Please forward to all lake-lovers!

May 8, 2006
Action Alert
Development could jeopardize Henry?s Lake fishery
Your comments are needed ASAP

ISLAND PARK, ID. ? Despite an extraordinary plea from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG), in a public hearing on Thursday, May 4, the Island Park Planning and Zoning Board approved a development that borders a spring that is the source of Henry?s Lake?s most productive spawning tributary, Hatchery Creek.
Background. Park City, Utah developer Nathan Martini wants to build 17 two-story luxury log homes on 19.97 acres on the hillside next to Hatchery Creek?s spring and across state Hwy. 87 from IDFG?s Henry?s Lake Fish Hatchery. He has named the development Henry?s Lake Overlook, and one house already sits on the land.
The proposed development is in a Department of Environmental Quality-designated ?water quality vulnerability area.?
Steve Burk, owner of the old Sherwood Museum property next to the proposed development, plans to file an appeal of the board?s decision with the Island Park City Council.
Danger to fishery. IDFG regional fisheries manager Jim Frederick asked the board to call for surface and subsurface hydrology studies to determine if the culinary water well the developer plans to dig to service the development would reduce water flow from the creek. He said most of the lake?s rainbow and rainbow-cutthroat hybrid trout use the creek to spawn, and eggs taken from the trout that run into the creek for the hatchery operation make the lake one of the most productive fisheries in the state. Eggs are also sent to other fisheries. He estimated that the economic value of the lake?s fishery to Island Park is around $12 million annually.
The board ignored Frederick?s request but that is not all. They approved the development without reading or hearing any testimony or opinions from an engineer the city hired to examine the plans.
No agency input. Also not present at the hearing were representatives of the state Department of Environmental Quality and the state Health Department. The engineer?s input was needed on the design for building homes and roads on the hillside. Input from DEQ and the Heath Department would have included comments on whether or not the developer meets regulations with his plans to allow individual septic systems on the half-ace lots. In Fremont County?s plan, individual septic systems are allowed only on lots 2.5 acres or larger (with some exceptions).
Huge public notice issues. There are also public notice issues. Some adjacent property owners say they were not notified of the development proposal. In addition, the city of Island Park legally advertised the public hearing as beginning at 7 p. m., but started the meeting at least one-half hour earlier. During this time, the board scored the development using the city?s development code?s scoring system. During the scoring, City Attorney Stephanie Bonney allowed the developer?s representative to argue for the highest possible scores, but would not allow anyone in the audience to comment. At least one score would have been different if the public had been allowed to speak. The board decided that the development should receive a ?plus two? score because it did not impact views. However, some people at the meeting felt that homes on this pristine hillside would impact the views of people fishing on the lake and people living in homes across the road from the development. The board gave the development a total score of 55, assigning plus scores several times when they were clearly not warranted because the developer presented forceful arguments the public could not contest.
Policy change. For around nine years, the Island Park City Council has held a second public hearing on Class 2 permits, which include permits for subdivision developments. However, now the attorney has said the hearing before the city is not necessary ? the P and Z?s decision is final and the city just has to sign off on the development?s plat. The public is not aware that they will not have this second hearing. The city should have announced this change in policy well before the P and Z meeting last week because many members of the public were counting on having an opportunity to comment on the development at the city hearing.
Important. It is important to note that the attorney was wrong to imply that the city council would simply approve a plat. In giving plat approval, the City Council MUST decide if the development meets the city?s comprehensive plan and development code requirements, according to the development code.
Scoring is a huge issue in this development because the slopes greatly reduce the number of homes that can be built on the 19.97 acres. The code would allow just four homes if there was no scoring system awarding points for such ?good? things as clustering to provide open space, allowing public access to public lands near the development, providing buffer zones, etc. The high score allows Martini to add more homes. Interestingly, he had platted the same number of homes that the board decided were acceptable before the scoring was done! One could wonder if Planning Administrator Steve Foster, who directed the scoring process, told Martini what the score would be.
Adding these homes and allowing them to have individual septic tanks, could result in ground water pollution if the septic systems were to fail. The development code states that allowing more homes cannot cause the development to not comply with state health regulations.
Access and road safety issues. The state Transportation Department will allow only one access from Hwy. 87 into the development and is requiring the developer to pay for construction of a turning shoulder at the access. However, the board did not require the turning shoulder to be constructed before the development could be occupied. And, several area residents are concerned about the development only having one access, should there be a fire, especially since a fire could spread quickly up the hill to public lands adjacent to the development.
Exotic fish? The developer?s preliminary plan for wastewater treatment and runoff control includes building a collection pond near Hwy. 87. The developer has hinted that this pond may contain fish. Because predators can transfer fish from one water body to another, this pond has the potential to introduce off species fish into the lake. This issue was not even discussed.
Burk plans to focus his appeal on the decision to allow such a high density development in such a vulnerable area. He will also mention other issues noted in this alert. Burk has also stated that if the city will allow high density developments on the hillside, there is no reason for him and others to not follow suit.
Cumulative effects. The cumulative effects of high density development in this habitat on the lake, on wintering and nesting bald eagles, and on the elk, antelope, and deer that summer on the hillside could be significant.
Failed leadership. Finally, this entire process shows that the city has a serious lack of knowledge about its own comprehensive plan and development code. Last week?s hearing was the P and Z Board?s second hearing on Henry?s Lake Overlook. In a preliminary sketch plan presentation earlier this year, Martini asked to build almost 30 homes on the property and the board approved this many homes. Then, in the public hearing later that month, Stephanie Bonney and Steve Burk?s attorney shot down the plan to build that many homes, saying that the P and Z Board had not scored the development properly because they ignored the development code?s density requirements for slopes.
Martini returned with the new plan, and the P and Z ? and now the attorney ? has still not given the proposal due diligence. And, the P & Z Board did not require a sketch plan review for the new proposal, as per the city?s code. It just scheduled the May 4 public hearing. If it had scheduled a sketch plan review of the new plan, a brand new member, Genny Prahasto, may have been better able to review the new plan at the public hearing.
Comment highlights. Comments should be made on all issues mentioned, but at the very least, should include these points:
? The city should require the P & Z Board to follow all procedures correctly. It should require the developer to submit a new sketch plan at a publicly advertised P & Z meeting and score the new proposal. Then, if the plan and score allow the development to go forward, it should hold a new public hearing.
? The city should require that representatives from the DEQ, Health Department, Idaho Transportation Department, and the city engineer, be present to testify at this public hearing, or that their written reports and comments be read at the hearings. Although some or all of these agencies were involved in the first public hearing on Henry?s Lake Overlook, all testimony at that hearing is moot because the second hearing looked at an entirely new plan ? including the fact that the model homes Martini plans to build and the road design are different.
? Surface and subsurface hydrology studies should be required to make sure that the development?s well will have no effect on Hatchery Creek?s flow.
? As soon as possible, the Island Park Planning and Zoning Board, the Mayor of Island Park, the Island Park City Council, Planning Administrator Steve Foster, and City Attorney Stephanie Bonney should have a work session or sessions to study the comprehensive plan and development code, with special emphasis on scoring proposed developments.
? The Greater Yellowstone Coalition, The Nature Conservancy?s Henry?s Lake Ranchland Preservation Project, Henry?s Lake Foundation, Henry?s Fork Foundation, Island Park Advocates for Responsible Development, and countless Island Park, Fremont County, and U. S. citizens support preserving Henry?s Lake and its habitat because it is a valuable fishery and one of the headwaters of the priceless Henry?s Fork of the Snake River. Please, city officials, do not approve any project that degrades this beautiful area and leads to more high density developments near Henry?s Lake.
? Comment letters should ask the Island Park City Council to deny plat approval of Henry?s Lake Overlook. They should make as many other points as possible should be sent ASAP to all the following people: Mayor Tom Jewell and Island Park City Council members Torrance Anderson, Linda Foster, Maxine Layton, and Mike Shell. Address is the same for all: Island Park City Building, P. O. Box 399, Island Park, ID. 83429.
To ensure that your letter is not ?lost,? please copy it to the Island Park News, PO Box 410, Island Park, ID. 83429.

P. S. Nathan Martini DOES NOT OWN this property. He has a buyer?s agreement to purchase it. Until last year, most of the property was in Fremont County, but the buyer?s agreement allowed Martini to annex the land to the city, where it he would more likely get away with a high density development. IF Martini cannot develop as he wishes, he will not buy the land and the annexation will be void, according to Stephanie Bonney.
Island Park Realty is handling the sale. Owner is Jeff Paine of Idaho Falls. It would be wonderful if the Idaho Department of Fish and Game could purchase the property and use it for parking for hatchery visitors and anglers. Or, if some other conservation buyer would step up. Island Park Realty should be contacted for information about when the buyer?s agreement expires. (20 558-7332.