Ken Brenner: Protect our wetlands
Monday, October 24, 2011
I was very disappointed to hear that the protection afforded the wetlands in the Betterview Business Park will now be ignored. The pre-annexation agreement approved when I was on the Steamboat Springs City Council in 2003 clearly set aside much of the wetlands on the site to be protected from development. That protection was the reason we were able to approve the annexation in the first place. Now that agreement is being disregarded intentionally by our City Council.
The irony is that the city has played a lead role the past five years in developing a comprehensive water quality analysis for the Yampa River and its tributaries. More than $300,000 from numerous local governments and agencies was invested in the initial analysis. Ongoing monitoring will be an annual investment of approximately $50,000, all to ensure our pristine water quality is documented and protected for future generations. It is wrong for our City Council to ignore the pre-annexation agreement and approve destruction of these wetlands.
Ken Brenner
Steamboat Springs
Comments
pitpoodle 1 year, 6 months ago
Not only is it wrong for the city to invalidate a standing annexation agreement, it is wrong for planning staff to decide to give up our environmental authority to the US government. Yes, that is what council decided to do (upholding planning staff's decision) on Sept 6, 2011. Remember when council told us the SB 700 annexation agreement would bind and hold accountable all future elected officials and developers of parcels within SB 700 for decades? Now, another annexation agreement (in part, designed to protect wetlands), council says, is not binding at all. This council even ignores the Steamboat Springs Community Plan that makes many years of community input invalid. Talk about disappointment.
steamboatsconscience 1 year, 6 months ago
Kenny boy Isn't that "wetland" actually created by the fact that in the spring the huge pile of snow the city stores behind the bus barn melts and floods that area because the drainage there is inadequate to prevent flooding there?
poodle sorry to inform you but the Corps of Engineers is always involved in wetland issues, and normally they have the final say.
pitpoodle 1 year, 6 months ago
Mr. Conscience: Nope, the wetlands are not created by the runoff. When the annexation agreement was signed by the city, the wetlands were determined by an inventory of the wetlands on the property. Actually, the city created a way to limit the runoff into the properties and that really has nothing to do with the wetlands on the properties. Still, drainage is a problem.
Normally, the USACE does not have the final say. The US Army Corp of Engineers does not want this control, in fact, they specifically state that projects need to gain approval from local entities to continue development and that the cities have the final say. Regardless, why would we want to give up control of our environmental resources to a federal agency? Voting for this is irresponsible to say the least.
jk 1 year, 6 months ago
It's funny how anywhere a cat tail grows is considered a wetland. This spring I witnessed a bunch of wetlands being romoved as the city was clearing their winter scoria from the drainage ditches around town. I think it was sled who pointed out one mans wetland is another mans swamp!!
pitpoodle 1 year, 6 months ago
Regardless of whether you call it a swamp or a wetland, that is not really the issue.
The issue is this: When does an annexation agreement mean anything to the people who sign it? When is an agreement with the city valid? Does an agreement become null and void when a developer wants to make an extra buck on his property by filling the wetlands? Or, does an agreement apply only for outside developers who make big promises to the city? Another big issue here is: The Steamboat Springs Community Plan was abandoned to profit developers. It's not right I tell ya.
jk 1 year, 6 months ago
True pit, however had this swamp of cat tails never been considered a wetland in the first place we wouldn't be having this argument! I never once saw a duck, or sandhill crane hanging out here?? It seems they have a beautiful river and several nice ponds they prefer to hang out at. As steamboatsconsience has pointed out this may not even be a wetland, if it were not for the town dumping their snow here.
pitpoodle 1 year, 6 months ago
As I pointed out, the annexation agreement had wetlands inventoried and, at the time, the city snow melt had nothing to do with the amount or quality of wetlands. There is plenty of wildlife (especially ducks) in this area including a moose earlier this year. As I recall, plenty of people driving by stopped to see it. Are you familiar with the area at all? Do you know anything about wetlands?
Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago
Regardless, how does an area identified in the annexation agreement as wetlands and the community plan says that wetlands are to be preserved become a question for the Army Corps of Engineers?
It seems to me that it was never previously a question of whether the Army Corps of Engineers would approve of developing this land. It would have always been possible to get their approvals because they've long allowed swaps. So it seems to me that the only reason that wetlands were mentioned in the annexation agreement and in the community plan was to preserve wetlands within SB City limits.
1999 1 year, 6 months ago
sc..its pretty laughable you think wetlands have been created by a pile of melting snow.
do you know what constitutes a wetland?
you should look into it.
jk 1 year, 6 months ago
pit, This winter I saw several pics of moose and elk standing on patios and in backyards, does that mean those areas are a game preserve?? Yes I understand what a wetland is and as I stated before as long as a certain type of vegetation can exist there it can be considered a wetland. And as I said earlier this year I watched as the city tore up several areas that could also be considered wetlands. Where was you crusade then??
telivader 1 year, 6 months ago
Everyone wake up! Wetlands are not the issue. It doesn't matter if it is wetlands, bugs, birds, flowers, or just lines on a map. The rest of the owners of the development were held to the existing agreement. That is the "crusade".
We should not have to fight to enforce the accountability of OUR city government to follow it's own rules.
Where will the next injustice take place? Your neighborhood?
Scott Wedel 1 year, 6 months ago
It is the same sort of city government arrogance that was evident when they ran the road through the greenbelt as if the greenbelt was a city right of way. City lost in court on that one.
It wasn't the Army Corps of Engineers that signed the annexation agreement or developed the community plan. So why did City Planning say this was a decision for the Army Corps of Engineers?
pitpoodle 1 year, 6 months ago
Listen to this, now city planning wants to "increase the number of developments that can be approved administratively" according to the newspaper today. "The intent is to to streamline the public approval process for developers whose projects fit the SBS Community Development Code." This is ridiculous when we have just seen the planning director make wholesale changes in the SBS Community Area Plan with no justification or input from the community. We need checks and balances in this city government (such as they are with this council). We shouldn't allow the planning department to to decide how to "fix" the CDC so that developers can pave over the whole town.
1999 1 year, 6 months ago
i agree strongly pitpoodle.but of course they will cite the economy as the need to "streamline"
I wonder if we get a vote on that .
it;s ridiculous.
pitpoodle 1 year, 6 months ago
Us, get a vote? Pretty soon the planning director will be making all of the decisions on land use with no need to get the opinion of planning commission or city council, much less the vote of the community. Personally, I would like to see him go back to Denver and vote out the entire council next Tuesday. Just sayin.
pitpoodle 1 year, 6 months ago
Of course, people could speak up. Oh man, am I dreaming or what?
Requires free registration
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.
Or login with:
OpenID