while back. Many, many people in the community stood up and objected, wrote letters against the approval, etc., yet a subdivision for a fellow "Good Old Boy" was approved in what was previously, a protected area, . . . . "The Centennial Marsh", a nationally recognized haven for migrating birds. The locals just don't like the turmoil that I have created by addressing the issues and trying to hold people accountable for their actions. I have many, many more examples, but enough said for this post. 06/03/09 - 09:58
As usual Marshall Ralph makes sense. He sums it up so most people can understand. We locals are standing behind our county commissioners. Mr Ralph should be able to buy what & from anyone as long as he pays his own way. We are still in America. 06/04/09 - 07:05
Quote Native: I've been here longer than any of the people mentioned. That's what Native means. Educated here and like living here. It was better before all the developement started. We are still a nice place to live & care about our neighbors. - - - - I agree it's a beautiful place to live, that's why I moved here. But you say it was better off "Before" all the development started . . . Then why do you think "Upzoning 20,000 Acres" to higher density zoning (many, many homes sprawled across Camas County) is the thing to do. Again, that's what the various leaders in Camas County have put in place. The impact of these decisions have not yet been seen on the ground. If you think we were better off before all the development started, I don't understand why you would support any of the current leaders as they have given developers a free pass to go . . . . . . and the local people are the ones that will pay for it, native or not. 06/03/09 - 07:05
Camas County Zoning Not For Sale? This main issue in the lawsuit is to overturn the rezoning of apx. 20,000 acres, which many of those acres are located over the recharge area of the drinking water source. Judge Elgee found Commissioner Ken Backstrom & P&Z Member Ed Smith had a "Conflict of Interest" regarding the rezoning of their own properties. Judge Butler's decision absolutely creams the lawsuit? Last week Camas County argued standing in Judge Elgee's court again. No cream here - Judge Elgee reissued his decision over turning the 2007 version (almost exact verbiage and maps as 2008 version) of the Camas County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map, Zoning Ordinance & Zoning Map. An appeal will be filed regarding Judge Butler's decision as their is a lot of case history that supports standing, including Judge Elgee's ruling. But even with that said, "Standing" is the only issue the county can defend or willing to talk about. Marshall is chairman of Camas County Planning & Zoning. He, along with others won't talk about the issues addressed in the lawsuit. All the local leaders talk about is me. Why did they eliminate the "Stream Side Overlay Maps" that protect the creeks and rivers? Why did they eliminate the "Tourism Overlay Map" that defines areas for recreation? Why did they rezone the majority of the property in areas that are, according to the New All Hazards Mitigation Plan "In The Flood Plain"? Why did they rezone 20,000 acres when they didn't even know how many vacant building lots existed in the county. Why did they rezone all property before acknowledging and solving the issue that Camas County is "Out Of Electrical Power" for new subdivisions and commercial businesses. Why did they refuse to apply for grants that would have paid for professional planning help. According to a "Letter to the Editor" in last weeks Camas Courier signed by all three commissioners, the Camas County Commissioners are handing out "Free Copies" of Judge Butler's to the public at the court house and annex building. In the letter they state "The residents deserve a factual reporting of the courts decision". Factual? The only issue Judge Butler has heard to date has to do with legal standing, not the issues of the suit. Factual? Why didn't they do the same (free copies) regarding Judge Elgee's decision? Based on the county's unwillingness to come to the table discuss and work through these issues, the lawsuits (now in 4 different courts) will probably take several more years to before any final decision and outcome is made. George Martin, Jr. 208.720.6888 P.S. In going through the recorded deeds yesterday I discovered Marshall Ralph purchased and closed some of the rezoned property from Ed Smith within the past few months. Go figure . . . 06/04/09 - 10:06
You seem to put a lot of faith on a judge who can't oversee a criminal case in his own court. I have a feeling when Elgee is gone your lawsuits that keep wasting the county.s money will follow. Leave a Comment
1
|
Local Weather 
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Other Sites |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Copyright
2010
Express Publishing Inc. The Idaho Mountain Express is distributed free to residents and guests throughout the Sun Valley, Idaho resort area community. Subscribers to the Idaho Mountain Express will read these stories and others in this week's issue. |