Pacific City-Woods Citizen Advisory Committee

Home » Uncategorized » Land Use – Staff Report Nestucca Landing Variance Request V-11-01

Land Use – Staff Report Nestucca Landing Variance Request V-11-01

Staff Report for the Nestucca Landing Variance Request V-11-01 –  This request includes the information that has been given to the Planning Commission for their review on September 22.   It includes feedback and letters that have been received as of 9/15.      It is presented here in four parts because of its large size.  It is also available on the Tillamook website at  http://www.co.tillamook.or.us/gov/ComDev/documents/planning/LandUseApplications/V-11-01Notice.pdf   Also included is the ordinance 4.080 related to this variance.  This variance request will be discussed at the general CPAC Meeting on 9/19/2011 and the membership will vote to either support or oppose this action and it will be forwarded to the Planning Commission.

Summary of LUC Meeting 9/13/2011  Draft Minutes attached
A Land Use Committee meeting was held September 13th regarding the Variance Request V-11-01 by Greg Grinnell for the development Nestucca Landing.  There were three main issues addressed at the meeting.

(1)  The soundness of the arguments that a variance is possible under TCLUO (Tillamook County Land Use Ordinance) Section 4.080 (2) [c] & [d].  Part (2) says “All development shall be located outside of areas listed in (1) above, unless:” and subpart [c] allows for a variation “(b)ecause of natural features such as topography, a narrower riparian area protects equivalent habitat values;”.  The applicant argues that the existing embankment meets this situation and allows for the variance.

(2) Whether the requirements that must be met before granting any variance as promulgated in TCLUO Section 8.030: Review Criteria are met in Variance Request V-11-1.  This states in part that “(a) VARIANCE shall be granted, according to the procedures set forth in Section 8.020, if the applicant adequately demonstrates the proposed VARIANCE satisfies all of the following criteria:” and then lists four such criteria.

(3)  The validity of the observations described in the report by ESA concerning determination of the “project site’s most landward jurisdictional waterway line:”.  The MHWL (Mean High Water Line), (LNAV) Line of Non-aquatic Vegetation and the OHWL (Ordinary High Water Line) were considered in this process.

Throughout the meeting, many of the attendees expressed the opinion that it may not be possible for the LUC to make a specific recommendation on support for or opposition to the Variance Request because there is a lack of information on the project being proposed.   It was clear that we need more details on the project and variance procedures from both the developer and the DCD.

After discussing this possibility and/or getting together with Mr. Grinnell before the September 19 PC/W CPAC meeting, it was suggested that the LUC should not take any action at this time.  Rather it should present the results of our discussion to the full CPAC membership on Monday. Valerie Soilihi and other members of the DCD staff will attend as will Greg Grinnell.   Two motions were made:

“Based on the information available to the Land Use Committee, the variance V-11-1 does not meet the requirements of Tillamook County for approval, and we do not support it.”   The motion was seconded, and following a brief discussion a vote by a show of hands of the Committee members was taken.  The results were four in favor, five against and one abstaining, so the motion failed.  After several members stated they were not voting against the motion to withhold support for the Variance Request but rather could not vote for it because of the lack of information available at this time, another motion was made:

“The Land Use Committee can neither support of oppose the Variance Request because of the lack of information.  We request the developer and Tillamook County staff attend the CPAC meeting for discussion of this issue.”  The motion was seconded and a vote by a show of hands was taken.  The results were seven in favor, three against, and no abstentions, so the motion was carried.  Sean Carlton volunteered to contact both of the above parties with a list of questions and to invite them to the meeting on September 19.

4080

LUCMeetingMinutes9-13-11.DRAFT

V-11-01StaffReport-1

V-11-01StaffReport-2

V-11-01StaffReport-3

V-11-01StaffReportPhotos

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: