Local folks are beginning to wake up to the what has become a stealth attack on the quality of life in the White Salmon by outside developers. Residents of Spring Street had been broad-sided by the White Salmon Planning Commission's staff approval of a wall to wall high density subdivision on a city lot on a very narrow steep and high traffic volume street.
Now the word is out, and residents are pushing back by are showing up at meetings and writing letters demanding a sensible approach to city development.
Showing up and getting informed is the least we can do.
Check out this story in the Enterprise:
http://www.whitesalmonenterprise.com/WSENews2.shtml
Friday, May 11, 2007
Standing Up to the Developers
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Great idea!! In many cases people aren't aware of important things going on in the city council or planning commission that impact them and their property. Hopefully we can also keep in touch as to what is happening in Goldendale that impacts all of us too!
WSMC13.16.005 New water connections-Residences. One hookup per dwelling unit is required.The Spring Street Development has four(4) already in the ground a year before the short plat now being considered for approval. WSMC 13.16.010 B. If a request for physical hookup is not made within six months of the approval date, the approval is void. A water meeter in the ground is connected and impacts the system, physicaly not hook up. Why does city council let this happen, and do nothing about it??
What's the story with how one goes about getting hooked up to water in W.S. I heard that some big developers are buying up big groups of water permits and holding onto them, making them unavailable to the small individual. Does anyone know if this is true?
Responding to the 7:45 a.m. Anon. post - Council has been working to amend the water ordinance to require those persons with water meters in the ground, but no active service, to pay a proportionate share of system costs. A draft appears on the City's web site (note: the currently posted early draft will change as recommendations made by the public, staff and council members at Council and Water/Sewer Committee meetings are included).
The City has always allowed purchase of a water connection at any time, prior to the moratorium - some people have had theirs in the ground with no construction for 30+ years.
As to the 10:48 a.m. Anon. post:
Due to the water connection moratorium imposed by the Washington State Dept. of Health, no new connections are allowed to occur. The exception to this will be the 36 additional connections that DOH will allow the City to make to meet a maximum of 1,744. This exception is due to a 2005 error in calculating the number of total available connections to reach 1,744.
Currently those wishing a water connection are required to so indicate by requesting inclusion on a waiting list. When available, the connections will be distributed according to chronological order of the list regardless of any other factors. If a person no longer wishes a connection, the next person on the list will be eligible.
The first 36 requests on the current list, a mix of single and multiple requests, will be awarded following adoption of the amended water ordinance which will,among other issues, address the specifics of a connection moratorium. The list is a public document, available at City Hall.
Anticipating a moratorium, a developer scoops up all the remaining water hookups for Salmon Run - both Phase I and Phase II (he only has need for 28 hookups on Phase I but he gets 46). The moratorium comes on and this developer now has what all the other builders need - water hookups. Question: Is that why he has an interest in the Matt Melby project on NW Spring St?
And, if the Salmon Run developer doesn't have every meter in the ground, paid for and billed monthly, why does he still have them when the city ordinance for extensions has passed? If there are water hookups available, why has Bob Stanwicki not been given a hookup? He has an existing lot in Pucker Huddle and has been asking that question at the council meetings since April 2006. In fact, if you go back and read the minutes from the City Council meetings, it states that the city has an obligation to those who have "existing" lots prior to the moratorium (see June 21, 2006 meeting minutes). And, that was what was published in the Enterprise. Here's what I think is really wrong - we have had too many people on the Planning Commission and City Council who have made their own agendas a priority rather than the welfare of the city as #1.
Post a Comment