Commissioners approve contested Providence Subdivision project

SANDPOINT — Bonner County commissioners last week approved the highly-contentious construction of the Providence Subdivision located outside the Kootenai city limits.

The proposed project would turn a roughly 39-acre plot of land, which sits adjacent to the Seven Sisters development, into 116 plots of land for housing. The minimum lot size would be just over 10,000 square feet, or .24 acre, as according to state law. Additionally, part of that acreage would be used to create non-residential utility tracts for stormwater management as well as a green belt for wildlife.

Project senior planner Swati Rastogi told commissioners that county staff heard numerous concerns expressed in regards to the project. One of the largest concerns stems around the wetlands that sit on the property. According to some, that site serves as the stormwater runoff for the Seven Sisters development. Removing it would potentially cause flooding to both the Sisters development as well as the Providence Road project.

However, another project planner stated that if the site acts as a stormwater drainage for Seven Sisters, that would violate stormwater codes and removing the system would still be acceptable in order to comply with laws. Engineers are currently working on alternate ways to drain the current water sitting on the property that prevents any flooding from either development site, officials said.

“The soils here are difficult,” the planner said. “They are not soils that allow water to go through them. I believe that is also what the engineers have found. Those determinations are independent of whether it is wetlands to be protected. This is just the accumulation of water. The engineers are coming up with a stormwater plan.”

Wetland surveys are still being conducted on the property, Rastogi said, which will indicate the necessary paths planners need to take to properly carry out construction while also obeying wetlands regulations.

“Our plans are indicating to not disturb the wetlands area until a determination is made or a permit is received,” said Dan Taddick of HMH Engineering.

Other concerns brought up by the public were that the extra traffic will cause more accidents at the already-precarious intersection of Providence Road and Highway 200; Kootenai Elementary School is already at capacity and could not handle the additional students that 116 new homes have the potential to bring; and the fact that these houses will not be priced in the affordable range for Bonner County residents.

Rastogi told commissioners that many of these concerns have been addressed and there are plans in place to prevent additional stress on the surrounding infrastructure. The Idaho Department of Transportation’s survey of the area requires illumination of the Providence Road and Highway 200 intersection will require both illumination as well as right- and left-hand turn lanes should the project move forward. Additionally, the project’s applicants will be required to provide a letter from ITD stating that any further Highway 200 improvements that are needed to accommodate the added traffic have been completed or are scheduled prior to the completion of the final lot.

The senior planner also said that the Lake Pend Oreille School District submitted a letter of neutrality to the development, neither stating that they were for the addition nor that they did not have the ability to accept extra students, should they come.

Only one individual spoke in favor of the development, saying that with the current housing shortage in Bonner County, the construction of new homes should be seen as a positive. However, most residents did not feel the same way.

“I know there’s a housing shortage,” said another Bonner County resident who spoke during the public hearing. “I’m completely sympathetic. But this housing development isn’t going to create houses that are $200,000-$300,000. There are going to be $600,000, $700,000, $800,000 homes that the median wage of a $44,000-family is not going to be able to afford. This is not for Bonner County. This is not for the city of Kootenai. This is for profit.”

Commissioner Asia Williams said that not all housing created in Bonner County necessarily needs to be deemed affordable housing. The contractors, she said, are trying to turn a profit on their property, which she said everyone does — tries to make a profit. As long as the development isn’t marketed as affordable housing, she stated she had no problem with the construction.

Another concern that was noted by the public was Commissioner Steve Bradshaw’s alleged conflict of interest in voting on the matter. Bradshaw disclosed that he has known one of the developers for over 34 years, and one commenter pointed out that the applicant had donated money to his commissioner campaign. Bill Wilson, who serves as the commissioners' legal counsel, said that just knowing a developer does not necessarily constitute a conflict of interest for Bradshaw, as commissioners tend to meet a plethora of people due to their jobs. Bradshaw also chimed in, claiming that he and the developer are merely acquaintances and would not be considered friends. Because both have lived here for a long time, they have involuntarily crossed paths multiple times.

“I just know who he is, I’ve known him for a long time,” he said. “We’ve never done any business. I don’t know if we’ve ever even eaten lunch together.”

After the public hearing closed, the commissioners began deliberation on the subject. Commissioner Luke Omodt said he felt confident in approving the matter on one condition — creating a larger easement for emergency vehicles to quickly access houses in the development should the need arise.

“I would advocate that instead of a 25-foot-wide easement on Chewelah Loop, that it would be a 60-foot-wide easement,” he said.

Bradshaw agreed that making the easement wider would ensure the safety of both the development’s residents as well as emergency personnel responding to calls in the area.

“It looks like we’re rushing and bypassing some elements of this,” Williams said. “The concern from Natural Recourse Wetlands is — why are we going to make decisions that could negatively impact that type of area before we know the answer of how should we be developing responsibly knowing that we have wetlands?”

Williams said that the public’s concerns about the development are valid and deserved answers before such a large project was approved, especially before all the surveys had been completed.

Omodt made a motion to approve the project provided it meets all the conditions of approval required. Bradshaw and Omodt voted yes on the motion while Williams voted against it.

“My vote is no based on conclusion one, two, three, five and eight are not in compliance in my review of this record,” she said.