HomeMy Public PortalAbout2021.02.11 Public Comments - Public Hearing for VAR-20-01 221 Morgan Dr.ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Start time
2/9/2021 8:45:57 PM
2/10/2021 7:03:30 PM
2/10/2021 8:02:42 PM
2/11/2021 11:19:06 AM
2/11/2021 11:54:42 AM
2/11/2021 1:00:45 PM
2/11/2021 1:02:41 PM
2/11/2021 1:04:38 PM
Completion time
2/9/2021 9:38:43 PM
2/10/2021 7:26:58 PM
2/10/2021 8:03:36 PM
2/11/2021 11:52:53 AM
2/11/2021 11:59:21 AM
2/11/2021 1:02:37 PM
2/11/2021 1:04:35 PM
2/11/2021 1:06:19 PM
Email
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
anonymous
Name
Enter First and Last Name
Arthur L. Troutner
Galen Shaver
Lenard Long
J.M. Praway
J.M. Praway
David Simmonds, President, Big Payette Lake Water Quality Council, Inc.
David Simmonds, President, Big Payette Lake Water Quality Council, Inc
David Simmonds, President, Big Payette Lake Water Quality Council, Inc.
Enter Complete Address
193 West Lake Fork Rd., McCall, Idaho 83638
13775 Nisula Road McCall, Idaho
250 3rd St, Cascade, ID
McCall, ID
McCall, ID
PO Box 3108, McCall, ID 83638
PO Box 3108 McCall ID 83638
PO Box 3108 McCall ID 83638
Please include your position on the public hearing item
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Against
Enter Public Comment
Honorable Council, building in flood plains is problematic but this proposed project is especially so. First, it is important to note that the location of the proposed building variance
is across the River from River Front Park. Just last year, along the shoreline of River Front Park, the City of McCall installed several rock barbs in the Payette River to help deflect
flood waters away from an actively eroding river bank. This project was a cost share project that used State water quality funds to help defray the City of McCall’s cost of installation.
The project was designed to protect the parkland from washing away which in turn would also help keep sediments and nutrients from washing into an already water quality threatened drainage.
Building in the flood plain is not going to help either issue. In fact, due to the location of the proposed variance, building at this particular site could negate the very erosion
control measures recently invested in by the City of McCall and the State of Idaho. Putting impediments in the way of floodwaters just redirects floodwater. The eroding bank on the
Park side of the river is already being threatened by regular spring runoff. Pushing more water towards the eroding Park bank in a flood situation is just asking for trouble. Flood
plains act as safety valves for rivers, allowing floodwaters to spread out and reduce velocity and depth. The floodplain where the variance is proposed IS the safety valve on this stretch
of river. In the last 15 years (my estimate) I have seen flood waters cover this entire river bend two years in a row. There is a reason it is listed as a floodplain!
By saying no to the requested variance, water quality in the drainage is protected, the City and State’s investment in erosion barbs is protected, the Park land is protected, and the
tax dollars spent to do all this protecting is not squandered.
Please say no to the variance.
Thank You, Art Troutner
Dear Council Members and staff, I oppose granting any variance that would allow building in a flood plain. Flood plains are a crucial part of river systems allowing the river to grow
when it needs to and avoid the erosion and resulting sedimentation that can happen when a river is unnaturally confined and velocity increased. Putting any structure in the way of
floodwaters just sends the waters in another maybe more destructive direction. I have seen trophy homes built along the river corridor too close to the river . Their owners will build
up the banks with huge decorative rocks to redirect the river causing erosion and cut banks downstream. I listened to the presentations at the Water Summit this last week and the good
condition of the North Fork in terms of carrying sediment into Lake Cascade is partially the result of limitations on building in the flood plain. This variance could be followed by
many others as the feeding frenzy of home building engulfs our valley. This variance would set a bad precedent. Our water quality and the health of our river are too important to
be sacrificed for any homebuilders wishes. Thank you and please say no to this variance.
Signed,
Galen Shaver
Subject: VAR-20-01 221 Morgan Drive, McCall, Idaho
The purpose of these comments is to oppose the subject variance request. Setback requirements from special flood hazard areas are established for good reasons, primarily to protect
ill-informed future residents from gambling with a natural disaster. A few other reasons follow:
1. The concern that future flood victims owning this property will be looking to the city taxpayers and/or county for compensation from flood damages as a result of backing-off common
flood set-back practice.
2. The property is along an actively meandering river and the stream morphology indicates the property lies on the inside bank of a large meander with opposite active bank instability.
Meandering, necking, bank instability will likely continue.
3. Altering the flood flow cross-sectional area through land development will likely create problems for upstream and/or downstream property owners.
4. Portions of this property are mapped and designated by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service in a Wetlands Area, which may be protected under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
5. The NF Payette River is a tributary to Lake Cascade with its complexity of nutrient problems and the NF Payette River (assessment unit AU 17050123) was 303(d) listed in the 2016 IDEQ
Integrated Report based on combined biota and habitat bio-assessments, requiring further assessment so it is environmentally sensitive. Cultural changes to riparian/wetland areas often
have long-term adverse impacts on river water quality and bank stability.
In closing, flood predictions are not an exact science so building in a flood plain is risky, it’s gambling against Mother Nature. I urge you to vote NO on this proposed variance.
Respectfully Submitted
Lenard Long
addressing topics #2 and #3. There are a number of undeveloped parcels along the river in River's Crossing. Granting of this variance will only set the bar lower for challenging additional
floodplain variances. The setback requirements were put in place for a reason: not only to protect the environmental quality of the Payette (a defining treasure of both McCall and of
Idaho), but also to ensure the natural beauty of the river for all to enjoy for years to come. With regards to the 100 year floodplain, I refer to the immense flooding along the Wood
river in Hailey a few years ago, and the legal/environmental/aesthetic problems brought forth for floods that "never happen". Please protect not only the Payette, but everyone's right
to enjoy the natural beauty of the Payette, as unobstructed as possible. Thank you
If such a variance was granted, what precludes someone from building even larger, more obtrusive buildings along the river, along with existing visible property on the variance, including
trailers, vehicles, watercraft, trash, etc
Introduction and Statement of Opposition
The Big Payette Lake Water Quality Council is a McCall-based nonprofit corporation with a mission to protect and sustain the water quality of Big Payette Lake. First, we contend that
the limits of scope asserted in reopening the Public Hearing are unreasonably restrictive, and must also allow for public response to new information that has been added to the record
for this matter, thus expanding its scope, so we ask therefore that all of our comments be admissable to the newly expanded record. We present our testimony in opposition to the granting
of VAR-20-01 - not because doing so would impact the water quality of Payette Lake, but because in part we see that doing so would diminish the value and effect of the very same City
code which does seek to protect Payette Lake and its shoreline.
Living in, and participating in, a City is arguably an exercise in creating sets of shared values and rules, and agreeing to abide by them so that we can get along, avoid stepping on
each other's toes, and have a sustainable community. Few people take pleasure in calling out the perceived transgressions of their friends and neighbors, or the apparent shortcomings
of their elected leaders. It's far more pleasant and productive to agree on values, mirror those in law, and do our best to live within those limits. We therefore ask our leaders to
avoid the shifting sands of unpredictable chaos, deny the variance application before you, and instead uphold the shared values and rules we've agreed to.
Our Interests
Granting this variance would suggest, or even demonstrate, that the City will not follow its stated intent to appropriately protect lake shorelines and river environs. MCC 3.7.02: SHORELINE
AND RIVER ENVIRONS ZONE is the primary scope of overlap between the City's jurisdiction and the Big Payette Lake Water Quality Council's mission. The proposed project is in direct conflict
with the purpose, permitted uses and requirements for development under this section. Granting of the requested variance for this project would be a statement by the City that it does
not, in fact, mean what it says in MCC 3.7.02, with regard to protecting the river, for instance:
It is therefore the purpose of this section 3.7.02 to regulate development along and alterations of the shoreline of Payette Lake and the banks and immediate vicinity of the Payette
River in order to protect and maintain water quality, fish and wildlife habitat, edge and forest habitat, vistas, and public visual and physical access.
To retain the value and weight of existing zoning code, a variance should only be granted on the basis that the purpose of the existing ordinance will not be negatively impacted by granting
the variance.
Further, our interests include watershed-wide ongoing efforts undertaken with similarly focused organizations that may also conclude that denial of the variance is necessary to protect
the river.
Harm: Denial of the Variance is Necessary to Protect the River Environs
According to drawings provided by the proponent, the proposal would build over mapped wetlands within the Special Flood Hazard Area AE. MCC 3.7.023 (C) 1 (c) and (C) 2 (d) prohibits
harm to wetlands by "The filling or dredging of lake bottom or wetlands" so it is reasonable to conclude that the granting of this variance would in fact cause harm in this regard.
The MCC states this prohibition simply and cleanly and does not create an opening for "reasonable inference" that such prohibition doesn't count in considering this variance, as the
proponent suggests in their Supplemental Narrative. Specifically, MCC provides (emphasis added):
3.7.023 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT
(C) Development:
1. Prohibitions: No construction, alteration or activity shall cause harm to:
(a) Water quality.
(b) Fish and aquatic habitats.
(c) Wetlands.
(d) Significant wildlife habitat harboring any threatened or endangered s
...Continued
Specifically, MCC provides (emphasis added):
3.7.023 REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT
(C) Development:
1. Prohibitions: No construction, alteration or activity shall cause harm to:
(a) Water quality.
(b) Fish and aquatic habitats.
(c) Wetlands.
(d) Significant wildlife habitat harboring any threatened or endangered species.
(e) Views of, from, or across a lake or river.
...
Modification of the flood plain by filling and placing structures upon it may also cause offsite harm by redirecting the flow of future floodwaters to alter their effect on other nearby
land or habitat within or adjacent to the river environs. Further, harm may occur by the placement of foreign material in the floodplain that may later be carried into flood waters,
causing additional, unnatural offsite impacts to water quality.
Comprehensive Plan
The Staff Report dated 2-11-2021 states, on page 4, that one condition of granting a variance is that it not violate the Comprehensive Plan. However, it goes on,
"the development is not in accordance with several goals of the McCall Comprehensive Plan,
including the goals to conserve significant natural areas or encouraging development that will enhance the ability of people and natural systems to withstand and recover from natural
disaster and other major disturbances. Specific policies that are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan that conflict with the proposed variance are:
1. Regulate activities in natural resources areas that are deemed to be detrimental to the provision of food, water, and cover for fish and wildlife.
2. Require site evaluation for habitat, wildlife corridors, and other natural features prior to
development design.
3. Encourage flexibility in the siting and design of buildings and other improvements to reduce the impact of development on environmentally sensitive areas."
Conflicts
The Staff Report and P&Z Findings of Fact present a litany of conflicts, therefore don't provide clear guidance for the decision process, and do appear to lay out multiple areas where
the proposed project may not meet the requirements of law.
Errors
The Findings of Fact, at Variance Standards (C), page 7, err in improperly limiting the meaning of "the public interest". The HOA letter may be relevant, but it is hardly the full scope
of the public interest. The government's identification of a flood plain and its assignment of restrictions on its uses and disturbance are, in fact one overarching public interest
that the cited section of the Findings overlook, and which the proposal does not meet. Flood plains are not arbitrary, cosmetic or trivial. They are a recognition that hydrology requires
we sometimes must stand back rather than subject ourselves to the predictable next flood event. They are a recognition that risk should, and can, be managed by the application of science
and policy. Their delineations in law are a statement of the public interest.
Hardship
The assertion of hardship does not meet the standards set in the Code's provision for variances. The claimed hardship is, in fact, "due to the actions of the owner", in that an owner
must presumably act to choose where to place, or not place, a building. The parcel has been publicly known to be primarily in the flood plain for many years. The legally buildable portion
of the property outside the flood plain would appear to accommodate a substantial home, theoretically up to the maximum size permitted by law. The desire of the owners to build elsewhere
on the property, where such building is not allowed by law, cannot be construed as an actual hardship because a viable alternative exists, where hydrology and law agree it may be permitted.
Conclusion
Granting of the requested variance is not necessary in order to build on the subject property, and would create harm with regard to the public interest, the river, and the consistent
and meaningful application of law. Please deny thi
....Continued part 3
Conclusion
Granting of the requested variance is not necessary in order to build on the subject property, and would create harm with regard to the public interest, the river, and the consistent
and meaningful application of law. Please deny this variance, and instead work with the proponents so that they may build on their property within the constraints of existing law.
Respectfully submitted,
David Simmonds, President
Tom Tidwell, Vice President
Laura Shealy, Treasurer
Deb Fereday, Secretary
Rich Holm, Government Liaison
Paul Street
Gary Lyons
Susan Bechdel
Scott Harris
Big Payette Lake Water Quality Council, Inc.
PO Box 3108
McCall, ID 83638