>> Okay, I'll go with it. Good
evening everybody. Welcome to
the May 14th, 2026 hearing of
the Clark County Land Use
Hearings Examiner. My name is
Daniel Keirns, and I'll be
presiding over tonight's agenda,
which consists of a single item.
It's Morgan Creek Cluster
subdivision pl D2024-111.
Understand, if you're here for
the fly to terrace site plan
and zone change that had been
scheduled for tonight, it's
been canceled or set over, but
it will not be heard tonight.
We're only here for Morgan
Creek cluster. Let me begin
after that with a brief
introduction to me and an
explanation as to how the
process is going to work this
evening. I and one other person
we serve by appointment from
the Board of County councilors
to evaluate and decide
development applications in
unincorporated Clark County.
It's our job to review the
record. The staff report, all
the public comments, the
application materials, the
relevant code criteria, and
then to convene a hearing such
as this to take public
testimony on these applications.
And ultimately, it's our job to
decide whether the proposal
meets or does not meet the
applicable approval criteria.
Those are the standards that
are in the Clark County Unified
Development Code. On the day
each of these applications was
submitted. It's our job to
review those criteria,
interpret them as fairly as we
can, using the plain language
in them, and to determine if
the applicant has submitted
sufficiently credible evidence
to show that each of those
criteria is met. And if that
evidence is there and we we
regard it as credible and
covering the criteria as we
interpret them, then we're
obligated by state law to
approve the application. It's
not our job to be more
stringent nor more lenient than
those criteria allow, but
rather to interpret the plain
language of those standards and
determine if they're met or not.
In making this evaluation,
we're required to be objective,
independent, and free of any
conflicts of interest, and I
believe that I am with regard
to this item tonight, I don't
have any business, personal or
familial connection with the
applicant or the proposal. What
I know about the proposal, the
facts about it are what I have
gleaned from the record. I've
had my record for approximately
two weeks now, and I received
as of today a couple more
comments. I haven't digested
those yet, but that's what I
know about this application,
plus what I will hear tonight
in a public hearing. And if
anyone has any questions about
potential conflicts of interest
or biases or ex parte contacts,
feel free to ask those during
the public testimony portion of
tonight's hearing. Here is kind
of the the basic schedule of
events for this item. Tonight.
We'll begin with a staff report,
which is a verbal rendition of
the written report that was
issued approximately 14 days
ago. Staff will go over those
approval criteria that I
mentioned. Those are the
standards that apply. And if
you believe that anything else
or different applies as an
approval standard, you need to
tell me what that is and give
some justification as to why it
is an approval standard. After
the staff report, I will take
the applicant's presentation
for the applicant. You can
assume I'm familiar with the
proposal. I understand
basically what what's. What the
development configuration is,
but I need a couple of things
in particular from you. First
of all, are there any changes?
What's the what's the latest
most recent form of this
development proposal? And I
think it's the revised plans in
exhibit 20 or 32 is what I
think are those. And then the
the final revised habitat plan,
which is like exhibits. Revised
Mitigation plan, exhibit 62. So
if it's something more recent
than that, let me know. The
second thing I need from the
applicant is there's the staff
report that was issued. It
includes findings, proposed
findings, and proposed
conditions. I need to know if
the applicant has any
objections or corrections or
challenges to any of the
findings or any of the
conditions. So let me know with
particularity what corrections
or changes you want to see to
the those proposed findings and
conditions. And the third thing
is we've had a number of public
comments, and we may get public
testimony tonight in opposition
to the proposal, the applicant
should keep track, keep notes
of the points raised in the
neighbor and opponent testimony,
and I would turn it during your
rebuttal applicant to to you to
respond to those that are
appropriate. Because a lot of
times the the testimony that I
get in these hearings is how is
this proposal? How is this
development going to impact me?
How is the transportation
system going to work? How is
the stormwater system going to
impact me? Make things worse,
make things better. Those kind
of questions that relate to how
this development is going to
function on the landscape are
best addressed by the applicant
and their and your development
team. So keep track of those
points. Be prepared to address
them during your final rebuttal.
Then during the applicant's
primary presentation. Anything
else you want to to add for my
benefit after the applicant,
I'll take testimony from anyone
else in favor of the proposal.
After that, I'll take testimony
from anyone with neutral
testimony or questions. And
then after that, anyone opposed
to the proposal, then after the
public testimony is done, I
will go back and the applicant
will get final rebuttal. After
that, the applicant gets final
rebuttal. In all these matters,
it gets the last word because
the applicant has the burden of
proof, the burden of proving
that they have met the approval
criteria. So they're afforded
every opportunity to
demonstrate that they meet that
burden. Then, after all the
public testimony and the final
rebuttal, I'll turn back to
staff to see if there are any
parting advice that staff has
based on the testimony that
comes in tonight. And it's my
typical habit to close the
record after that and take the
matter under consideration.
I'll issue my decision
generally about two weeks after
the record closes. But if
anyone needs additional time to
formulate your testimony or
arguments, you can ask that the
record be kept open longer than
that. I believe the notice
indicated the record would
automatically be kept open for
one week after tonight's
hearing. That puts it till the
21st of May, just in case
anyone has trouble designing
signing into this WebEx
internet platform, or wants to
respond to anything that comes
up tonight. So the record will
be kept open for at least one
week. But if you want more time,
you need to ask for that while
the record is still open, and
you need to give me some
explanation as to why you need
that time, because it it will
change the schedule. And there
is a certain revolving door
aspect to this because as I
mentioned, the applicant gets,
you know, final rebuttal. If
the record is left open, the
applicant will get further
final rebuttal in writing after
that. So be mindful of when the
record closes. And if you need
more time, ask for it. Also, my
decisions are the county's
final decision in this matter,
but it's appealable to Superior
Court through the Land Use
Petition Act to appeal one of
my decisions, though, you have
to participate either orally at
this hearing tonight or in
writing while the record is
still open and you need to
raise before me, either orally
or in writing any issue that
you want to preserve for an
appeal to Superior Court. And
you need to present to me any
evidence, any document that you
want me to consider or that you
want to rely upon in a superior
court appeal later on. So you
need to be mindful of when the
record closes, because once the
record closes, that ends your
ability to raise new issues,
submit new evidence or submit
new comments. So just be
mindful of that. Once it closes,
that ends your ability. This is
a what we call a raise it or
waive it type proceeding. You
need to raise your issues while
the record is still open. When
you testify. Here's some basic
do's and don'ts. We're
operating in this. As I
mentioned, WebEx internet
platform, and we'll get a
primer on how to function in
this environment from staff
before we get rolling here. But
when it's your turn to testify
in those three categories pro
neutral or con, there's a raise
your hand function and you'll
be called upon. The host will
unmute your mic and you can
testify when you begin to
testify. Start with your name
and spell your name for me. So
I get that straight. You'll
need to provide us your contact
information so that we can send
you a copy of my final decision.
When it comes out, we're
required by state law and the
local code to do that. And so
that's why we need to get that
information from you. When you
testify. Please. As I mentioned,
the approval criteria control
my decision. So I want you to
tailor your testimony to those
approval criteria. I can't take
into account any issue that's
outside of those approval
standards. Those standards are
dealt with as analyzed and
recited in the staff report
that was issued prior to
tonight's hearing. That's
exhibit 74, and staff will be
going over those criteria
somewhat in a verbal staff
report. But limit your
testimony to those criteria
because that's the only basis
for my decision. I I'm not a
judge. I'm a hearings officer.
And my authority is limited by
the code, limited to the
approval criteria. If you
represent someone else, let me
know who you represent. And if
you have any documents you want
me to take into account, you
need to submit those into the
record. You can do that by
emailing them to the staff
planner on this. Who is Marion
Bateman? I don't know if
there's any other portal for
submitting those electronically,
but don't forget to submit your
exhibits. Also, if you're going
to be reading your testimony
from a script or have notes,
it's useful. For me, this is
kind of like an insider's tip.
When I go to write my decision,
it's very useful for me to have
a written copy of your
testimony so that I have it
straight. I don't have to rely
on my skimpy notes. And I have
basically your script, your
comments in writing in the
record is very helpful for me.
So consider submitting your
testimony. If you have it
written down as an exhibit,
it'll be made an exhibit and
part of the record. That's it.
By way of procedural rundown,
if people have questions going
forward, feel free to ask those,
but we will move next to staff
has this primer on how to
function in the WebEx universe
here?
>> Yes. Thank you so much, Mr.
Examiner. For everyone
participating in tonight's
hearing, if you're wishing to
testify about a specific agenda
item, staff, ask that you raise
your hand so that we can gauge
who wishes to testify. If
you're a call in user, you can
dial star three. If you're a
participant, you need to click
the hand icon located in the
lower right hand corner of your
screen or next to your name in
the list of participants.
Here's a graphic showing where
you can find the hand icon
shown by the red arrows. You
May 1st need to turn on the
list of participants. You can
do this by clicking the
participants button shown by
the purple arrow. And once
you've given your testimony, we
would ask that you put your
hand down. You can accomplish
that by either clicking the
hand icon again or dialing star
three again. We will also ask
everyone to keep their
microphones on mute at any time
that they are not speaking.
I'll show you how to do that in
the next slide. And prior to
the close of each agenda item,
we will open all microphones
for everyone in attendance to
ensure that everyone who wants
to testify has the opportunity.
Please be aware that any noise
in your personal environment
will be broadcasted at that
time. If you miss your
opportunity to testify for some
reason, the record on each case
will be open for a period of
time, so you can submit your
testimony in writing. And
finally, the chat function has
been disabled for public
records purposes. So as I
mentioned, we ask everyone to
keep their microphones muted at
any time that they are not
speaking. There are a few ways
in which to mute yourself. If
you're a web user and you're
using your computer for audio,
you can simply click the mute
button at the bottom of your
screen or next to your name in
the list of participants shown
by the Red arrows. And if
you're a web user and using a
phone for audio, you can either
mute yourself on your computer
or use your phone's mute
capability. Phone only users
can use the mute capability on
their phone. We would ask that
you stay muted at any time that
you are not speaking. All right,
thank you everyone. That
concludes the instructional
portion of my presentation. So
good evening, Mr. Examiner,
County staff and the general
public. For the record, my name
is Marion Bateman. I'm a land
use planner with Clark County
Community Development. And the
project before you tonight is
the Morgan Creek Cluster
Subdivision. And just for the
record, Mr. Examiner, I wanted
to clarify exhibits that are
coming in are best just emailed
to me. You had mentioned that
since we've had a bunch coming
in, I wanted to mention that
just off the top. So send them
to me, I'll get them in the
record and forward them on to
to you and everyone. The
parties of record list. So for
this development, the applicant
is proposing to divide one
parcel containing approximately
27.5 acres zoned R five into
five cluster lots and one
buildable remainder lot for a
total of six new lots. And of
course, they're utilizing the
Rural Development cluster
standards, which are allowed in
the R5 zoning district. The
proposed development site is
currently owned by the Waterman
family and the applicant is
Chris Avery, with Minister
Glaser surveying, and the site
is located at 19537 northeast,
174th Street in Brush Prairie.
So as I mentioned, my name is
Marion Bateman. I am the review
planner for this project. The
review engineer is Hannah
Isaacson. The review biologist
is Keith Radcliffe. Craig
Cogdill is the transportation
concurrency reviewer. Jason
Noble reviewed the application
for fire safety and Hunter
Decker is the county forester.
He reviewed the forest
practices side of the
development. So just a quick
outline for you. During this
presentation, I will provide an
overview and summary of the
proposal. Identify any major
outstanding issues or concerns,
and then ultimately we will
make our recommendation to the
examiner. So on to the project.
So here's the vicinity map. The
subject site is identified by
the black dot. And as you can
see, the site is located in
Hawkinson which is part of
Brush Prairie. Morgan Creek
abuts the site to the north, so
the creek itself makes up the
north property line. And then
you've got northeast 174th
Street just north of that, and
then you've got Northeast John
Nelson Road abutting the site
to the east. So here's the
zoning map. The site is located
within the R5 zoning district,
and it abuts other R5 zoned
parcels in each direction, with
the exception of Morgan Creek
along the north boundary. This
map shows the configuration of
the site and the surrounding
parcels and streets a bit more.
Let's see this next one. Here
is the site map. So this is an
aerial view of the site showing
a bit more as far as current
conditions. You can see there's
quite a bit of trees on the
property. And of course the
existing residence. There's
actually two residences and
several accessory structures.
Both houses are going to be
retained on two of the new lots,
which we'll get to. Most of the
accessory structures, I believe
are going to be retained or
relocated to comply with
setbacks. I believe there's one
barn that will for sure be
removed. And then as far as the
topography of the site, there
are some steep slopes, some
severe erosion hazard areas. Of
course, you have the creek
along the north perimeter. So
there is an associated flood
hazard area as well as some
wetlands and riparian habitat
on the site. So all of these
critical areas were looked at
and reviewed as part of the
application.
>> So you said there are two
existing dwellings and they'll
remain one on lot one, the
other on lot five. Is that
right?
>> Yeah, yeah. And I'll go into
that a bit more actually I
think. Okay. My next slide here.
Yeah. So here's the proposed
preliminary plat. This is in
the record as exhibit 32 as I
mentioned. And I'll zoom in in
just a second. This is a
proposed cluster development.
And the applicant is proposing
six new buildable lots. Lots
one through five again are the
smaller cluster lots. Let me
see if I can.
>> So also there's that red
dashed line. Is that the
boundary of the wetland buffer.
>> Yeah. So it designates
wetland and habitat buffers and
building envelopes. Okay. And
then in the areas that have
already been developed it says
area of historic use. So it's
just mapping out those
developed areas.
>> So that shows where
development is and where
development can be relative to
the designated wetland buffer
boundaries and the big area.
Lot six that's the remainder
lot. There's no development
there.
>> So it is going to be a
buildable lot. And so and it
looks a little confusing
because it almost looks like
you're going to be in cringing
on or encroaching on the
critical areas. But this
driveway, I don't know if you
can see my mouse. Yes. Okay. So
that's existing so that it's
already there. The building
envelope indicates that you'd
build in in this area here. So
yeah, you're avoiding wetland C
and all the surrounding, you
know, buffers. But since that's
existing, that's just part of
the development that.
>> When it, when it does
settles on this years from now,
there will be six dwellings. Is
that right?
>> Yes. There will be six. Yep.
Let's see. So yeah, you've got
lot one existing residents,
their existing garage. I
believe the applicant is going
to try and retain that garage
by shifting a lot line a little
bit. And I'll touch on that
again, because that came into
the record after the staff
report. Let's see there's two
access easements. So you've got
one serving lot one, five four.
Let's see. Yeah. And six and
six. And then and then you've
got a smaller one north of that
serving lots two and three.
Yeah. Again most of those
structures are going to be
retained. I think there is one
barn to be removed. So yeah
that's kind of the gist of that.
We can always come back to the
plan. Do you have any other
questions on the plan before I
move on?
>> Okay. No, I just want to
confirm my understanding of it.
>> Perfect. Alrighty. So I
learned.
>> One of the things is that
those boundaries, does that
reflect the, I guess, the final
mitigation revised mitigation
plan for the habitat is in
exhibit. What was that? 62?
Does that reflect the final
determination where these
boundaries are?
>> It should. Yeah. And I'll
let Keith speak to that. I
believe he is here tonight.
He's the biologist. But yes,
that's my understanding.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So now I'll show some
site photos. Okay. So here I am
standing at the northeast 1/74
Street and Northeast John
Nelson Road intersection
looking southeast. So the
site's kind of behind me there.
And then here I'm standing in
that same intersection, this
time looking southwest. So I'm
looking towards the site. You
can see how heavily treated it
is. And I wanted to get some
good angles of the intersection,
mostly because we got some
public comments around site
distance and things. So I tried
to kind of capture the
intersection there. And then
here I'm standing a little bit
further onto Northeast John
Nelson Road, looking south
towards the site, and you can
see Morgan Creek where it
bisects the site in the
northeast corner of the parcel
there it goes under the the
street a little bit.
>> And, and the only stream
we're talking about in this
whole development is Morgan
Creek.
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Okay. So here I'm again, I'm
on Northeast John Nelson Road
looking northwest towards the
site. And you can see their
development sign there. The
site was is pretty flat in some
areas. And then the steep
slopes and erosion I think are
mostly around the creek area.
And then yeah, here is another
shot of Morgan Creek. I wanted
to show just the proximity to
the adjacent right of way. So
that's 1/74 Street there to the
right. And this is looking west
down the creek. So it's runs
kind of along the the street
there for ways. Yeah.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> This is kind of just back
for good measure, looking just
straight down John Nelson Road.
You can see that the topography
does slope up kind of as you go
further south down John Nelson
Road. But not not too sloped
back in there. So but yeah, we
can always go back to the
photos again as, as we talk
through some of the public
comments and things if we need
to. So I will move on to the
staff report. So the
application submittal was
received by the county on
November 12th, 2024. The
application was deemed fully
complete December 24th, 2024,
and the Notice of Development
Application was issued on March
25th, 2025. The application was
on hold at that point, so we
didn't have a hearing date at
the time. And so as soon as it
came off hold, we followed that
up with sending a notice of
hearing date separately to
notify of this hearing. And we
issued that on April 1st, 2026.
So let's see, staff's
recommendation to the hearing
examiner was issued on April
29th, 2026, which is exhibit 74,
as mentioned. And then after
the staff report, we have a few
items. So I entered the
forestry findings as exhibit 76.
I realized after word that the
I think it was just a copy and
paste error. So they'd been cut
out of the staff report, so I
noticed it right away. Added
those in the memo exhibit 76. I
tried to just enter them
exactly how they would have
been in the staff report. So
that was that was 76. And then
exhibit 77 is an email from the
fire marshal regarding a
hydrant location. There's a
couple plot notes that are
required based on a approval
from the fire marshal. So
that's that one. And then
exhibits 78 through 80 is a
discussion about the site not
being within wUI. The applicant
wanted to double check, and the
fire marshal confirmed that
it's not in wUI. So there are
two places that need to change
in the staff report where wUI
is mentioned.
>> So just just.
>> For the public's benefit.
That's the wildland urban
interface. It's a fire hazard
area that has enhanced
requirements, design and
construction and buffer
requirements.
>> Exactly. Yeah. And there's
some increased setbacks due to
fire flow availability is my
understanding, not necessarily
stemming from wUI, which wUI
would increase the setbacks to
30 as well. So that might have
been the confusion. But the two
spots in the staff report that
mention wUI. There's one spot
on page. Let's see, it's page
nine of the staff report. It's
about halfway down the page
under Land Use finding six. If
you if you want to find it. And
then page 18 is the second one
at the very bottom. It's in
fire Marshal finding. Seven.
>> Okay.
>> So I can always touch back
on that, but I wanted to point
that out really quickly. And
then let's see, exhibits 82
through 84 were some additional
public comments, and I'll get
to those separately after this
slide. Let's see. Exhibit 85
was an email from the applicant
regarding the 30 foot setback
on lot one. That was the
exhibit where he indicated that
they plan to shift that
northwest lot line a little bit
to meet the 30 foot setback to
a garage, to keep that garage
on lot one, and then.
>> Yep.
>> And then exhibit 86 snuck in
right before the hearing. It
was another public comment, and
I was able to capture it in my
next slide.
>> Here.
>> And you'll send it to me.
>> I did. Do you want to check
really quick to see if you've
gotten it? I sent it right
before we got started here. So
if you haven't seen it, come
through.
>> Got it.
>> Okay, perfect. Okay, so
let's see for project issues, I
wanted to just highlight the
public comments we got. Most of
these were addressed in the
staff report. A couple of them
were not. So William Blazer
submitted exhibit 25. He
submitted comments addressing
concerns regarding loss of
wildlife. You know, deer, birds,
beavers. Due to the development,
he mentioned stormwater runoff
and flood hazard concerns and
then concerns regarding the
small lot sizes of the proposed
cluster lots and how the
smaller lot sizes will
undermine the urban rural
balance in the area of the
development. And then Steve
Hanson submitted exhibit 26. He
had some questions about where
construction activities can
occur. So those were answered
in the staff report. Let's see.
And Lou submitted exhibit 72,
highlighting concerns about the
narrow road. I assumed it was
north northeast John Nelson
Road they were speaking about.
I'm not sure if they actually
specifically called out that
road and then inadequate
vehicle turning movements,
headlight intrusion, privacy
loss, and the effect of the on
the quiet enjoyment and
marketability of their rental
property. So those were some of
the comments. Again, those were
addressed in the staff report.
And then the ones that haven't
been because they came in
afterward were a few from Donna
Englund. So exhibits 82 and 83.
There was a written request
from Donna to preserve the 200
foot riparian habitat buffer to
protect Morgan Creek. And she
mentioned, you know, the fish
and the other animals who
depend on the creek salmon,
trout and the other animals
that of course, depend on on it
for food owls and woodpeckers
and herons and everything. So
Donna and then Donna mentioned
some site distance concerns too.
So mostly about wildlife, some
site distance. And then Donna
submitted 83 exhibit 83. So
that's actually a video of coho
salmon spawning in Morgan Creek,
which I thought was pretty neat.
And let's see exhibit 84 from
Steve Hanson with additional
concerns about just more
environmental, you know,
impacts and the request for the
county to ensure that avoidance
and minimization will be
utilized as much as possible to
preserve those critical areas.
And then let's see. Yeah. So
Donna England submitted 86. So
that is the last one. So I
didn't get it on my slide. But
I have a note here about it. So
yeah, I didn't, I didn't have a
chance to read through 86. It
looked like it was more
environmental concerns. But I
haven't been able to dig
through.
>> Okay.
>> So and I would ask if when
Keith Radcliff is here, if he
could give a if he has he seen
the comments that deal with
natural resources and
preservation? It's my
impression that the county has
pretty elaborate ordinances
that were adopted pursuant to
state law that address the
protection of these sorts of
resources. So he might give
kind of a kind of a quick
response to these comments if
he has them in hand.
>> Yeah. And I, I haven't sent
the newest ones to him
specifically so I can shoot
those over or he can grab them
out of the file either way. But
yeah, there, there are maybe 1
or 2 that he hasn't seen. Okay.
He should have the earlier ones.
Okay. So for staff's
recommendation, ultimately
staff recommends that this
application be approved subject
to conditions of approval
identified in the staff report,
also known as exhibit 74. And
here is a just another copy of
the plan so that we can have it
pulled up as we move forward
with the hearing. But that
concludes my presentation, so I
will remain available for any
questions.
>> Okay. Thank you. So this
this site has public water but
not public sewer. So each of
these lots will be served with
on site septic right?
>> Correct.
>> Okay. And that's those. Also
those septic systems have to
stay outside of the these
boundaries, the red boundaries
that show the habitat, wetland
and riparian habitat boundaries,
buffer boundaries as well. And
also in the the building
envelopes. Is that true?
>> Yeah. So you're talking
still the red dashed line.
>> Yes.
>> Envelope slash.
>> Critical area buffers. Yeah.
That's my understanding.
>> Okay. So this this this plan,
which is the revised plan,
exhibit 32, is critical to
understanding how this
development proposal is going
to comply with the. Critical
areas and habitat. Habitat and
wetland ordinance, which is
chapter 40-445, I think.
>> Yes. Yep. Okay. Absolutely.
>> Let's see. Okay. All right.
I think that's it for the
planning issues. Oh, one other
thing is this was not a traffic
study was not required here
because with a total grand
total of six developable lots,
it didn't meet the threshold to
trigger the need for traffic
study. Right. Which I think is
10 p.m. peak trips.
>> Correct. Okay. Yeah. They
did a traffic study.
>> So concurrency was easy. And
I guess I have some questions.
Let me turn first. I think
that's all for land use. I have
a couple questions of Mr.
Decker on forestry. It's Hunter
there.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Great. And this is
probably a question I should
have asked years ago. I have
your recommendation. Your staff
report. It's exhibit 6076. And
you have proposed findings that
address the forestry
requirements and a set of
conditions. The question I have
is the the proposal, the staff
report anticipates that those
findings will be in my final
decision. Those conditions will
be in my final decision. But
will there be a separate
standalone forestry permit that
also has those conditions?
>> Yeah. If and if the
conditions were to change, they
would be. So I haven't approved
anything. I wait until after
your approval and your
conditions. So if something is
to change then it's based off
of your conditions of approval.
>> Okay. So you you'll issue a
hard copy type forestry permit
that gets handed to the forest
operator. And it'll have the
findings in the conditions that
matter. Okay. I just want to
make sure because, you know, a
lot of times these land use
decisions are kind of kind of
bulky. And this is a critical
road map for the forest
operator to wade through and
have basically a 50 page land
use decision. You have to find
the, you know, the 12
conditions that matter buried
in the middle of it. So that'll
be an easier thing to
understand. Okay. Were there.
It seemed like a fairly
standard forest permit. Forest
practices permit anything of
note that you want to mention
in particular?
>> You know, there is possibly
one thing, and it's something
that I might have missed as a
condition of approval would be
any areas that are currently in
a current use tax deferral
program would need to be
withdrawn prior to the land use
approval as part of the
condition. And there is a
couple it would be like where
lot two and three are and lot
six have these overlays on them,
and I can send this over to
Marion after this. And so you
have a copy and and I'll point
out where that is in the forest
practice code.
>> Okay. Yeah. So I guess a
good way to handle that and for,
and for anyone else for land
use and habitat, any changes
that you want us to see. We can
talk about that tonight. If
it's short and simple or if
it's a little more involved in
terms of crafting proposed
language, you could submit that
during the at least that first
week post hearing, open record
period that work.
>> That works for me.
>> Okay, perfect.
>> Okay, I've got those notes.
>> Thank you.
>> Is Mr. Radcliff out there on
habitat and wetland issues?
>> Yes. Good evening, Mr.
Examiner.
>> Good evening.
>> I read your your staff
report and the findings and the
conditions, but we have a lot
of, well, a half a dozen public
comments advocating for the
preservation of fish habitat
and wildlife habitat, riparian
areas and wetlands. And so I
wonder if you could kind of
give an a, an overview of how
the program you administer
works to address those issues.
>> Okay. First I'll start by
saying that this project is
vested under the old Wetland
and Habitat Ordinance.
>> 403.
>> We had two chapters that
dealt with that, one for
habitat and another one for
wetlands. Right?
>> Correct. 44, 40 and 4450.
>> Okay.
>> Apparently they took
advantage. Well, and I'll start
there are besides Morgan Creek,
there is another creek. See the
man made pond you see on the
development plan, there's a
tributary to Morgan Creek. And
we type that as an empty stream,
non fishbain perennial. So it
has a 100 foot riparian zone
based on the old habitat
ordinance.
>> Okay, okay.
>> And they took advantage of
the riparian zone averaging in
4440 and the wetland buffer
averaging in 4450. Let's see.
We had the riparian zone on the
old code 4440. The riparian
zone could be reduced up to 50%.
Therefore it was a 200 foot
riparian zone. They could
reduce it down to 100ft as long
as they average the buffer
elsewhere on the parcel
equivalent, habitat functions.
And that that applies to
wetlands as well in the 44.
Let's see. Is there anything
else I should touch on before
we move on.
>> Now? I think that that kind
of addresses it. I mean, I hear
this a lot in in subdivision
and development proposals that
are kind of far from the urban
core. They always seem to have
streams, wetlands, habitat,
wildlife habitat. And so I get
a lot of comments. And just for,
for, you know, the public's
information that the county has
adopted over the years, very
detailed, elaborate wetland
protection ordinances, habitat
protection ordinances,
shorelines, regulations. And
this is required by state law
and has very exacting and
quantified requirements that
are extremely, you know, sort
of tricky to administer. But
these plans that are submitted
with a development proposal, in
this case, the habitat and the
mitigation plan, and I think
the amended version, the final
best version is, is exhibit 62,
correct?
>> Yeah, yeah.
>> Is deals with those
requirements. And so it's not
just fish are there in on this
development site. And therefore
development has to be
prohibited. That's not how this
works. Those habitat areas have
to be protected. And that means
generally a buffer. And then,
you know, setbacks from buffers
and from streams and those
habitats. And so it's a mapping
and a quantification and
measurement and exercise. And
that's what makes these
projects. So, I don't know, so
complicated to design and
evaluate. But that's, that has
happened. I see this as a very
old application started. It was
first submitted in 2024. So
it's been sitting on the shelf
for quite a while.
>> Correct? Yes. We, you know,
I've been working with the
applicant quite a while getting
this, this mitigation plan
approved. So it has been going
on quite a while.
>> Okay.
>> Yeah.
>> All right.
>> Thank you. You're welcome.
>> I think with that, we're
ready to go and hear the
applicant's primary
presentation. So is Mr. Avery
here for the is that he's the
person on this one?
>> Yeah. Chris Avery was the
applicant.
>> Okay, take it away, Mr.
Avery, when you're ready.
>> Yeah. Good evening, Mr.
Examiner. Chris Avery with Mr.
Glaser surveying here. And I'm
going to interrupt.
>> You guys for a second. I'm
going to start the timer for 20
minutes. Oh, sorry.
>> Sorry.
>> We do. In the post pandemic
era, we have timers. The
applicant had their primary
presentation. We're going to
limit it to 20 minutes usually.
I mean that's we don't come
close to that because the
application is already
documented in the record. And
for public testimony each
person will get. What is it,
Richard? 3 minutes or 5 minutes.
>> Three minutes.
>> Three minutes, which I would
again reiterate if you have if
you already have a letter, if
you're a member of the public
and you submitted written
comments, you can assume if I
haven't already read it, I will.
And so I ask you not to read
your your comments. You can hit
the high points. And if you
don't have something submitted
already, submit it. Written
comments are kind of a
permanent record that I can
then use when I sit down to
write the opinion. So 20
minutes for the applicant,
three minutes for each member
of the public. Mr. Avery, go
ahead.
>> Just verifying that you guys
can all hear me.
>> Yes.
>> Okay, good. Well, I'm not
going to take anywhere close to
20 minutes. Verified that our
most recent proposed
development plan and mitigation
plans are included as exhibits
32 and 62 in the record. I've
got nothing further to add.
We're satisfied with the staff
report and the discussion
that's going on. And satisfied
with the staff report, as it
has been modified by the
subsequent exhibits that Marian
mentioned in the exhibit 76
through 86, and I. So that's
all I got.
>> Okay.
>> So I think the only change
that I saw that that you
suggested was to the wildland
urban interface issue.
Otherwise, you're satisfied
with the findings, correct?
>> Yeah. And and then also
we'll. We will modify the lot
line on lot one around the
northwest corner of the garage
to meet the 30 foot setback
there.
>> Okay.
>> That makes it pretty simple.
Anything else?
>> I'm good.
>> Okay.
>> All right. Stand by for your
final rebuttal. I we may have
public comments. Okay. Okay.
All right. With that, I'll take
testimony from anyone else in
favor of this proposal. Anyone
raising their hand, Richard.
Anyone? Anyone wish to testify
in a neutral capacity or with
questions? Raise your hand.
Anyone? Richard. Raising their
hand for those two categories?
>> Yes. Mike.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> And I am unmuting Mike now.
Oh, Bill. Bill. Mike first.
Sorry.
>> Okay.
>> Mike.
>> Go ahead.
>> I'm not hearing anything. So
let me see. Who is this person?
Do you know Mike?
>> It's just. On there.
>> Mike is muted. It still has
his mic. So does Mike have to
do something.
>> To speak? Okay, I think we
got it.
>> Mike you're live.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you. Now my question
is, is a neighbor down the road.
>> Wait, what's your name?
>> Mike Kitterman.
>> How do you spell that?
>> KINNAMAN.
>> Okay. And what what capacity
are you speaking in, Pro or
neutral?
>> I'm neutral.
>> Okay. Good enough. Go ahead.
>> Okay. Yeah. My my question
is, is the distance that the
development is going to
encroach into Morgan Creek?
What is the setback for the
riparian areas from the creek?
>> So like the distance between
those red dashed lines and the
creek.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. We will get an answer
to that. Mr. Radcliff will pipe
up after we get everyone else's
testimony, and he can respond
to that. What? Any other
questions you have?
>> Just the habitat is my main
concern is being able to
maintain. You know, we live in
a rural area and it would be
nice to maintain the the
habitat that we've got right
now and not disturb it too much.
>> Oh, that's always the, the
objective. And, and I got to
tell you, a number of people
argued, put their in their
comments, argued the various
policies for rural development
and protection of habitat, the
the zone and the zoning
requirements are intended to
implement those policies. So
these setbacks that we talked
about, they're prescribed by
the habitat and the wetland
ordinances. And so, you know,
the preservation of rural
character is implemented
through these cluster
developments. So rather than
having a diffuse subdivision
scattered across the rural
landscape, they're allowed to
be clustered and preserving,
keeping, you know, large tracts
intact. So that's why this lot
six is 17/17 acres with one
house on it. And the others are
small lots that are under two
acres. So those design features
that are dictated by the code,
that's how we give voice to the
rural character and
preservation of wetlands,
wildlife habitat and riparian
habitat. So we'll get Mr.
Ratcliffe will give a response
to that. And when all the
public testimony is in.
>> Okay, okay.
>> Yeah. And the last thing I
had is I, you know, this isn't
R5 zoning area. So you're going
to be dropping it down to a two
acre.
>> Right.
>> But the loss will be
clustered.
>> Yeah.
>> Right. But the overall
density is no greater than five
acre.
>> So. Right.
>> Okay. All right. That was my
question. Thank you.
>> Okay. You're welcome. Anyone
else in a neutral type or
capacity here? Want to testify?
>> No, just for neutral. We're
not seeing anything yet. I
think we do have some other
people that want to speak in
opposition, but.
>> Okay.
>> I think are we ready for
opposition then?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Opposition. Whose
first. Go ahead. Everyone who
wants to speak in opposition,
raise your hand and Richard
Daviau will take you in some
sort of order.
>> Right now, I'm not seeing
any. Bill had his hand raised
before. Oh, here's here's we
got we got somebody now. Wait a
minute. Oh, Mike. He was the
same guy before. Right.
>> We've heard from maybe Mike
wants has some real opposition
comments.
>> Yeah, yeah. I'll unmute.
>> Ferar go ahead. Let's see
what Mike has to say to add to
what he had.
>> I'm sorry. No, I don't have
a follow up question. No.
>> Okay.
>> I'm Virginia Kitterman.
>> All right. So you're you're.
>> You're in the same room as
Mike.
>> There I am.
>> And you're you're in
opposition. Where's Mike's only
neutral.
>> Right.
>> All right.
>> Go ahead.
>> I walked the road every day.
And I appreciate the trees and
the nature and the quiet. And
it's going to change so much.
And that's the reason we moved
out here, was to enjoy the
countryside. And six more
houses on there is going to
change a lot and add traffic,
and I am really concerned if
they do have a good sized
buffer to protect the creek,
and so it can still look pretty
and natural. That will be a big
plus.
>> Yeah.
>> So I hope they consider that.
And plus protecting the habitat.
>> Right. And, and you, you can
you see the on the screen is
this exhibit that shows the,
the layout with the wetland
buffer boundary, this red
dashed line.
>> So yeah, that yeah, I'm
hoping they do protect some of
the trees and everything so
that it's still looks country
and it's still country.
>> And yeah, the perverse side
of this too is this is Clark
County, Washington. And these a
lot of this is trees. And so
there will be a certain amount
of logging, a forest practice
associated with this. So. You
know.
>> That's.
>> That's, that's where that's
this is a timber state, you
know, right. That's the way it
goes. And it's sort of counter
to the sort of qualities that
you moved there for. But that.
>> But being able to walk down
the road and being able to have
some trees protecting and
keeping the creek as natural as
possible for the habitat and
for viewing would be and for
quiet would be wonderful.
>> Yes.
>> Would be a blessing.
>> Okay, okay, okay.
>> Got that. Duly noted. You
didn't submit a written comment,
did you?
>> Not yet.
>> Okay.
>> We have a weeks after this,
so.
>> Okay. Thank you. Okay.
>> You're welcome. Anyone else
wish to testify in opposition?
>> Yes. We have Phil here who
is. And I'm going to I just
sent I just sent to unmute him.
Bill. Yeah. And he's got his
green light on.
>> All right. Bill, did I.
>> Just unmute myself?
>> Yeah. And start with your
name and maybe spell it for me
if it's tricky.
>> Well, I think I can handle
the spelling parts. Bill blazer,
BLAZER.
>> Yeah, that is easy. Okay. Go
ahead.
>> Yeah, yeah. Enjoy some local
recognition. So I'm on the
property immediately east of
what you're showing here.
>> So east of John Nelson.
>> Yeah, I'm east of there.
There's one property between my
little home and the lot three.
So excuse nerves. This is kind
of interesting participating
one of these things. We've been
there for quite a while. I sent
the copy of what I was going to
do. My three minute testimony
probably took about eight hours
to prepare, and so I've just
managed to back myself off of
reading that. I've sent it to
Marion. Yeah, you may have it.
Okay, good. That's good. We'll
we'll alleviate the agony of
having to read through that
thing.
>> Okay. It'll be come part of
the record. Given an exhibit
number. I'll get it maybe
before the hearing is over
tonight, but certainly tomorrow
morning.
>> Yeah, absolutely. I enjoy
the appreciate the dilemma
you're in having to go through
all this stuff. Yeah.
>> So and if you could hit the
highlights now if you want or
just I, you know, it'll be a
surprise for me. I savor it in
the morning with my coffee.
>> You betcha. Hope you had a
good strong cup of coffee. So
it gives me a little bit more
free wheeling opportunity. I
won't violate your three minute
thing. One issue that
specifically bothers me is the
saving of, quote unquote, of
Morgan Creek. The picture that
we saw earlier shows the creek
at its summertime mode in the
wintertime. And I think I
mentioned this in my earlier
correspondence about a year ago,
that creek, it turns into a
river. So I'm highly suspect of
the red line, green line and
offsets and easements and all
that kind of thing. Just from
the reality back in 96. And
this is not going to sound like,
you know, my granddad's story
from wherever.
>> We 96 I was here 96.
>> You remember the storm.
>> Oh yeah. That that winter
flood.
>> Yes.
>> The Willamette River. Yeah.
Reached its banks and flooded
downtown Portland.
>> Yes. And I was getting back
from Portland. The mayor kicked
everybody out. 1/74 Street that
you see on your diagram here
that was flooded. In fact,
after that episode, the county
came in and I, Scott Sawyer,
what a guy. He came in and said,
hey, I got a problem here
because you guys have flooded
my driveway because of work you
did to mitigate after that
flood. There's been all kinds
of stuff going on down there,
and I'm sure the people that
deal with engineering level
stuff have degrees and so forth
could explain this better. But
that creek don't mistake the
little picture you saw as what
is typical for that stream,
particularly in the what.
>> And that's summer stage that
that was normal summer stage.
>> What you just saw in the
photo was summer stage, correct.
>> Wow. That's a lot of water
for summer.
>> Well, no no no no, I need to
be clear. I might be misleading
you. What you saw in the photo,
as far as what Marion presented,
is the summertime. It's a yeah,
it looks like a tame little
stream. You know, a cute little
stream. Wintertime is a
different story. That would.
That's the core of my main
concern. The letter I sent you.
And there'll be some other
stuff minor. But it's all
riparian and ecology stuff.
That's my central thrust here.
Lots two, three and the lower
part of six are all in that
sensitive area.
>> Yeah. Yes. Okay. And we'll
get the the applicant will have
a few comments at the end. And
they might take a stab at
responding to how they map this
thing with the understanding
that in winter it's much
broader than, than the narrow
stream that was shown in
photographs, because that that
would affect these buffers that
are measured out from generally
top of bank. Okay. What else?
>> Right now I'm not seeing
anybody else who's raised their
hand yet.
>> Okay. Anyone else want to
testify in opposition
understanding? I have everyone
who's weighed in is like half a
dozen of you with written
comments. I have those. The
applicant has most of them. And
but is there anyone who wants
to testify tonight in
opposition? The record will
stay open for a week after this.
So if you're out there lurking,
you can submit written comments
for the next week as well.
>> Anyone know? But nobody's
got their hands raised.
>> Okay, I'm going to turn it
back over to start with Mr.
Avery for his final rebuttal.
See if he wants to respond to
some of the issues that were
raised in public testimony
tonight.
>> Yeah, just two quick things
to point out. The special flood
hazard line is mapped and
indicated. It's shown it's in
green on the site.
>> So that's that. The the
stream main stream courses in
between those two green lines.
And the green line shows where
it broadens out during flood
stage.
>> The the green line is FEMA's
100 year floodplain.
>> Okay.
>> And then the setback for
Morgan Creek is based on the
ordinary high water line. And
the ordinary high water line
was delineated and flagged by
our biologists.
>> And confirmed by the
county's biologist.
>> Peace would have to weigh in
on that. But yes.
>> Okay. Ordinary high water
mark. High water line.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Anything else you want
to respond to in particular?
Let's see.
>> There's one other little
thing you can see that we did
map the creek. It was January
24th of 24 when we met. Okay.
>> All right. So it was
wintertime winter stage when it
was mapped. So what year was
that? 24.
>> Yeah. Yeah. You can see it's
labeled on the site plan. 0HWM
of Morgan Creek Gas Field
located 012424.
>> Okay.
>> In the right hand corner and
then okay, there's another
couple other.
>> Okay. And what is the this
the red line setback? Mr.
Kitterman asked, what if you
could just tell us what if you
recall what the buffer setback.
The setback line is.
>> The best thing to look at is
the habitat wetland mitigation
plan. But you can see there's
one. So the closest we're
allowed to get to the creek
with the development
disturbance area is 100ft. So
in adjacent to lot two and
they're on lots two and three.
They're we're going to be 100ft
setback from Morgan Creek up
there in the northwest corner
of lot two. Then we've got that
wetland buffer, that wetland
that will transition to a 55
foot setback around wetland A,
and then again, up on the north
side of lot three, we will be
100 foot setback to the
ordinary high water of Morgan
Creek.
>> Okay.
>> Is that better? I pulled up
exhibit 62.
>> Okay, that's. And 62 is the
revised mitigation plan that
after after a lot of back and
forth and back and forth and
back and forth with staff, this
was the final product that
staff signed off on, as I
understand it.
>> That is correct. So that's
utilizing the county's buffer
averaging, adding buffer back.
We have to add an equivalent
area to other parts of the site.
So that's. Yeah. Okay.
>> Okay. Okay. That's very
useful. Thank you. Anything
else by way of final rebuttal,
understanding that we'll keep
the record open. As I mentioned,
it sounds like there's at least
one new written submission. The
record is supposed to close one
week after tonight, but you
still get final rebuttal. And
you'll we'll talk about the
schedule before we're done
tonight, but keep in mind, if
anything comes in, you want to
respond to you. Can you have
that right in to respond? Final
rebuttal in writing after the
record closes to everybody else.
Okay.
>> Yeah. We're good.
>> Okay. With that, I will
bring it back to staff to see
if there are any parting
comments staff has in response
to what's come in tonight.
>> Not for me, Mr. Examiner.
This is okay. Thanks.
>> I think, Keith, there were
some things, but Mr. Avery
might have covered them.
Anything that any of your notes
that show that you need to
weigh in on?
>> Well, yeah.
>> Let me. You know, I always
hate to open a can of worms,
but there may have been an
oversight here of Morgan Creek
is a type F fish bearing stream.
And the riparian zone extends
200ft from the ordinary high
water mark or to the edge of
the 100 year floodplain,
whichever is greater. So lot
two, you see the floodplain
extends in a little further
than where they have the 100
foot setback. So they are can't
take advantage of the riparian
zone averaging, which if it was
200ft, they can do 50% as long
as they, you know, increase it
elsewhere. But in this case,
we're looking at a little bit
of floodplain on lot two.
>> So what's the upshot.
>> That it's. They may have to
take the building envelope out
of that.
>> So what does that do. Let me
see where the the building
envelope on this is just lot
two is lot three just two. So.
So let's see. So how does that
change things? Area on lot two.
>> 200ft from the ordinary high
water mark or the edge of the
100 year floodplain. So 200ft
obviously 50% for riparian zone
averaging is 100ft, but that
floodplain is greater.
>> Than the floodplain. Is the
green line correct? So it'd be
100ft.
>> From maybe I spoke too soon.
No, because I'm. Is this okay?
If we could put up the. Marion,
if you could put up the. This.
No, this is it. This is what
I'm looking. Okay.
>> This is from the.
>> Mitigation plan, correct?
>> This is correct. I I'm sorry.
I made a mistake here. I spoke
too soon. They're right. They
did reduce that. Because if you
look at see the 200 foot
distance, it is greater than
the floodplain.
>> Yeah. It looks like it the
hatched area so they can
develop outside the hatched
area.
>> Yes. Correct. That's my
error. My error. The 200 foot
distance is greater than the
two than the 100 year
floodplain. So it's good.
>> Okay. So the approved
mitigation plan exhibit 62
conforms in in your view it
conforms to the code, correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. And so what's shown
here. Yeah. Yeah. What's shown
here. The part that doesn't
have hatching is the building
envelope. It's pretty limited.
It's pretty far from Morgan
Creek for lot two and lot three.
>> It's 100ft.
>> Yeah. Okay. Yeah.
>> Okay.
>> I'm sorry.
>> I'm sorry.
>> Any other misstatements you
want to make?
>> Yeah.
>> No.
>> Okay. All right. So with
that, I am going to address the
open records schedule here.
We've got at least one new
exhibit in from Mr. Blazer.
That we all need to digest. It
sounds like an eight pager,
which is the biggest comment so
far. So that's worth looking at.
So the record will remain open
until. And the way this works
is there's a time of day like,
is it 5:00 when the when the
shop closes 5:00 on May 21st is
when any people can have. Until
then to submit any comment on
any relevant subject relative
to this project. And the
approval criteria has to be in
the mailbox of Marion Bateman,
the planner on this. By 5:00 on
May 21st, and then the
applicant has the opportunity
for final rebuttal, as I
mentioned. And usually that's a
one week deal. So that would
take it to 5:00 on May 28th.
And that if the applicant can
waive that to. And that would
close the record totally prior
to the 28th. But the applicant
has that right. So does
everyone understand that? And
is everyone okay with that
schedule? So at the latest I
anticipate the record will
close 5:00 on Friday, on
Thursday, the 28th of May,
possibly sooner than that. But
for members of the public at
large, you have until 5:00 on
the 21st to submit anything in
writing. Everyone understand
that. And does anyone have any
objection to that? We're good.
Okay, so that's how we're going
to conclude this. When record
closes, I'll have approximately
two weeks to issue my written
decision. And anyone out there
in Zoom land who wants a copy
of the decision, make sure you
get your contact information to
Miss Bateman so that you can be
on the distribution list for
notice of the final decision. I
will digest everything that
people have submitted or will
submit during this first week.
And with that, I think I think
we're done with this hearing
tonight. So I thank all of you
for participating. Stay in
touch and we'll be back to you
with a decision. Thank you very
much and good night.