HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-19-21 Public Comment - K. Dolen - Bridger MeadowsFrom:Katie Dolen
To:Agenda
Subject:Attn: Sarah Rosenburg
Date:Monday, July 19, 2021 5:15:45 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Friends,
My name is Katie Dolen and I live at 1050 Boylan Rd Unit #4 in one of
the three structures that will be most impacted by the Bridger Meadows
development project.
I want to make it clear that Tom Murphy has a right to pursue the
development of property.
However, I oppose this development with prejudice on the basis of the
considerable impact it will bear on the direct abutters as presently
designed. With proper changes, many of our concerns can be mitigated.
specifically watershed and runoff. Building on that site will impact
several factors concerning the hydrology of our area.
The building codes preventing this development from happening were
put in place for a reason - to avoid potential for great damage. Every
time you put down an impervious surface like a road, or a house, it
sheds water. With any increase in impervious surfaces, there are less
opportunities to surcharge the aquifer and you’ll inevitably have an
increase in storm runoff. In other words, you're reducing the opportunity
for the land to absorb this runoff as it presently does. My neighbor, Mr.
X, lot x basement witnessed frequent flooding this spring. He reported
that his sump pump often ran for days without end pumping water from
his basement.
In our development, Village Greens, there are already various levels of
elevation and we are at risk for bearing the brunt of storm runoff, snow
removal from the road and/or houses, etc. Each time land is developed,
you are impacting the abutting properties’ ability to handle any
additional pressure. What is the alteration for storm water diversion?
Where is this water going?
The developer has applied to FEMA requesting for permission to fill in
the floodplain. He needs this approval before he can proceed with his
application to build. How can the planning board entertain this
application without all of the applicants' mitigations being met? Can we
atleast wait to hear what FEMA has to say to vote on this?
an adjustment for his need to fill in sections of the existing floodway
impacting the compensatory storage for this system. FEMA has yet to
approve this request, therefore Bozeman’s floodplain administrator and
engineer has yet to approve it. It would stand to reason that this
approval is out of sequence.
My husband and I met with Tom Murphy last week. Tom said that any
runoff or watershed would flow toward the river, not toward our homes.
There are two things to point out here: 1. While I am grateful and
appreciative of Tom's willingness to meet with us, I want to be really
sure of this information. Tom lives in Argentina for most of the year and
said once he sells his lots, he won't have anything to do with the land.
With all due respect to Tom, I need more than his word that our homes
will not be affected by this development. And I am trying to understand
and find out if everyone on your side of the table is asking the right
questions about the strain that is being put on this piece of land, in
particular the watershed potential. We need the assurance that the
storm runoff will not make it onto our property. 2. Has anyone
considered the effect on raising the water level of the wetlands and
ultimately the Gallatin River? Is this committee informed of that potential
damage?
At the planning board meeting, Tom had a gentleman sitting to his left
who stated he was Tom’s friend and a hydrology expert. This gentleman
commented on behalf of the developer and this project- as members of
the city commission, have you seen a hydrology study? As someone
whose home stands to be directly impacted, I am uncomfortable with
having not seen it. This is a concern. Before you pass this tonight, my
neighbors and I would like you to review the documents from any study
that Tom's hydrology consultant has done before you vote.
I would also like to quote and echo the sentiments of my neighbor and
former Planning Board member, Nikki Naiser, who wrote what I hope
was an impactful editorial letter published in the Chronicle last week.
“As a Bozeman taxpayer I do not support the relaxation of any codes for
the sake of development. The codes are designed to keep our citizens
safe and protect the unique quality of our town, even as we continue to
infill. We can grow without throwing up our hands and giving in to
developments that don’t make sense. There are reasons why proposals
for this particular site have been denied so many times over the past
several years.”
Furthermore, Mayor Andrus: I recently watched your plea to the senate
regarding our affordable housing crisis here in Bozeman. I watched how
you advocated for our city to Senator Tester and in listening to your
impassioned message, my admiration for you grew.
I am all for making room for everyone and I appreciate growth and
change- growth and change is positive- but I ask you all to consider the
impact of these 16 lots, lots that Tom Murphy told me last Friday that he
was recently told by his realtor he could ask $400,000 for each one.
With current building prices as well as home size requirements for this
development, are we really going to be making room for families to
realistically afford homes in the Bridger Meadows development? Or are
we making more room for families who can afford a house that will cost
more than three quarters of a million dollars? Which Bozeman are you
helping with this development project?
After years of opposing this very development, Bozeman’s Planning
Board voted yes to this project on June 21st. The Board Chair, Henry
Happel, clearly cemented his stance as pro-development and not pro-
community during the meeting when he was quoted in the Bozeman
Chronicle a few weeks ago as saying “people decide to buy houses
which are adjacent to undeveloped land and I think that there is an
expectation, at least the hope that the undeveloped land with the
soaring eagles and frolicking deer will remain that way forever.” These
insensitive remarks about the well meaning and concerned citizens
living in this area are made by an elected official. This is a gross and
audacious response to our concerns and ultimately adds to the tension
that continues to grow in this town day by day.
I am not here to decide what Tom Murphy is allowed to do with his land.
It’s his land, he owns it. But who are we all if we don’t make room to
work together and collaborate on this and future projects in our city? If
this development goes through, what guarantees do we have from you,
our elected officials, that our homes will be safe as a result of it?
Here are my questions:
1.
Have any commission members visited the proposed development
site? Have you seen that several of the yards of the homes lining
the proposed road are sunk 4-5 ft below the trail level, making
anyone at the road level, eye level? Any car traveling down the
road or out of a driveway (a potential for 32 at a time) will add to
air, light and sound pollution of the area (they will shine lights,
expel exhaust while warming up their cars on the road in the winter,
etc).
2.
If you are relaxing the 6 codes for this project, are you prepared to
relax the codes for future development projects within city limits,
putting continued pressure on our city’s infrastructure and ability to
manage things like flooding?
3.
I would like to be informed if there is an appeal policy and/or
procedure after a decision has been made this evening.
Finally, The Gallatin Valley Land Trust who manages the trail along the
proposed road has told me they support any and all types of separation
between the trail that they manage and the road for this project. If this is
going to go forward, we’d like Tom to at least provide traffic barriers
between the trail and the road. Tom said there is a 7ft area between the
trail and the road. Our neighborhood (and I'm sure the community at
large who uses this trail on a regular basis) requests that the
commission mandates a burm, guardrail, screening, or fence to be
placed in between the trail and the road. A burm or raised bank that is
high enough to visually block the sound, light, and air pollution from the
road to the trail.
For 16 lots at $400,000 each the developer is likely to make a great deal
of money on this project- again, that’s his right- but it also gives him the
ability to make this a safe and quality project for both parties on either
side of the trail.
It is clear our city is growing, but as our brave elected officials, I am
looking to you to do the right thing and look out for those among us who
trust in you to keep us safe.
Kindly and with great respect for the position you are in to make this
decision,
Katie Dolen