C. Falls developer faces lawsuit

The developer behind Lookout Estates, a proposed 24-acre subdivision west of Columbia Falls that is slated for continued discussion at the June 4 meeting of the City Council, is in the midst of a lawsuit filed by the Montana Department of Environmental Quality.

The DEQ suit filed on Aug. 11, 2006, claims Bill Droskoski, doing business as Ski Construction LLC, ignored repeated warnings and went forward with construction on a three-lot subdivision in 2005 before he had the proper permit.

As a result, the state levied substantial fines - its settlement offer is $16,000. Droskoski countered closer to $4,000, a state official said.

If they can't reach agreement, the civil case will go to Flathead County District Court.

DEQ legal counsel Jim Madden said the process started July 25, 2005. That's when Droskoski asked for a boundary line adjustment to build homes on three half-acre lots at the corner of River Road and Columbia Falls Stage. The parcels are in county territory but inside city subdivision jurisdiction, just across the Flathead River from the city's eastern limits.

Montana developers on every parcel smaller than 20 acres must apply to the state DEQ for subdivision review under the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act. That permit must be approved before any construction legally can begin.

Droskoski proposed a single well to serve three homes, each with its own septic drain field. State rules require a one-acre minimum size if each lot has its own water and septic. But that minimum drops to a half-acre if they are served by a shared well.

Droskoski met the standard, and eventually DEQ approved his permit.

But the hitch occurred because, the state alleges, he started building before that permit was finalized.

On Aug. 25, 2005, a month after Ski Construction's July 25 application for a boundary line adjustment, Madden said the state denied the application because it lacked information on several minor points such as engineering details.

On Aug. 30, Madden said, the state learned construction there had started anyway.

Keith Gestring, the DEQ's environmental engineer in Kalispell at the time, visited the site Aug. 31 and found all three foundations in place and framing well under way.

He said DEQ issued a warning notice Sept. 1, telling Droskoski that it was a violation of the Sanitation and Subdivisions Act to build before approval, and recommended that he stop construction.

Gestring did another site visit Sept. 9 and found that construction still was continuing.

That's when Gestring asked that a DEQ subdivision enforcement officer from Helena get involved.

Madden said that on Sept. 13, Frank Gessaman, case management bureau chief in Helena, spoke with Droskoski by phone and explained the penalties if construction continued. He said the developer was reluctant to suspend work because he had a delivery date on the three houses. But by the end of the phone call, Madden said, Droskoski did agree to stop.

A visit by the Flathead County Health Department occurred Sept. 14. Then another visit by Gestring on Sept. 16 showed three workers on the site who still were doing construction.

Madden said negotiations followed, with informal settlement discussions about penalties, but they "didn't go anywhere, so we filed a lawsuit on Aug. 11, 2006."

The suit is not a criminal action. Instead, Madden said, it seeks a civil penalty for engaging in construction of an unapproved subdivision, plus a penalty of as much as $1,000 a day for each day of unauthorized construction.

Madden said Droskoski claims construction did, indeed, stop after the DEQ notices and that work did not take place on as many days as the DEQ alleges.

Photographs and eyewitness accounts back up the state's claims, Madden said.

As of May 25, Droskoski had answered the DEQ's complaint but nothing was settled. Madden said the state was continuing with its discovery and interrogatory process.

With Lookout Estates, Droskoski is seeking preliminary plat approval for 27 lots on 24 acres just west of the junction of Montana 40 and U.S. 2.

He is meeting stiff opposition from neighbors concerned with traffic safety, access roads, density, impacts on water supply and rumors of an as-yet undisclosed second phase on its northern boundary.

The subdivision gained Columbia Falls Planning Board approval, but with more than 30 conditions of development controlling what is done on the now-timbered land.

It went to the City Council for a May 7 public hearing but, after a heated public-comment session, the council rejected the factual basis that City Manager/Planner Bill Shaw used to recommend approval. Council members asked for more information on three specific issues - traffic safety, fire hazard and wildlife impact - and continued its discussion until next Monday night's meeting.

Reporter Nancy Kimball can be reached at 758-4483 or by e-mail at nkimball@dailyinterlake.com