· Call to Order/Roll Call – The regular meeting of the Chewelah Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Tom Bristol on July 20, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. The following planning commission members were present: Chairman Tom Bristol, Vice Chairman Daniel Voltz, Kadya Hugus, Irv Schick, Bill Davies, Alice Crowley, and Doug Sassman. Excused absence(s): Kevin Herda. Also present: Chaz Bates, Planner; and Gaylea Nolander, Executive Secretary.
· Agenda Additions, Deletions, and/or Changes – Chairman Bristol requested that discussion on Land Use Fees and Impact Fees be added under New Business.
· Minutes – Doug Sassman moved with a second from Kadya Hugus to approve the June 15, 2006 minutes. All in favor.
· Public Comments – None.
· Public Hearing Continued from June 15, 2006 to July 20, 2006
Recommendation to City Council
Draft Shoreline Master Program
Applicant: City of Chewelah
Project Address: The proposal includes land 200’ landward of Chewelah Creek, Thomason Creek, and Paye Creek.
Project Description:
The City of Chewelah is proposing to adopt a Shoreline Master Program consistent with the procedural and substantive requirements of the Shoreline Management Act and Shoreline Master Program Guidelines. This revision to the SMP includes shoreline goals and policies, environmental designations, and use regulations within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Exhibits 1 through 3 are attached hereto incorporated herein and made a part of these minutes as though fully set forth.
Exhibit List
(1) Public Hearing Sign-In Sheet
(2) Table of Contents (SMP, page 3)
(3) Appendix 2 (SMP, pages 125 – 131)
SUMMARY
(Planning Commission continued the above entitled matter, including public comments and public testimony, to August 17, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. Public testimony received from: Robert Harrison, Charles Burnett, Chad Burnett, Joseph Zollman, Gary Plotts, and Barbara Nelson).
Chairman Bristol reconvened the public hearing for the Shoreline Master Program at 7:03 P.M. The public hearing was continued from June 15, 2006 to July 20, 2006.
Staff Report
Chaz Bates – At last month’s meeting I said there were some maps that I failed to include, instead of copying a whole new draft for you, in front of you I placed Appendix 2, Inventory and Analysis Maps, which all of the information is based on and includes the Biological Synthesis Map, Physical Synthesis Map, Cultural Jurisdiction Map, Cultural Modifications Map, Environmental Designations Map, and Restoration Opportunities Map. Turn to the first page, the Biological Synthesis Map, I know it is going to be a little difficult to read, but there is an electronic version and you can make it a little bigger if you like, but essentially it shows where certain wetlands are, riparian zones, waterfowl concentrations, tree cover. The next map is the Physical Synthesis Map and basically it is showing what types of soils whether it is moderate runoff, slow runoff, very high, and erosion…and depending on the types of soil they have for example sand basically soaks up water but clay will run off or pool…The next map is the Cultural Jurisdiction Map identifying the zoning throughout the City of Chewelah, again, if you remember way back, when Anthony Gabriel was here from Central Washington University, he said the soils were pretty much the same throughout the City of Chewelah if I remember right, and correct me if somebody remembers something different, and the reaches were basically identified based on the land use types to cover what was out there. The next one is Cultural Modifications Map, and it is basically talking about different types of uses, where the bridges are, if you really zoom in there you will see, they actually went out there with a GPS Unit and identified points of culverts, bridges, fences, those types of things where people have put in shoreline protection…such as concrete blocks and that type of things. On the next page is the Environmental Designations Map, and you have seen that before, and finally the Restoration Opportunities Map that doesn’t make a lot of sense on its own, but when combined with the table that is in the Shoreline Master Program, it should make a little bit more sense. The A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, and J are all identified if you can remember back to that plan, they have the reach and then they have letters, and those letters correspond to a restoration action… Also at the last meeting, we had public testimony given indicating the area west out by Paye Creek designated as Urban Conservancy at this point, there was question about why it was designated Urban Conservancy, and I indicated that there were wetlands identified out there, and you can see that in the Biological Synthesis Map, and to my error or to the mapping peoples’ error that I didn’t catch, the designation that was out there wasn’t necessarily correct because I think it wasn’t actually a designation because it was outside the city limits, but it is within the Urban Growth Area. In 2001 amendments were made to the comprehensive plan to designate some of that property as commercial/multi-family and single-family. We were tossing around the idea, can we just increase the percentage for the Urban Conservancy for the impervious surface, or do we change the designation, and if you remember I also asked the public to give me the information regarding that property, and I got some information, the map wasn’t that clear, but the rest of the information such as the Notice of Decision and the Resolution is fairly clear about the designation was actually changed. I haven’t changed the map at this point and some of you guys are going to be very disappointed but I ask and recommend that we continue the public hearing not to August, but to September, because I am going to be out the first week and a half of August on vacation. I am almost certainly not going to be able to get to it before the next meeting, and I don’t want to promise it if I can’t get to it. The checklist I did not include in your packet, because it is boring and it basically only lists the WAC and then I have the page number and sometimes section number…but if you want to take a look at that I can also provide that for you for next month. I will be at next month’s planning commission meeting; I just don’t think I will be prepared with the shoreline.
Notice
Gaylea Nolander – The map updates received tonight will be updated on the website by the middle of next week. The public notification of Continuation of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, website, post office, library, American West Bank, and per public request emailed notice of continuance of public hearing to Bob Playfair and Venetta Kearns for Roseanna Nielson.
Petitions or Communications
Gaylea Nolander – I received a request from Roseanna Nielsen through her daughter Venetta Kearns requesting a copy of the Shoreline Master Program. I answered her email and directed her to the City of Chewelah website for a complete copy of the Shoreline Master Program.
Staff Report
Chaz Bates – What I am considering now is for the Urban Conservancy Designation, at least as far as I can tell from where the zoning was changed from public to single-family, would be to possibly change the environmental designation and I guess now I am going to stop and leave that up to you to discuss what you think about the merits of that proposal.
Chairman Bristol – Questions of Chaz at this time.
Irv Schick – Exactly what are you recommending?
Chaz Bates – I haven’t changed the map yet because I was actually waiting for some detailed maps that I was able to, this is what I got and I really can’t read it to see exactly where the property lines were and I couldn’t even read what was actually written down there, so I was kind of expecting some additional maps that would show me changes in wetlands…if it is not public and it is actually designated for residential use and there is not wetlands…so basically…additional evidence to maybe support that change in the environmental designation.
Irv Schick – What you are proposing then is to change that designation versus changing the percentage of impervious.
Chaz Bates – Yes, and the main reason being, actually I kind of alluded to it on accident a little bit earlier when I was talking about the Biosynthesis Map and how the soils were designated based on land use as opposed to what was actually out there, and I haven’t ran this idea by Ecology but I certainly will do that before I make firm changes or I will at least relay back to you what they said, but that is the plan anyways to kind of re-examine and make sure that those areas that were missed by the initial inventory, at least as far as land use is concerned, and maybe look at those designations and change them to probably single-family or shoreline residential, which will change the percentage of impervious surface, but leave Urban Conservancy the same.
Chairman Bristol – I think even if we do continue I would like to get this resolved if we could to move on to city council, but if we can’t do that, we could honor the need to continue it, but I think because we do have people here coming to do public testimony we will continue with public testimony and maybe we can iron out and get clear on some of these issues that did come up last meeting. Any other questions of Chaz before we move on to public testimony? Are there any other communications or petitions to be presented?
Gaylea Nolander – No additional petitions or communications.
Chairman Bristol – At this time the floor will be open to comments from the audience…If you have not signed up on the public testimony sign in sheet and you do want to testify just let me know and we can accommodate you.
Public Comment
Robert Harrison – 605 W. Main, Chewelah WA - …These are just pertaining to my land, but we have the Burnett family, Mr. Plotts, and Mrs. Nelson are coming, these are all in that Urban Conservancy. Here is the original map I need it back. Here is a letter from 1997 from the Conservation District. There is some question about the letter from Don Schlining, dated 1999 about multi-family/commercial, so I made more copies…These are some letters that Bill Provost wrote some years ago under these same conditions questioning the wetlands out there. Anyway, to David Evans and blah, blah, blah, once the lands are mitigated they don’t change the map anyway that is what this says, but it references our land.
Request for Mr. Harrison to speak up, planning commission and audience unable to hear him.
Robert Harrison – These letters are from Bill Provost to some other people, they are ten years old questioning the wetlands out there in that area, and they were mitigated but the maps don’t change, it doesn’t matter when they were mitigated the maps just don’t change. My feeling is that Mr. Bates used the old Department of Fish and Game maps before the river was dredged, before Paye Creek was moved, and the definition of a wetland, there are just none out there, there is none on his place (Burnett), and there is none on Plotts, and there is none on Nelsons, so I asked Mr. Bates to have the DOE delineate them for my own, they can do what they want. The DOE told me that they would delineate those wetlands and mark them out if there are any at the City’s request, and this isn’t a shoreline’s issue, this is critical areas and wetlands issues, and not under the jurisdiction of the state, those two creeks. So my request is to have for my own piece of ground, now the other people can speak, I request that DOE if you are not going to get rid of this overlay, this overlay comes under critical areas and wetlands, it is just not part of the Shoreline Management Act for State jurisdictions, and I am happy with a delineation from the DOE, at least if there is a wetland out there anywhere they will identify it and then I can work around it.
Chairman Bristol – Where did this map come from?
Robert Harrison – The Conservation District.
Chairman Bristol – Stevens County Soil Conservation District?
Robert Harrison – Yes, it is ten years old and it came from Jim Gleaton, he is retired now, but that is my original so I do need it back. Chaz, get your pencil ready, the man’s name that I talked to is Keith Holiday, 329-3431. The DOE has been in charge of determining what wetlands come under their jurisdiction of the SMA, they would be a lot of help and it is free to the cities, that is what they are there for if you want to use it. Most of these issues were addressed in the comprehensive plan, the land uses, they have gone through SEPA, there is no significance, and this stuff has all been addressed. It takes out your whole Urban Growth Boundary, everything in your Urban Growth Boundary from 99 until now is wiped out with Urban Conservancy, every bit of it. I guess that is all.
Chairman Bristol – I am going to jump protocol a little bit here just so we can get clarity on things. Chaz, can we get clear, Urban Conservancy equals wetlands or not?
Chaz Bates – No. Urban Conservancy doesn’t equal wetlands. Urban Conservancy is based on kind of the openness of land, that is how it got designated, it was open, it might be severely or moderately impacted by floodplain areas, wetlands, and those types of things. Wetlands does not necessarily equal Urban Conservancy and Urban Conservancy and the Shoreline Residential, actually the uses are the exact same I think, the major issue that comes up if you want to develop deals with impervious surface, which is house covers, roads, those types of things, and Urban Conservancy is limited to 10%, and Shoreline Residential, I can’t tell you off of the top of my head, but it is intended for residential development.
Chairman Bristol – It is 35%, the same as our zoning code for residential.
Robert Harrison – Yes, but ours read 10% last month.
Chaz Bates – Yes, I am saying that Urban Conservancy does have a 10% impervious surface coverage, and I haven’t changed the designation for your property yet, because I didn’t have a firm indication about where exactly, you said you had some information from the soil conservation district, and I was trying to find out where it was at, so I would be able to show the Department of Ecology that I have done my due diligence with scientific evidence in designating these areas.
Robert Harrison – Have you got the data from delineations?
Chaz Bates – They didn’t delineate it. I am going to call Keith Holiday, this is the first time that I have heard that Ecology is willing to come out for a jurisdiction to delineate wetlands, so if they are willing to do it I am going to give them a call and find out, it certainly can be…to us(inaudible). How many times have we had site plan reviews that have been kind of a hassle not knowing exactly where the wetland is at.
Chairman Bristol – They did do that delineation on the Bill Wilson property a long time ago, they came out even though Bill Wilson had his own private wetlands expert, DOE did come out and concur with them.
Robert Harrison – I asked them if they would come out for me and they said no, but they would come out for the City if they request it. But where I am coming from is last month I asked you why that property was designated as Urban Conservancy and you said it is wetlands.
Chaz Bates – It is wetlands, and it is open, and included in the designation of public. I may have said that, but I probably misspoke or didn’t complete it, I have had a month since then to analyze more of issues.
Robert Harrison – Ten years ago, I have only got one copy of it, Bill Provost wrote this to the Ag Department about prime farmland being taken out and the answer was, it is designated prime farmland or farmland, but if it is going to come into urban use at any time soon if the services are available so forth and so forth, then that classification goes away and it is urban. It is not like I am a stranger to this issue.
Chairman Bristol – Bob, you need to speak up, I can’t hear.
Robert Harrison – I am not a stranger to this issue. This letter was to Provost, it is ten years old and it is from the conservation service, it clarifies the prime farmland aspect, this is when I was trying to get this land designated years ago.
Chairman Bristol – What I am not clear on is what you want.
Robert Harrison – I want it in the Urban Growth Area and no more Urban Conservancy.
Chairman Bristol – But there are different designations in the Shoreline Master Program, it needs to be one or the other.
Irv Schick – Wait a second I am a little confused here. Dealing with the Urban Growth Area is a comp plan issue to a large degree, and it doesn’t look to me, the best I can see on this, it doesn’t look to me like this property borders the creek, Paye Creek, so I am trying to figure out which issue we are dealing with, whether it is part of the comp plan designation is urban growth or whether it falls under the jurisdiction of the Shoreline Management Program.
Chaz Bates – I just want to clarify some things, it sounds like there is a little bit of confusion. Urban Conservancy has nothing to do with whether or not you are in the Urban Growth Area. You are within the Urban Growth Area; otherwise the City of Chewelah would not hassle with doing a Shoreline Master Program for the County. Urban Conservancy it may have the same name as something that is out in the County, but it doesn’t have anything to do with our comprehensive plan other than the policy is related to protecting streams of local significance. Paye Creek is not a shoreline of the State, but through the course of public deliberation very early on in this process, people indicated they would like to protect Paye and Thomason Creeks, and therefore we used the same set of science standards in inventorying to identify appropriate uses on Paye and Thomason Creeks. Those in part were based on the biology, the physical aspects, the land use, the zoning, and I think that was it basically in a broad general sense. When you saw this Master Program last month it was based on that we didn’t have any comp plan designation out there, it was public, which indicates that the public owned this according to the comprehensive plan, and therefore it would make sense to have restoration, open space available there, does that clear anything up, or did I just confuse…
Irv Schick – But it appears to me that these pieces of property are well outside of the 200’ from Paye Creek.
Chaz Bates – They are outside of the 200’ of Paye Creek and I know that the title says that landward 200’ but shoreline state is defined as landward 200’ of a stream, creek, including any wetlands, marshes, bogs associated with that wetland, or floodplains too, so historically I imagine that this area probably flooded before, maybe before or whatever, who knows, I am not a hydro-geologist, so I can’t tell you, I can only say that people who did the science, at least in the comprehensive plan and the shoreline master program, indicated that these areas were associated wetlands with Paye Creek.
Robert Harrison – You are right, it is a comprehensive plan issue, what this is doing is changing it to me.
Chaz Bates – It is not.
Robert Harrison – The Shoreline Management Act is State and the State has no jurisdiction over Paye Creek or Thomason Creek. The City can do their 200’ but if you go any farther then you get into critical areas and wetlands, that takes delineation, that means you got to know where it is, and so that is why I am asking for the DOE on my part to come out, if they mark out a wetland I will work around it, I will live with it, I will live with 100’ from Paye Creek, but to take that many acres and say 10%, I don’t think so.
Irv Schick – We are already talking about changing that to a different designation because it has already been designated not a wetland into residential, or not a wetland, but into residential for zoning purposes, so our Urban Conservancy and the other designations are primarily based on existing plus zoning versus soil types.
Chaz Bates – For example, the park is in Urban Conservancy, it was a public place that the City probably has no intention of subdividing that property and putting houses up in the park. Urban Conservancy, when we see public designations on the comprehensive plan the same thing applied to where you are at. And you are right, Paye Creek is not a State Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction stream. It is a stream of local significance.
Robert Harrison – I want to talk about the reaches and then I will get out of your way. On the Burnett land, Reach 4, it goes down there and takes out a lot of Plott’s, and then it goes clear down into Burnett’s there, how is Paye Creek going to get down there, unless it goes down on Bernard Street and then it would get there.
(Several conversations going on at the same time)
Daniel Voltz – I read the minutes from last meeting, because I wasn’t able to attend, so the minutes told me that Bob’s land is Urban Conservancy, so are you saying tonight that you are going to remap that so it is not Urban Conservancy?
Chaz Bates – I suggested it to the planning commission during deliberation and consideration.
Daniel Voltz – And so in this map there are three, there is High Intensity Commercial, there is Shoreline Residential, and there is Urban Conservancy, so would you change it to one of those three or would you make a different one of those?
Chaz Bates – Let me step back for a second and say that what I want to do is make sure with all of the new comprehensive map amendments, as you guys are aware, we never had an electronic copy of the comprehensive plan, so there are a few amendments that were kind of scattered about, and they just got missed when we put these designations together, and we used the one that was in the comp plan which showed that area as public, I am not sure what they showed the other ones, but I don’t even know if they had a designation at this point. What I want to do is take what the current comprehensive plan designation…to the area and kind of overlay what the designation is and find out, and it might be appropriate to re-designate those Shoreline Residential, so not add a new category, just change the designation, because it is more appropriate…if they were kind of zoned, I think that maybe that is what it was based on, some zoning out of the comp plan, and so there wasn’t any zoning out in that area.
Daniel Voltz – Who designates what zone that is, is it you, is it the planning commission, or is it a combination of you, the planning commission, and the landowner?
Chaz Bates – The last one. We have opened this thing up for public testimony for a year, we have been advertising it, and I really do appreciate you guys coming here, but that was what I was suggesting to you, is what I want to do is take a look at the comprehensive plan designation and make sure that the environmental designation of the shoreline program are consistent with that. As I pointed out at last month’s meeting, at least as far as the Harrison property is concerned, it is not, and I didn’t look at other ones at this point.
Daniel Voltz – Well, that is a great answer. It kind of means that if anybody has a problem we just look at it and change it before we put a big stamp on this and it is a big problem.
Robert Harrison – He said he has been doing this for a year, I thought this was the Shoreline Master Plan within 200’of the ordinary high water mark, I didn’t realize it was going 2,000’ here and there, not all of this land. Thanks for your time.
Several people talking at once.
Chairman Bristol – I am going to ask a question of staff at this moment, because Paye Creek and Thomason Creek are not mandated to be part of the Shoreline Master Program, wouldn’t it be easy to just go ahead and carry the 200’ reach continued on Paye and Thomason…but the area that I think everybody thought was being addressed by this Shoreline Master Program was the areas that connected specifically to that 200’ of the creeks and not anything that might spread out. Wetlands issues will be taken care of by critical site plan reviews if they exist as they always have been whether they are close to the creek or not, particularly on Paye and Thomason Creeks, so that seems like an easy way to clean this up. Stay clear with the laws and regulations that we have to on Chewelah Creek and stay within this, it is pretty specific all of the way coming through until the south ends of both Thomason and Paye Creeks where it spreads way out, maybe we need just to give the scrutiny on those two creeks within that 200’ range.
Chaz Bates – It is planning commission’s discretion. I was just basing what I did on earlier evidence and indication from this body. Paye and Thomason are not shorelines of the State, and we can treat them however we want, however, we are still going to have to…on the critical areas map, the official critical areas map adopted by the City there is wetlands there, and you will have to come in for a site plan review when you want to develop your property. There is nothing I can do tonight with this Master Program that is going to change that particular issue.
Chairman Bristol – I think all of us were a little surprised that we were dealing with the creek and then all of a sudden it went way out at these ends, and those are reasonably new reach maps to all of us.
Charles Burnett – 3245 Flyckt Road, Chewelah WA – I guess I have more questions than comments. Our property is when you go out Stevens Street, make the corner and go out to where the substation is for Avista. Chewelah Creek is across the road from there. I never thought that was a wetland, and I was never told over the years that, that was a wetland. As far as floodplain, I have seen Park Street in Chewelah flood, that was never flooded over there. My property, Bob’s, and Gary’s never got flooded over there when that was flooded. I remember one year down by Goulet’s further down that was flooded out, but I sure wouldn’t consider that a floodplain. I just want to know what you are trying to designate my land as is what I am trying to find out.
Chaz Bates – Can you show me on this map where you are? (Charles Burnett showed Chaz his property on the map) That is the same area. Does everybody else except for me know where it is at?
Chairman Bristol – It is a little hard to see at this scale.
Charles Burnett – Everybody knows when you go out Stevens Street just as the houses end.
Chaz Bates – Southeast of that kind of big blob of Urban Conservancy.
Alice Crowley – Toward the highway is your property? Out Stevens Street and then toward the highway is your property?
Charles Burnett – No, from Stevens Street west.
Alice Crowley – Towards Plott’s?
Charles Burnett – It borders Gary Plott’s.
Doug Sassman – You said from Avista substation?
Charles Burnett – Yes, Avista substation is just the far end of it.
Chaz Bates – Just to address a comment you made this is not indicated on this map anyway that it is in the floodplain at all. It is just on the comprehensive plan map shown as a wetland.
Charles Burnett – It shows as a wetland?
Chaz Bates – Yes.
Charles Burnett - Then most of Chewelah must be a wetland, huh?
Chaz Bates – Yes. This out here is all wetland, this is the property that we are talking about, this is your property, if you notice in the designation…
Chairman Bristol – What map are you sharing with him?
Chaz Bates – Critical areas map from the 1997 comprehensive plan, which is the official critical areas regulations. So you can see that this actually matches.
Charles Burnett – My question is also part of our property is in the City and part is in the County, we don’t have any plans for development now but what would be the deal down the road with the way it is designated now, or what it is going to be designated as?
Chaz Bates - …occurs when your application is determined complete, so if you are not doing it now and we adopt it tomorrow…and you turn your application in the third day, it would be whatever is in place at the time it is determined complete…
Chairman Bristol – I think he is trying to get an idea of what options he has in the future if I am hearing right.
Chaz Bates – At this point we haven’t really made any determination about options, last month it would have been Urban Conservancy, but at this point the indication is I am kind of feeling from the planning commission, they haven’t discussed it yet tonight, is that either narrowing that designation or changing the designation, somewhere along those lines, I can’t tell you.
Daniel Voltz – Mr. Burnett’s property is the Reach 4, is that correct?
Chaz Bates – Yes.
Daniel Voltz – So if we changed the designation of Reach 4 to include 200’ through the UGA then that would eliminate the problem, is that correct?
Chaz Bates – Except for the people that are within 200’. Even if we do that route, and, again, it is the planning commission’s decision, I would still like to evaluate what comp plan designations exist out there, because I don’t want to have designations that are incompatible, we are a City, it is a urban growth area, and the intent is to provide more dense urban type development than out in the County, and it doesn’t make any sense to limit your options if indeed that is what it should be.
Charles Burnett – So I guess my question is, do I need to keep coming to these meetings, or how will I know, or what?
Chairman Bristol – I think you are doing exactly right by showing up and finding out that your area is getting some scrutiny through the Shoreline Master Program. I can see why you might not have come until you found out that it was important, not thinking that the Shoreline Master Program had to do with Paye Creek or Thomason Creek or Chewelah Creek 200’ and it didn’t affect most of your property, so if it does affect your property I think you are right to come until you get everything clear as to what is workable and what your understanding is of these regulations.
Chaz Bates – You can keep coming to the meetings, it is going to be published on the City’s website and the maps will be there, don’t check next week because the new maps won’t be there yet, look in the paper there will be notices, is it two weeks, Gaylea, for a continuation, or is it anything?
Gaylea Nolander – We continue it in an open public meeting, but I do post the continuances on the website, and all of the regular posting places.
Chaz Bates – Gaylea also has my card, and you are welcome to call me, and check and see if it has been changed yet, or where it is at. I will be more than happy to do that, and you can always, of course, keep coming to the meetings…
Gaylea Nolander – And if you want me to, I have had a couple of people ask that I either email or mail them any notices concerning shorelines or comp plans, so I can do that.
Charles Burnett – Could you do that?
Gaylea Nolander – Yes, I can.
Charles Burnett – I request that then. When are your meeting dates normally?
Chairman Bristol – The third Thursday of every month, and usually if Shoreline Master Program is going to be on that agenda, it will published and posted all over town, but we do meet the third Thursday of every month.
Chaz Bates – It is not going to be on next month’s agenda…
Chairman Bristol – It is questionable, I guess why do we cloud the issues of our Shoreline Master Program which we worked on for nine years with wetlands at the last minute, on at least Paye and Thomason, and I realize that we have a comp plan map that has to be lined up, but if in the comp plan map the area beyond Thomason, Paye Creeks, that 200’ is shown as wetlands, then that will come up if they ever do anything to that property when they do the site plan review. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me it would be a non-issue in regards to the Shoreline Master Program, there is protection and concerns about whether it is wetlands that will come up when they do something to that property that has nothing to do with the Shoreline Master Program.
Chaz Bates – It doesn’t, and when we were discussing this earlier, again, we said that we wanted to classify Paye and Thomason Creeks as streams of local significance, and use the Shoreline Management Act as a guide. The definition of shoreline jurisdiction means the total combined area within the designated natural floodway for shorelines, and those areas adjacent and extending landward from such designated natural floodways, and any wetlands, as defined herein, associated therewith. That is why it is included within the shoreline jurisdiction, because we were using the Shoreline Management Act definitions for shorelines as a guide to how we are applying these designations. Say, for example, that Chewelah Creek had wetlands on it that would have to be included in the Shoreline Master Program. It is up to your prevue as a public servant to determine whether or not you think it is appropriate to have that same definition for Thomason and Paye Creeks. The indication to me beforehand was that was the case.
Chairman Bristol – I have sat and worked with, it has been at least nine or ten years on this Shoreline Master Program, and I know the reasons why Paye and Thomason Creeks were included was to stop some of the problems that happen with Paye Creek, garbage in it, weed and feed right down into it, some of those things, and we recognize that even smaller are important to the whole set of aquifers, but I really…it was going to address wetlands, maybe we are using this Shoreline Master Program as a guideline for Thomason and Paye Creeks, but we may be extending it a little too far, I guess is what I am trying to say for this document.
Chaz Bates – The Shoreline Master Program doesn’t really deal with wetlands, it doesn’t change any of the existing regulations that are in place right now, so it doesn’t change any of those regulations as far as wetlands are concerned. The only thing that it really changes, the bottom line is the 10% impervious surface coverage, that is really the only thing new, and that is a problem if you want to develop a subdivision out there.
Chairman Bristol – There is a couple of options there, if that was closer to the zoning regulation which is 35% or…then it would be a non-issue; other then it would be called Urban Conservancy versus something else.
Chaz Bates – I would be hesitant to increase the percentage of Urban Conservancy just because there are other areas like the park, might as well change the designation if we are going to make it the same as Shoreline Residential from my point of view.
Irv Schick – In a lot of ways I hate to see us backtrack and be inconsistent on one creek from the others, because we are applying the Shoreline Management Act criteria to two of the others, and if we don’t apply it here then we are being inconsistent. I would rather see us change it to Residential, and change that piece of that reach, because basically that is what we are seeing is that his land has been reclassified to residential or multi-family under zoning regulations and I would rather keep the whole plan consistent from end to end in the way that we apply things, and not have pieces that…are not consistent with the Shoreline Management Act, because to me that is a real easy way to have the whole thing picked apart if we are not applying the existing state regulations uniformly and fairly across the board on all three creeks, if that is what we decide to do, if we decide not to, then we better take Thomason and Paye Creeks out of the whole thing and do Chewelah Creek.
Chaz Bates – That is how the state is going to review it. They basically are not going to pay any attention to what is going on with Paye and Thomason Creeks, because it is a local issue. It doesn’t matter if we say this is the definition for shorelines of state, but this is what we want to define for local streams of significance. That is okay. It is not okay to change the definitions across the board; if we are going to change definitions then we just need to make sure that we are saying for Thomason and Paye Creek, this is what it is. It is up to you guys, just so you understand there isn’t anything that the state is going to say regarding that. At least I don’t think so.
Alice Crowley – One thought, would covering it with 35% impervious cover, how would that impact the health and welfare of the Colville River that we depend on for…?
Chaz Bates – It is difficult to say, because I am not an expert in the matter, I can take an educated guess, and say that Thomason and Paye Creeks while tributaries of the Colville River don’t quite make the status of a shoreline of state or even a bigger step a shoreline of statewide significance, and therefore…less than you might think to the health of the Colville River, otherwise they would probably fall within, they would be sure to be included in that shoreline of the state and they would be sure that we included those areas and protect them.
Chad Burnett – 3288 B Flyckt Road, Chewelah WA – I just have a bunch of questions…I also own the same piece of property that Chuck (Charles Burnett) was talking about, and I was just wondering why I wasn’t notified in any way, shape, or form that you guys were considering this other than word of mouth from Bob?
Chaz Bates – We didn’t mail notice to individual property owners, notice was published in the paper, and I know that those notices can be small, we have also posted notices at various times, and Gaylea, I may need your help I always forget one, American West Bank, City Hall, Library, Post Office, website…but when we are dealing with area wide areas and we are talking about long term planning, we don’t mail out individual notices and part of it is a resource issue.
Chad Burnett – Earlier Bob was talking about soil types and stuff and you guys haven’t done any of that at this point?
Chaz Bates – Unless Ecology does it for us, we are not going to do it. Well, I wouldn’t recommend that we do it, Jon Lind, the City Administrator, would make that determination, but it costs a lot of money as you probably know, and the City doesn’t have the resources to conduct soil analysis on people’s property. The current regulations, the way they are designed, it is the critical areas, not the shorelines, that we are talking about here, the applicant that is developing the land to come in and analyze it if it is within a critical area to make that determination of what that critical area is and how they are going to avoid impact to the critical area.
Chad Burnett – How do they determine what a critical area is?
Chaz Bates – Those areas are floodplains, wetlands, critical aquifer recharge areas, and critical wildlife habitat…am I missing one, counted four, there should be five.
Chad Burnett – How do they determine that?
Chaz Bates – The state has identified what those critical areas are in 1991, maybe even in 1995, it said all jurisdictions in the state has to identify and designate critical areas, not only do they have to identify and designate critical areas, they also have to adopt regulations that protect those critical areas and we have done that as a jurisdiction.
Chad Burnett – They physically went out to the property and identified it?
Chaz Bates – No, most of the resources were based on like the national wetlands inventory, which is a national…project…
Chad Burnett – Off of a map basically?
Chaz Bates – More likely an aerial photo, going that looks wet, that looks wet. They did floodplains which is the frequently flooded area,…one that I didn’t name, well there is a creek, looks like it is sloped…and that is the best information in the…critical areas…best available science, and that is the best information that we had at the time that we adopted our critical areas ordinance, if somebody, and that is why we also allow flexibility for an applicant to come in and say, well you know your map is really in error. If you hire somebody to come in, and tell us, and show us how you can do this, fine.
Chad Burnett – I realize the very tip of our property is within the 200’ of the creek which it has been a law for a long time that you can’t build there and stuff within 200’ of the creek…
Chaz Bates – The regulations that are proposed now have buffers, I am looking at page 46, what I am looking up is what the buffers are along Paye Creek in that area, and the buffers apply to the creek not necessarily to the designations…
Chad Burnett – The physical creek itself?
Chaz Bates – The ordinary high water mark. So we are looking at recreational development for example, 25’, residential 35’.
Chad Burnett – And you are going to change that to 200’ then?
Chaz Bates – No, it will probably stay 35’. The big issue is this 10% impervious surface coverage, which are surfaces that water cannot penetrate…so roads, the Urban Conservancy idea was it was going to be open space. Residential development will typically have quite a bit more than 10% impervious surface coverage, in fact 30% which is why we have this 35% shoreline residential impervious surface coverage.
Chad Burnett – (Inaudible)
Chaz Bates – That is what I have suggested tonight but there has been no decision about that yet, changing 10% to 35%.
Chad Burnett – Let’s just say in the future that I decide to start developing that land and doing something with it, do you have any indications on how that is going to affect me?
Chaz Bates – How this will affect you?
Chad Burnett – Yes.
Chaz Bates – I can tell you right now you will have to do a site plan review. I think a site plan review is about all you will have to do.
Chairman Bristol – But that is only within the 200’, right?
Chaz Bates – Yes, you are right, or if it is a critical area. It is in the critical area. Your property is shown as a wetland.
Chairman Bristol – From the 1997 map, it is in critical area.
Chaz Bates – So, if it is within a critical area, you are going to have to go through a site plan review process, and essentially that means that you probably have to identify, I mean if you believe there are not wetlands on your property, there are resources out there and it will cost you probably money, I am not sure people do it for free, even though Ecology says they are going to do it for free, to identify where the wetlands are, and basically ultimately design development to avoid impacts to that and if you can’t necessarily avoid all impacts then you minimize impacts, and if you can’t minimize the impacts then you mitigate your impacts…I am not going to say you can’t do it, there are going to be additional hurdles that you are going to have to go through.
Chad Burnett – Basically, right now, I don’t believe anything on this west side of Stevens Street is wetlands at all, and it is you guys intention to convert that to wetlands?
Chaz Bates – No. The wetland designation probably came from Conservation Service aerials maybe. It says…verified 1996, so I assume the Soil Conservation people went, these are the types of soils, I don’t know if you guys have ever looked at those things, but…detailed books telling you exactly what types of soils are,…soil types determine whether or not wetlandish, and I am not an expert on that, so I can’t really talk too much about it, and David Evans and Associates…in 1997 went out there and I don’t know where they verified that, I didn’t work for them then, and I don’t work for them now…I can just say that they said…verified.
Chad Burnett – This yellow here is what you are planning on converting it to?
Chaz Bates – That is what has been suggested.
Chad Burnett – What is it now?
Chaz Bates – There is no environmental designation there now.
Daniel Voltz – I would like to point out the fact that the reason why we are doing this is the state is making us do this…The state is a big bureaucratic red tape machine, and so each little community has a planning commission so that we can help our little communities figure out how to deal with the state’s red tape machine. Our job is to help the citizens and the landowners so that the state doesn’t just arbitrarily say okay this is wetland. We are here so we can help you do what we are doing right now, and say look this is what Chaz did because this is the way the book says it is supposed to be done, but we don’t agree with the way the book says it is going to be done so we are going to change it. We are not in an adversarial position, we are here to help you, and so each thing that you tell us that you don’t want done, then we are going to take that into consideration and change it, because we are just not going to make everybody’s place a wetland, that would be taking away your property rights, and we don’t want to do that, so we are going to work with Mr. Harrison, and Mr. Plotts, and yourself, and we are just going to do the best we can to deal with the state.
Chad Burnett – Thanks, that is where I was kind of headed with that.
Daniel Voltz – Maybe that will help when you ask your questions. We are not here to put up a wall, we are here to tear the wall down.
Chad Burnett – How do I get a copy of this (SMP)?
Chaz Bates – There is one available on the internet, there is one available here for review, we can probably burn some disks.
Gaylea Nolander – A paper copy may be purchased for $18.60, however, they are free on the City’s website and the updated version will be on there next week.
Chad Burnett – I would like a disk. Thank you.
Joseph Eugene Zollman - 3195 Flyckt Road, Chewelah WA – I guess my first question is, and he kind of answered a little bit of it, how can they come in and take land that my father-in-law has cultivated and used for his cattle, to feed his cattle and take care of that, how can people come in and just say that we are going to make this wetland. We are going to take this property from you and make it into our own use, and just steal that from them. Where does that come about, how was that stipulated, how does the state even justify doing that, it has been done around Washington State for so long, how can that even continue in society today? I guess this question is to you.
Chaz Bates – It sounds more like a political question than a question about the Shoreline Master Program. I can tell you the purpose stated by the legislature and your elected representatives for designating critical areas if that helps.
Joseph Zollman – No, realistically you haven’t sounded real confident in anything that you have told any of the council here tonight or anybody setting out here, you have kind of, oh, pretty sure, I mean what are the real answers, what are you really after? It has been stated by these people, but you have not shown yourself to be a very positive person, outgoing person, to really state what the heck you are trying to say. I mean you are up there like a little confused boy.
Chairman Bristol – Let’s not get personal.
Irv Schick – I don’t think we need to get into character assassination here.
Joseph Zollman – I am sorry.
Irv Schick – We are trying to listen to you. Nobody is trying to take anybody’s property. We are not trying to do that, the state is not trying to do that. What we are trying to do is a fair classification of properties, so that the community standards overall are maintained basically, and if that is farmland, that is not wetland, then when you come to change it and decide to do something different with it, that point in time if you decide to develop it, then it comes into question as to what kind of land it really is. Right now it is just a map, that is all it is, is just a map, and it is a designation that is arbitrary until you decide to do something different. If you decide to quit farming it and develop it, then you are going to have to jump through some hurdles because it has been classified as a wetland at some point in time, by the state, or by the federal government. All we can do is take the best information that we have available without going out and surveying every single parcel of land in the area, we can’t do that, we can’t do soil sampling on every single parcel of land in the City and adjacent to it, so we have to take the best science, the best information that we have. Now you have brought us some additional new information, and we can take that into consideration. You are saying that it is not wetlands, that it has been farmed all of this time, if you can get three crops of hay off of it every year, I would say it is probably not wetland.
Joseph Zollman – Okay, but you are saying if we decide to develop that area that is when we are going to have to jump that hurdle. What is that going to do to our family as far as taking that farmland and turning it into a developed area?
Irv Schick – All it is, is an application and a hearing.
Chairman Bristol – And if it is wetlands then you will have to deal with that at that time, but the wetland delineation is pretty straightforward. They dig down, they see the plant types, primarily the soil types, and if you are trying to do a development of duplexes real tightly knit on a wetlands you are probably not going to be able to do it, or it is going to have a lot of scrutiny at that time. Right now I think what prevails is the 1997 comp plan map which we are not here to change tonight, now that is going to throw you into critical areas and a site plan review the second you develop it right now.
Irv Schick – The Shoreline Management Plan has very little to do with what you are talking about and what your concerns are about future development.
Joseph Zollman – I am a little bit concerned, how come it went from 200’ like you were saying it is 35’?
Chairman Bristol – The buffer is 35’. Let me just tackle that. What it is, is the 200’ is the area of scrutiny, if you are within 200’ you have to go through some scrutiny because you are within that distance from creek, but you can probably build up to 35’ if that is an unique piece of property, if it happens to be a piece of property that floods out to one side that full 200’ probably not, but that is what would happen when you came forward to ask to develop close to that piece of property within 200’. We do a lot of site plan reviews and pass a lot of allowances to build 35’, 40’ from the creek, but they still go through that scrutiny, does this really affect things that much, and if the answer is no, then it is allowed to go down to that buffer distance from the creek.
Joseph Zollman – Thank you.
Gary Plotts – 2385 Alm Lane – Chewelah WA – My property joins Chuck’s (Charles Burnett) on the east of us there. We run from the second substation that you pass going out Stevens Street, when you come to the second substation that is our property line and it runs to within 50’ of the city wells and north to Paye Creek. My concern is this wetland designation. For years farmers have had to live and die by the map, that doesn’t mean anything, but if it is designated wetlands according to soil conservation, and the…we have to farm by, you don’t virtually do anything with it. It is kind of like along the Colville River up there in Addy and Blue Creek where it is flooded a lot of the time, then there is farmable wetlands, water stands on it part of the time, and then it goes into farmable situations where you can raise a crop, and then there is farmland where the water does not stand, so these designations that you want to put on things are very critical. I want to emphasize that if you designate something wet, probably it is going to stay that way. You can go through all kinds of loops and hoops and you are probably not going to get it changed, so be careful what you are doing here. Apparently the portion of Paye Creek that you are talking about runs from Court Street on out to the Colville River, right? There are three property owners on that: Harrison, myself, and Phyllis Brashler, and then the City has the sewer system set up there. Some of us have been there a lot of years. I hate to see restrictions put on us that, I have no plans to develop, but there will be a day in my life when I have to leave the farm after fifty some years of being there, and I don’t want a bunch of restrictions that is going to handicap the growth of the City going that way, because basically the City doesn’t have many places to grow and if you don’t grow you are going to die. I just would like to talk to you, show you, you say you can’t come out and look, we are talking about three quarters of a mile of creek. I think anybody has got time enough on this board to come out and take a look at that and just see what you are looking at before you start classifying things wetland or farmable wet or whatever. I would like to see it remain pretty much as is as far as the growth being able to go into the City and stuff if we need to, or ever want to, or somebody else wants to. We don’t want to be handicapped at this point by a bunch of regulations. I just really want to emphasize though that wetland thing, to me that seems fairly critical on this thing. I would be glad to talk to you anytime you can come out that way. Call me a day ahead of time and I will be there.
Chairman Bristol – On the 1997 comp plan map, what is the Plotts’ property designated as?
Chaz Bates – I believe it is wetlands.
Gary Plotts – (Referring to map) This here is Chuck’s (Charles Burnett), substation just a little bit over here, I run up to Nelson’s, jog over, I sold twenty acres off of this to Nelson’s, and then I connect up with Paye Creek right there where Court Street is.
Chaz Bates – The 1997 Comp Plan has it designated as wetlands. This plan does not propose to change that. It is not making wetlands anywhere, or floodplains, or any sort of other critical areas, in fact it is not even touching…
Gary Plotts – When was this map?
Chaz Bates – 1997.
Chairman Bristol – That is from the Chewelah Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
Chaz Bates – The existing regulations, I think a good example might be actually Bill Wilson’s property, was all designated as wetlands at some point and he wanted to develop it, and he went through a wetland delineation and identified areas that weren’t wet on his property and had a rezone done that allows higher end multi-family structures placed on that property, while still keeping part of it in this wetlands…He hasn’t built anything there yet, but he has got his application approved and he can do that when he is ready.
Daniel Voltz – Another example would be where I have my store, that was all designated wetlands, and unfortunately I had to hire someone to come out, and then say, no it is not wetland, that area is small, 50’ circle area is wet and you can build around it so it can be done; because before I bought the property somebody took an aerial map and just said, yea, that is a wetland.
Gary Plotts – On my agricultural maps that I use in the farming operation, I got one very small piece that is designated farmable wet. There is no wetland, and it is clear over where Alm Road hits Heine Road, there is about an acre there in the corner that they consider farmable wet, other than that on the maps that I have from Soil Conservation there are no wetlands in this area here.
Chaz Bates – And, again, we are not changing that map with this plan (SMP), and to change that map is a whole separate process, and actually we will be getting into updating the comp plan, and I would suggest, I am trying to think of the best way to get to it, but if you make copies of that information and submitted it under the comprehensive plan type of packet, that information helps. I agree with Daniel, somebody basically looked at an aerial photo, or looked at a soils map and drew those lines on there, and that is unfortunately a sad fact the way it has been done all over the western United States, and eastern Washington. So if you hired somebody, or somebody came out and looked at your property, and actually identified more specifically than what we have, that is information that we can use to better develop regulations and serve the community. That is what we are here for.
Gary Plotts – I didn’t catch at what time all of this is going to be implemented, not implemented…
Chaz Bates – We are talking about two separate things here, I just want everybody to realize that we are talking about the comprehensive plan, we haven’t started that process yet other than looking at the document itself and identifying areas that probably need to be updated. We will be coming out and doing inventory, a land use inventory, and all that is, is if you don’t have anything on your property, I am going to mark it vacant, if you have a house on it I am going to mark it single-family, if it is an apartment complex multi-family et cetera. Then we will be considering probably throughout the next year, or about nine months, goals and policies for that comprehensive plan, including land use designations; and from these maps, if you have information that pertain to these maps, please submit it to us, say, hey, during the comprehensive plan process let me know about it, I would like to participate, and bring that information along.
Gary Plotts – I can do that. I will try to get some maps within the next couple of weeks or so, and see what we come up with. Thank you.
Barbara Nelson – W. 1001 Court Street, Chewelah WA – My question is more in regard to, the wetlands issue is fixable by delineation and I have been told by the county planning, I called up the county courthouse today, and it is not unusual for permits that are requested in the Chewelah Valley to be considered wetlands, and delineation to remove that wetlands designation is not difficult, although it is a bit costly, but it is done pretty much all of the time. It is not anything that can’t be fixed, but the designation of Urban Conservancy is a different issue, because that totally, totally restricts the use of that property, and it doesn’t really have anything to do with the wetlands, because the wetlands issue can be fixed pretty much. On all of these properties that these people are talking about, I am told it would not be difficult to get them classified as non-wetlands using the delineation process that is available, and I was given a list of consultants that do that work in this area all of the time; But the Urban Conservancy would restrict me, right now today, whether I had anything to do with the City, I could only build a hay shed, I could not build a building for a hay barn on my property if this is designated as Urban Conservancy more than 1,200 square feet, and I think that is a total excessive restriction on property that is agricultural. I couldn’t even use it for my agricultural activity that I am using it for right now. Our property is in the County, and I understand by talking to the County today that they would have the authority over issuing permits for any barn building that I might want to do. I am…addressing this in my own personal use of the property, which is not intended in my foreseeable future to be development, although that might not be everyone’s concern, but I want to continue to use my property as I have been, and as I need to in an agricultural activity which may very well include a barn storage shed to keep my hay or possibly a machine shed so that my equipment doesn’t have to set out on my City lot, but this would restrict that use completely and I would not be able to do that. I just don’t think that the intent of the shoreline issue which is to go 200’ out fits to make all of this property into this designation of Urban Conservancy. I do have one question, is there a reason that it was, other than the law says that you can take in all of the wetlands that are surrounding it or whatever, it appears that it is a convenient way to restrict development not to go in that direction out of town in the future years, and once this particular document is in place and those properties are designated Urban Conservancy, it would be a nightmare to get that changed. The wetlands issue is a minor detail compared to this designation in my opinion, and I have had very little time to review this document…, I just did not want to take time to do it, but it is very, very important, and I understand these people, my land, and…Gary’s land too, I bought ours…Gary’s, same difference, at the County if I went to put in for a building permit, I would have to have a site plan review, and it is designated wetlands, and I would have to have it delineated, but it is not a big deal to get that done, this other thing is not the same. You can’t undo this, this is very important, and no one here is contesting the 200’ protection of your shorelines, which is what your whole plan is about, protect the shorelines, but that doesn’t include 200 acres of farm ground. That is all I have to say today.
Chairman Bristol – Anyone else that hasn’t signed up or that wants to speak again?
Daniel Voltz – So, most of what is being spoken about tonight is in the Urban Growth Area, and the Urban Growth Area that is being spoken about is right now Urban Conservancy, and like Mrs. Nelson says that is very restrictive as far as development. The Urban Growth Area is set aside for development and from what everybody has told us they don’t want, which I can see clearly, so do I have to put it in a form of a motion to have Chaz change the map as it stands, change the Reach or do we just direct him to do that, or what goes on now?
Chaz Bates – Basically you just direct me to do it, we are not taking a vote tonight, so that is why early on if you remember I said this is what I am considering doing tonight.
Irv Schick – I think that should be Shoreline Residential.
Chaz Bates – Are there other considerations that you have heard tonight that you also want me to look at?
Daniel Voltz – I think looking at this map the area where the property owners spoke tonight that for me I don’t think that should be Urban Conservancy at all outside of the 200’ following the creek to the edge of the UGA and on the other side of the map, which should be, I think it must be the east side where Thomason Creek comes in, I think that also having that Urban Conservancy is the exact same can of worms minus no property owners, so I think that should be stricken as well. The Urban Conservancy in the middle of town on Chewelah Creek, and I am not clear what land that is.
Chaz Bates – The park and then the public space.
Daniel Voltz – Okay, if that is public space, then clearly that can be Urban Conservancy, because it will never be developed, hopefully not. The area out by Pinebrook is that also public space?
Chaz Bates – That is Paye Creek Park.
Daniel Voltz – And that is part of Pinebrook’s Paye Creek Park?
Chairman Bristol – The original park they had designated.
Daniel Voltz – I don’t have any problem with that being Urban Conservancy either, but for the rest of it I think that should be stricken from the map.
Irv Schick – You can’t just strike it, but you can re-designate it, change it to Shoreline Residential which is the other designation we can use.
Chaz Bates – It is a bit more work, but you could develop a new designation…
Irv Schick – We have been down that road before.
Chaz Bates - …the possibility to develop in the future from some people, and then just kind of keep it the way it is now from others, am I hearing people right then? I see shakes and nods.
Daniel Voltz – We are going to continue this for two more months so let’s get a definition of Shoreline Residential out to the property owners so they can look it over and say, yes, this fits what I want to do, or no this isn’t going to work at all either.
Chairman Bristol – So anything in the Shoreline Master Program or anything in the City, and anything in the Urban Growth Area, has to have a designation?
Chaz Bates – Not anything, Paye and Thomason Creeks don’t, again they are streams of local significance. The Shoreline Management Act applies only to Chewelah Creek.
Chairman Bristol – I am just talking about, I get back to I thought, like a lot of people thought this document dealt with 200’ of the creek, except for where we were mandated on Chewelah Creek to follow the absolute definition of what the State requires for Chewelah Creek, that is a creek of state wide significance. Although that was a guideline that we were using to designate this, there is no reason we have to stay strict with that guideline to the point of where it includes these huge pieces of Urban Conservancy. I mean Urban Conservancy at that point could just follow the creek as the beginning part, the slug before it hits the blue property on the map.
Irv Schick – You are still affecting people out there if you are pulling 200’ on each side of Urban Conservancy.
Chairman Bristol – But everything that I have heard from everybody, nobody has a problem with being scrutinized within that 200’, there is another 2,000 acres.
Irv Schick – Being scrutinized, but that Urban Conservancy places an additional restriction of lot coverage, impervious coverage of 10%, and so that would mean that they could not cover a lot that went 200’ out and was 100’ wide, could only have 10% now you are going to be hard pressed to put a house on that thing even if it is over 35’ from the creek, so that is why I am saying, don’t classify those pieces as Urban Conservancy, classify them as Shoreline Residential which takes it up to 35% which is normal lot coverage or in excess of normal lot coverage in the community, and then it doesn’t matter how broad whether the application
