Michael and Clotilde Rollins are East Fork property owners who have been tied up in a two-year legal dispute with their neighbor over the proposed construction of a new house.
By MICHAEL J. and CLOTILDE ROLLINS
We are writing in response to the article published on Friday, Dec. 15, 2006, entitled "New East Fork lawsuit cites 'public hatred.'" The purpose of my letter is to clarify, educate and inform readers about the court-proceedings and the underlying property dispute. We believe the article had the effect of perpetuating false impressions about my concern for our environment and preservation of the scenic beauty of the Wood River Valley.
First, the photograph of the old construction site from the spring of 2005 is misleading and has mischaracterized the current state of the property. The photo pictured in the paper was an accurate depiction of the construction site as it existed more than one-and-a-half years ago. Never did we intend for our bare lot to remain as long as it did. It was only because the county prevented us from landscaping that it continued to be an eyesore. Now, after only one growing cycle, the land is no longer bare and exposed.
In the spring of 2005 we submitted to the Mountain Express other computer-generated photos of the site that more accurately depicted the proposed landscaping. We find it disappointing and objectionable that the current photographs were not published. A photograph from last spring would have shown that the hillside has begun to regenerate. Although, admittedly, the property was unsightly during the early phase of construction, that process is simply one of the steps in planning and constructing a new home site. Had we not had to suffer through the appeal process, the home would be completed at this point.
We are appalled that the Mountain Express generalized that Judge Elgee's decision "as with many legal decisions ... hung on something of a technicality." The district court found that Brian Poster as my neighbor had no standing to appeal the decision in the first place. He was never an "aggrieved party" with appealable rights. The court found that although Blaine County is free to redefine "who may appeal" there are sound public policy reasons for not inviting the public at large to participate in and/or appeal every county decision. Home-building across the county would be delayed, and tax money would be wasted if anyone had the rights that Poster was claiming.
The court also found that even "if Poster was an aggrieved party and had a right to appeal the July 2004 decision of the zoning administrator, his appeal was untimely." The finding that requires Brian Poster to abide by the law is not a technicality. We take issue with the generalization by the Mountain Express that Judge Elgee's decision was somehow based on a technical issue. Judge Elgee issued a 27-page judicial decision that was well-reasoned and is available for public review.
Finally, Judge Elgee found that my substantial rights had been violated by Blaine County. That is not a technicality, either. As citizens and full-time residents of the Wood River Valley, we are trying to provide a safe and comfortable home for our children. Because of Blaine County's misguided decision making, we have been unreasonably delayed in building our home and have been forced to move into two separate rental properties.
As a final point of clarification, our lot is approximately 1.2 miles from Highway 75. It is true that our lot is part of the highway view corridor. There are, additionally, many bench slope decisions that affect properties that are located several miles from the highway and are visible from the road. Additionally, a neighbor's home is further from the highway than ours and is also visible from the highway.
We acknowledge efforts of the Mountain Express to maintain fair, accurate and unbiased reporting. Any steps taken to clarify this story and to properly educate your readership are appreciated.
Editor's note: The Mountain Express stands by the reporting in the Dec. 15 story but does acknowledge that the stated distance of the Rollins building site from state Highway 75 was incorrect.
