Opponents of an affordable housing project adjacent to the Bigwood Golf Course cheered on Monday night after the Ketchum City Council denied the proposal due to a legal uncertainty.
But the applause could prove premature, as both the council and developer of the proposed 19-unit project, represented by Ketchum-based Valley Properties Inc., expressed an interest in pursuing a declaratory judgement on the land in question.
Picking up where they left off last month in a meeting marked by a raucous atmosphere at times, the council once again expressed concern over the true ownership of the four-acre strip of land, located on the narrow bench between the southern end of the Bigwood Golf Course and the Ketchum Cemetery.
During the entire application process, which was begun with the Planning and Zoning Commission in April, residents of the nearby Bigwood subdivision have argued that the original Thunder Spring development agreement deeded the land to the homeowners association.
This agreement stated that this piece of property would remain as open space in perpetuity or become part of the golf course.
But attorney Stephanie Bonney, a land-use specialist retained by the city for this project, said that language in the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the site gives the owner the legal right to develop the land.
Still, Bonney's opinion wasn't enough to inspire the council to approve the project, despite several vocal commitments to the creation of affordable housing. The Planning and Zoning Commission's unanimous recommendation of project made this spring didn't make a dent either.
Instead, the council chose to deny the proposal in the face of protracted litigation, with the possibility of seeking a declaratory judgement, which would determine the rightful owner of the land once and for all.
The council members did not deliberate amongst themselves on the issue, instead giving premeditated individual opinions on the application.
"I think this all boils down to a potential taking of alleged private property," Councilman Larry Helzel said as a preamble to his vote in opposition to the application. "We need a process whereby first a judge determines who are the eligible owners of interest in the property, if any, who are not, what those interests are worth, and what is the form of compensation."
This came after David Hutchinson, president of Valley Properties Inc., presented the council with three different options for moving forward.
As an alternative to outright approval, Hutchinson suggested either the declaratory judgement process or the negotiation of an in-lieu payment.
Hutchinson calculated a payment of $650,000 based on the difference between the cost of constructing the nine-unit first phase and the estimated revenue from sales.
This first phase of the project would include a delayed substitute for housing commitments made as part of the original Thunder Spring planned-unit development.
<
This PUD for Thunder Spring called for 4,800 square feet of community housing and 5,000 square feet of office space for nonprofit organizations. But Hutchinson said 2,500 square feet of housing was proposed in place of the office space.
The construction would fulfill the balance of the housing requirement not provided onsite at the Residences at Thunder Spring, an approved new project of 24 fractional units scheduled for completion in about two years.
The portion being built in accordance with the requirement from this new high-end housing project would include three units, with another four units of employee housing built onsite at the residences.
Hutchinson said it's important for the developers to resolve this issue quickly, as a certificate of occupancy cannot be given for the Residences until the affordable housing requirement is mitigated.
Because the option of the in-lieu payment was related to the requirements on Thunder Spring, rather than the affordable housing project itself, Bonney recommended that it be heard at a separate meeting, currently scheduled for August 18.
The atmosphere at the meeting, held at the Presbyterian Church of the Bigwood, was contentious. The crowd loudly jeered Hutchinson when he approached the lectern to answer a question from Councilman Curtis Kemp.
The behavior of the audience visibly annoyed Mayor Randy Hall, who attempted to quell what he deemed inappropriate clamoring.
While both Kemp and Helzel voted against the application, Councilman Baird Gourlay voted for it, stating that there are better uses for that block of land.
"This is not sacred ground. It's a dump," Gourlay said, contradicting public testimony that the land should be preserved. "To me, that's not open space nor a scenic area."
As well, he refuted former Councilman Jack Corrock's previous statements that the land was an important entrance to town, along the lines of the Reinheimer Ranch, by pointing out that the opposite side of state Highway 75 contained a long stretch of the city's industrial area.
Gourlay said that if a declaratory judgement is returned in favor of the homeowners association, then he would recommend that the city condemn the property in order to use it as the site for a new fire station.
The declaratory judgement would also determine the price at which the city could purchase the land.
In light of Gourlay's recommendation, Hutchinson said he was perplexed by the delighted reaction of the opposition in the audience after the council rendered its decision.
"Even if they don't get something from us, they'll still end up getting something on that lot," Hutchinson said.
