Skip to content

Opinion: Kevin Gallagher: A letter to Council for consideration

I am writing to express my neighbors and my support for amending the special financing districts law to exclude residential developments. In changing the law last year at the request of the Mountain Brook Development, you extended a special financing district for an unprecedented residential development.
Typewriter opinion
Photo by Alexa Mazzarello on Unsplash

This content was originally published by the Longmont Observer and is licensed under a Creative Commons license.

Dear Longmont City Council, 

I am writing to express my neighbors and my support for amending the special financing districts law to exclude residential developments. In changing the law last year at the request of the Mountain Brook Development, you extended a special financing district for an unprecedented residential development.  Why did you not explore why Mountain Brook could not get financing by traditional means?  Why were you so enthusiastic to help Mulshine and the Mountain Brook development, yet insulted and  ignored the legitimate and reasonable concerns of the neighbors?   If Mountain Brook gets to keep their residential special metro financing distract after the amendment, then you have effectively changed a law for the benefit of one, and could be viewed as illegal spot zoning, as it applies to districts and the variances granted. A recent visit to plannersweb.com, I learned ,The “classic” definition of spot zoning is “the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners."  Anderson's American Law of Zoning, 4th Edition, § 5.12 (1995) Planners Web also has an article on the secrets of successful communities with regard to planning.  Please take a look at the article. It talks about not treating neighbors with concerns as adversaries.  It talks about not being so desperate that you can never say no to a developer.  And it talks about preserving the aesthetics of a community.http://plannersweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/The-Secrets-of-Successful-Communities-_-PlannersWeb.pdf As residents within the LPA, we were never against the development or the city’s right to plan for this area.  We are concerned about the radical changes 400 new neighbors will cause to our rural, agricultural 2 lane road, to our groundwater levels and flooding threats from the large infill,  and for our concerns that building under an airport traffic lane,  which we all witness all year, will create a hazard for residents and planes. You have a duty and a responsibility to the neighbors for such a large development and your government has failed in that respect.  Mountain Brook’s traffic and drainage reports, released after you pushed through the preliminary plat and reversed our appeal, are dependent on the planned developments to the east at Fairgrounds Marketplace, and to the west at Rogers and Airport road.  But both of those adjacent plats are up for sale with no plans, making those reports irrelevant.  As a result of such substantial changes, planning should be directed to make Mountain Brook reapply and to adhere to the requirements of the code and responsibly respond to our concerns for the future of Rogers Road and the land on which we live, work, and pay taxes.  Or at the very least, reinstate our reasonable appeal and stop taking texts and calls from the developers when their projects are before you for approval. Thank you for your consideration. 

Kevin Gallagher

Longmont CO 80503