Developers seek delay

The developers of the proposed Chateau de Loire golf retreat want to postpone an April 19 public hearing so they can have more time to prepare their application.

The French-themed luxury getaway is on a fast-track schedule as part of a legally mediated agreement with Kootenai County. Yet the owner of Kirk-Hughes Development said more time is needed to address the concerns raised by government agencies, including the Idaho Transportation Department, and give other agencies such as the state Department of Environmental Quality time to comment.

The request comes the day after a watchdog group demanded that the county cancel the public hearing, alleging the application for the 18-hole golf course, 500 homes and condos and community dock is incomplete and the public can’t comment unless government agencies have had time to respond.

“The public has a total and complete right to examine the entire application,” wrote attorney Scott Reed, who represents Neighbors for Responsible Growth.

It isn’t clear whether the county will grant the delay. Kootenai County Attorney John Cafferty didn’t return phone calls Thursday.

Scott Brown, the private land-use consultant the county hired to process the Chateau de Loire proposal, referred questions to Cafferty. Brown said he has no new guidance from the county and plans to complete the draft staff report by the Monday deadline.

Officials from DEQ and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers wrote letters to the county stating that it was impossible for them to provide comments by the March 30 agency deadline.

Gary Gaffney of the DEQ recommended postponing further action on what he described as a “major development” until the agency could evaluate the proposed water and system designs. In the March 21 e-mail to the county, Gaffney wrote that it would take the agency 60 days.

Yet Geraldine Kirk-Hughes, in a Wednesday letter to the county, asked for a delay until the “earliest date available in May.” That would only give the company a few weeks to provide more information and get agency responses.

Project Manager Gary Young said Thursday that the postponement request had nothing to do with Neighbors for Responsible Growth and that Kirk-Hughes Development had decided to ask for more time prior to the neighborhood group’s letter.

The development company also wants the county to give Brown the same authority the planning director has to make the application process more flexible. Young said similar proposals – the Black Rock and Gozzer Ranch golf retreats – were granted more flexibility in how their request was submitted to the county because of the large scale of the projects.

The county hired Brown for $10,000 to avoid a conflict of interest. Interim Planning Director Cheri Howell previously worked for Kirk-Hughes Development as a planner before she became a county employee.

In a March 19 letter to Cafferty, Young took issue with Brown’s conclusion that the Chateau de Loire application was incomplete. Young wrote that he is uncomfortable with Brown “calling all the shots” because Brown is a competing private planner and they have had differences in the past.

Young alleged that Brown is an “obstructionist” who is unyielding and driving up the cost of the project.

“I am concerned that he is hostile toward me and possibly the project,” Young wrote.

Three days later, Young requested that the county give the development company relief in the application process. He also wrote that he had realized Brown doesn’t have such authority.

In the letter, Young goes on to apologize for venting his frustrations and wrote, “I no longer believe that you are intentionally making things difficult for me or the project.”

Young declined to comment on what he characterized as internal dealings. Brown also declined to comment.

Kirk-Hughes Development reached an agreement with the county in January, allowing the company to file a new plan for Chateau de Loire and receive an expedited public hearing schedule.

In exchange, the company dropped a court appeal of the Kootenai County commission’s denial of the initial golf retreat proposal. The company alleged the commission’s action was discriminatory and unsupported.