sos-eagle

Avimor Annexation Hearing Postcard

Annexation Postcards

Bullet #1: The application doesn’t seem to comply with the legislative intent of ID Annexation Code IC 50-222.

Title 50-222, Idaho Statute

From the Avimor Staff Report, page 30:
(a) Category A: Annexations wherein:
(i) All private landowners have consented to annexation. Annexation where all landowners have consented may extend beyond the city area of impact provided that the land is contiguous to the city and that the comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation;

Planning & Zoning Hearing: COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Upon closing the public hearing, the Commission discussed during deliberation that:
The project is contiguous but not near the developed portion of the City, which could have an impact on quality of public services.  P. 33, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER A-06- 22/ RZ- 06- 22 & ZOA-01- 22 AND A- 14- 22/ RZ- 19- 22

Bullet #2: Avimor seeks annexation based on some standards which do not comply with Eagle’s.

City of Eagle Parks, Pathways and Recreation Commission: All comments and recommendations by the PPRC dated June 22, 2022, are of special concern. In summary, PPRC was opposed to the adoption of a trail and pathway code within proposed Title 11B.

— P. 7, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER A-06- 22/ RZ- 06- 22 & ZOA-01- 22 AND A- 14- 22/ RZ- 19- 22

Parks, Pathways, and Recreation Commission (PPRC): PPRC reviewed proposed Title 11B and did not support the adoption of the sections contained within 11B that dealt with trails and pathways. Instead, PPRC recommended that Avimor be subject to Eagle City Code 9-4- 1- 6. One of the reasons given by PPRC was to give the City the ability to easily amend Eagle City Code because trail specifications and best practices change over time. If the trail standards are contained within Title 11B, it will be difficult for the City to amend them in the future because an amendment to Title 11B will require the consent of Avimor. PPRC also provided additional recommendations contained in their memo dated June 22, 2022.

— P. 29, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER A-06- 22/ RZ- 06- 22 & ZOA-01- 22 AND A- 14- 22/ RZ- 19- 22

City Engineer: All comments within the Engineer’ s letters dated 9/ 23/ 2022, 9/ 26/ 2022, 12/ 09/ 2022, and 12/ 09/ 2022, are of special concern. In summary, the letters address the review of Avimor’ s Master Wastewater Study, Master Drainage Report, proposed Title 11B, and Avimor’ s Grading Guidelines and Hillside Development Standards.

–P. 7, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER A-06- 22/ RZ- 06- 22 & ZOA-01- 22 AND A- 14- 22/ RZ- 19- 22

CITY ENGINEER COMMENTS: The City Engineer has reviewed Avimor’ s grading and hillside development standards and has expressed a concern regarding the adequacy of the financial assurances proposed. Specifically, the grading standards proposed for Avimor only require financial assurance for slope stabilization and revegetation as part of the mass grading permit. In contrast, Spring Valley’ s grading and hillside development standards require financial assurances to complete 100% of the work proposed. The City Council must determine if the financial assurances proposed by the applicant are sufficient or if Avimor’s hillside and grading standards should be revised to cover other portions of the work e. g. grading, storm water pollution prevention, temporary piping).

–P. 32, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER A-06- 22/ RZ- 06- 22 & ZOA-01- 22 AND A- 14- 22/ RZ- 19- 22

Bullet #3: Eagle taxpayers will bear the burden of subsidizing Avimor’s growth since it will not pay for itself.

Bullet #4: The annexation request creates a donut hole by excluding 200+ eligible homeowners in Phases 1-3 who could have voted against annexation.

Idaho Code 50-222(3)(a)

(i) All private landowners have consented to annexation. Annexation where all landowners have consented may extend beyond the city area of impact provided that the land is contiguous to the city and that the comprehensive plan includes the area of annexation;

It appears that Avimor did not plan for future annexation into Eagle when they began building houses. “The first three phases of Avimor, were built and sold before annexation was contemplated so Avimor does not have consent from all those land owners for annexation,” Deborah Nelson of Givens Pursley, representing Avimor, explained. See P & Z Hearing statement at 27 minutes.

200+ homeowners would have the ability to vote against annexation, which is why they aren’t included in Avimor’s request. The map shows the houses in Avimor that are not part of the annexation, thus making them the “donut hole.”

The Avimor "doughnut hole"

Beginning with Phase 4 construction, Avimor added language to their plat maps, prohibiting homeowners from objecting to annexation into Eagle. Note 18 on the following map reads:

“The recording of this plat shall constitute consent pursuant to Idaho code 50-222 (4)(a) to the annexation of all lots in this subdivision into the city of Eagle. This consent shall be binding upon all subsequent purchasers, heirs, or assigns of each lot.”

Avimor plat map example

If annexation is approved, these “donut hole” property owners will enjoy the same services as their annexed neighbors, but without paying property taxes to the city of Eagle. Is this any way to do business?

By the way, there is another donut hole in the Avimor annexation application. That is the Rock Creek Shooting Range in the northern part of Avimor. Why is that a donut hole? Because the City of Eagle only allows outside shooting ranges in the Eagle City Limits to be owned by the City of Eagle.

Bullet #5: Controlled growth?

Avimor is currently controlled by Ada County guidelines and approvals. From the Intermountain Multiple Listing Service: 674 new construction houses have been built in Avimor since 2009. (14 years)

If Avimor is annexed into Eagle, full buildout of the project is projected at thirty seven years. “The 17,522-acre site is anticipated to include up to 8,761 dwelling units and approximately 860,000 square feet of commercial and retail uses.”

–P. 1, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CASE NUMBER A-06- 22/ RZ- 06- 22 & ZOA-01- 22 AND A- 14- 22/ RZ- 19- 22

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *