Document text
Wetlands decision postponed again City Council sets Feb. 3 date to decide debate over controversial development ordinances By Chris Bristol of the Mail Tribune Amid a fresh round of "revisions" and "modifications," the Medford City Council has again postponed a vote on a set of controversial ordinances that would restrict development of urban wetlands and private property alongside several streams. The council took more testimony on the proposed rules Thursday night, but a final decision was put off until at least next month. Meanwhile, city planners are negotiating a last-minute deal with a group of lawyers representing two of the biggest businesses in town. It was the second vote-delay in three weeks. The council continued the public hearing Thursday and rescheduled a vote on the matter for its Feb. 3 meeting. At issue are the proposed rules affecting 20 or so "locally significant" wetlands, which include property owned by Rogue Valley Manor and Sterling Business Forms. The rules also affect three urban creeks -- Bear, Larson and Lone Pine -- that have been designated "fish-bearing streams" by state biologists. The ordinances, which stem directly from environmental mandates imposed by the state and federal government, restrict development within 50-foot setbacks from the creeks. Similar protection has been proposed for wetlands. A number of homeowners, mainly those whose property abuts Larson Creek, objected to the rules at first. They complained about their property rights and the effect the regulations could have on property values. Following two public hearings and several study sessions, the Planning Commission grandfathered in existing uses, such as fence-building and lawn fertilizing. Restrictions on new construction remained in effect. The City Council, which has final authority, was set to vote on the matter Dec. 16 -- until latecomers and lawyers representing the Manor and Sterling objected, particularly to the wetlands provisions. Negotiations have yet to yield revisions that both sides can agree on. The delay has upset city planners, who privately complain that business interests and developers deliberately circumvented the Planning Commission. "It's disappointing, but not surprising," said one planner, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "It's kind of a typical strategy." Rob Patridge, a state legislator and former council member and prosecutor who now serves the Manor as in-house counsel, criticized the proposed rules as overly restrictive interpretations of state regulations. He said the Manor owns property that has been designated wetlands, but was unable to say how much. One of the Manor's chief concerns, he said, is the lack of "mitigation" in the rules. Mitigation is a term that means wetlands could be developed if the property owner finds or creates replacement habitat. As for grumbling about the Planning Commission end-run, Patridge said he wrote a letter in July expressing concerns about the rules. He said he was never contacted by the commission and was invited to only one study session, which he was unable to attend. "It's a matter of communication," he added. Mail Tribune Copyright � The Mail Tribune 2000, Medford, Oregon USA