HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-12-23 Public Comment - F. Boom - Project application 22293, Shady GlenFrom:Faye Boom
To:Agenda
Subject:Project application 22293, Shady Glen
Date:Sunday, March 12, 2023 6:22:29 PM
Attachments:Shady Glen Development.docx
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.
Attached is my public comment statement regarding the proposed Shady Glen project nearBridger Drive and Birdie Drive. Please make sure this reaches the City Commission before
the March 21 meeting. Thank you.
Shady Glen Development
Once again, Tom Murphy, (AKA Bridger Meadows) is applying for
approval to develop his tract of land close to the Bridger Creek Golf
Course. This time he is applying under a new name, Shady Glen. He is
hoping to lure the Commission into approving his development by
offering two “affordable homesites”, without any definition of exactly
how “affordable” or attainable to the average citizen they will be.
These would be Lots 15 and 16, the smallest lots, and the request is to
allow townhouses on those lots in violation of current R1 zoning. He
also offers 7.13 acres (of unbuildable land) as a wildlife refuge. It is
already a wildlife refuge in a sense, and he is responsible for its
maintenance. If this offer is accepted, will the city then accept
responsibility for maintenance? What will that cost be? I hope the
Commission members are not taken in by these “offers” and will not
make current codes meaningless.
Other problems include, 1) this is a wetlands area, and 2) there is barely
one access/egress point, 3) nuisance to neighbors. The water table is
so high that even the existing houses on the other side of the proposed
development, and thus farther from the river, experience flooding of
their crawl spaces (basements are out of the question in this area).
Wetlands perform an essential water filtering process and should be
preserved; the request for a shortening of the wetland buffer from 50
feet to 35 feet should not be allowed. Nor should the proposed fill of
wetlands area be allowed to artificially remove the area from the
floodplain.
The members of the Commission have often expressed their concern
and disapproval of a subdivision having only one access point. They
have expressed concern about flooding, fires, and other safety
problems due to having only one access point. This problem has not
been solved. The 22293 Application plan map shows the access road
being the road through the Links Condominums, which is designated a
private road. I would submit that Shady Glen cannot take over a
private road and disrupt the privacy of those residents. Presumably the
residents of the Links have collectively negotiated and paid for that
private road and Shady Glen should not be able to horn in on their
privacy and quiet. Without that ‘Links road’ there would be only what
is called the “emergency access” as the only real access to the
development. The commercial inhabitants only contracted for
emergency and pedestrian use, not regular access traffic.
The street layout brings continuous traffic close to the existing homes
on the other side of the existing trail. That means noise, headlights,
yardlights, etc. in the backyards and bedrooms of current houses at all
hours. It would create a public nuisance.
For all of these reasons, I urge the Commission to deny this
development, at least until some modifications are made to conform to
current codes and to take current citizens into consideration.
Thank you,
Faye Boom
1050 Boylan Rd.
Bozeman, MT