Two appeals filed against Panhandle Bike Ranch CUP

SAGLE — Two appeals have been filed regarding the Panhandle Bike Ranch outside Sagle that was approved in April — one from multiple individuals upset by the county’s approval of the bike park and one from the applicants themselves.

The proposed 170-acre bike park would be located off Five Lakes Estates Road and will create another opportunity for downhill mountain biking in the community. However, critics said it doesn’t belong where it’s being proposed.

The April 17 approval of a conditional use permit caused outrage throughout the community, who voiced multiple concerns and complaints about the proposed plans. Increases in traffic, noise, and garbage were among the issues county residents brought up during the hearing.

Plans to appeal the decision were underway almost immediately after the CUP was approved, and an official appeal was filed May 20. Nearly 40 appellants banded together to raise the funds for the appeal process.

The appellants claimed that the approval of the CUP is in violation and excess of the Local Land Use Planning Act. The approval stated that the CUP was in accordance with Bonner County’s Comprehensive Plan and will not create a hazard to persons or properties adjacent to the park.

“The approval fails to explain how the proposed CUP is in accord with the comprehensive plan,” the appeal said. “Given the extensive comments and testimony received on the application, it is essential that such an explanation be provided.”

Additionally, the appellants claimed the hearing examiner’s legal conclusions to be “incomplete and therefore insufficient.” The approval fails to fully determine that the park is a recreational facility, they continue in the appeal, making it unclear if it meets the requirements for the CUP.

“Based on the facts in the record, a proper legal conclusion would be that the proposed use is either a ‘commercial resort’ or an ‘outdoor recreational use,’ — neither of which is conditionally permitted in the applicable rural zoning district under the Commercial Use Table,” the appeal said.

The appeal further stated the hearing examiner’s approval “is not supported by the record and is arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.” According to the appellants, the examiner’s findings of fact or not supported, and some are missing altogether.

In addition to the alleged lack of evidence proving the facility to be of the recreational kind, the appeal claimed there is no evidence that the property holds sufficient water sources for fire suppression.

“Finally, there is no finding of fact regarding the adverse effects on surrounding properties …” the appeal said. “Finding of Fact No. 15, stating that the conditions of approval are intended to reduce the possible impact of the proposed use, does not constitute such a finding.”

Because of these statements, the appellants requested that the approval of the CUP be overturned.

Furthermore, the applicants — the Kalbach family — have filed their own appeal of the decision requesting a more lenient CUP, claiming that the “unsupported and restrictive conditions” placed on the approval are “arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.”

The applicant’s appeal also voiced issues with Fact No. 15, “the project site is adjacent to a residential neighborhood and the conditions of approval are intended to reduce the possible impact the recreational facility may have.”

“BCRC does allow the imposition of safeguards to protect adjacent properties,” the appeal said. “However, the administrative process may not rely on speculative or possible injury alone.”

The appeal continued on to say that no empirical evidence or, in some cases, legal authority, support the outlined conditions in the CUP.

The first condition the applicants are appealing is A-5, stating no fireworks, firearms, hunting or shooting will be allowed with tent camping. The issue, the applicants said, is with firearms, “the restriction of which is otherwise unlawful.”

The second condition is A-11, outlining the limits of operation from May to September, Thursday through Sunday, to include some holidays. The condition also stated that hours of operation cannot exceed 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. and the park will have a maximum of 65 bike riders per day.

However, the applicant is requesting an adjustment to most of those conditions, hoping to be open from May 1 through Oct. 15, seven days a week, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. or until dusk, with a maximum of 150 riders per day.

“This restriction [Thursday through Sunday] prevents those who work on the weekends from participating,” the appeal said. “This restriction also forces all traffic and visitation during four days, making those limited days of use more intense rather than spreading out the frequency and intensity of use.”

The applicants further argued that restricting hours of operation to 5 p.m. during the summer months “arbitrarily excludes hours of daylight.” This will also bar anyone working “normal” work hours from using the facility.

“Applicant proposes an unmotorized bike park,” the appeal said. “Unmotorized bikes will emit little sound; thus, an arbitrary time limit to promote ‘quiet hours’ is unnecessary.”

The appeal claimed the cap on the number of daily riders at 65 is arbitrary as well, especially since 150 personnel are approved to be on the premises during events. The proposed site plans also hold available space for 173 parking lots, allowing ample room for 150 daily riders even in the absence of carpooling.

Condition A-12, a limit of two race events per year, is the next condition being appealed. The applicants are requesting the approval of four race events to be held each year. The park’s operation window engulfs four holidays, and the applicants argued that the arbitrary number of two races “precludes races even for the limited legal holidays alone.” The applicants claimed that there is no substantial evidence that having four annual races rather than two will adversely affect neighboring properties.

The appeal also highlights the condition for the applicants to create stormwater/grading/erosion control plans for shuttle routes, outlined in B-3.

“Shuttle routes consist of existing internal roads developed previously,” the appeal said. “The existing shuttle routes existed prior to applicant’s ownership of the property and are, by definition, not part of ‘site development.’”

The applicants further stated that since the roads are fully within the property’s boundaries and will only be used by the applicants, there is no legal requirement to submit control plans.

The appeal also argues condition B-4, requiring a geotechnical analysis of those shuttle routes, given that they are already in existence and not proposed site plans that would alter the already-existing landscape of the property.

“Applicant requests the board to grant relief from the conditions placed on the application …” the appeal said. “Revision will cause no actual harm to the public … When considering the approval of this conditional use permit in the rural district, Bonner County must weigh the specific objectives of the Comprehensive Plan in addition to the language found in BCRC 12-232. This language includes the express desire to allow tourism and recreation uses that can be supported by rural service levels, are compatible with rural character, and that encourage and enhance recreational opportunities.”

Both appeals are set to be heard by the Bonner County Board of Commissioners on Monday, June 24, at 1 p.m. at the Bonner County Fairgrounds, 4203 N. Boyer Rd. in Sandpoint.

Written statements either for or against either appeal must be submitted to the Bonner County Planning Department no later than one week prior to the hearing Monday, June 17. Statements can be mailed to the Planning Department at 1500 U.S. 2, Suite 208, Sandpoint, ID 83864; faxed to 866-537-4935, or emailed to planning@bonnercountyid.gov.