County OKs wildlife overlay changes

Building regulations to change in some areas

By TY BEAVER

H&N Staff Writer

November 8, 2007

   Bob Sanders, a rancher in Chiloquin, said he sold land to a 20-year-old employee so he could build a house for himself and his wife. 

   But the land was within an area designated as winter grazing for wildlife. The impending restrictions on home construction for the young employee and his wife led to a less-than-desirable situation. 

   “He had to build a house right next to his father-in-law,” Sanders said. 

   Sanders and more than a dozen other Klamath County residents testified before Klamath County planning commissioners Tuesday in favor of easing home building requirements in the wildlife overlays. 

   After hearing public testimony, the planning commission recommended, and the county commissioners, approved, the changes. 

   County officials worked for months to revise building regulations in wildlife overlays. The overlays cover portions of the county and contain about 455,000 acres of private land. 

   The overlays were designed to protect winter grazing habitat for deer, elk and antelope. How far back a home could be set from a road, whether a fence could be erected and residence density requirements are just some of the stipulations. 

   Enforcement 

   Enforcement of overlay regulations had been spotty in previous years, though it didn’t create a problem because many affected properties remained undeveloped. 

   In recent years, though, development in the county’s rural areas stepped up.

Landowners filed complaints, saying they weren’t aware there was a wildlife overlay on their property. 

   New solution 

   County planning officials had another fix to the issues proposed earlier but introduced a new solution Tuesday night called Option 2. 

   Unlik e previous proposals, Option 2 eliminated any definitive distances or amounts from building in wildlife areas. Instead, the new proposal stipulates that building requirements for whatever residential zoning a home was being built in be met. 

   Only one person spoke against the proposal. Others said changes were necessary to allow people to use land as they intended. Diane Preston, a resident and real estate agent in Keno, said overlays have devalued land and made it difficult to sell. 

   “I can’t even get people to look at land in Cedar Trails,” she said. 

   Most of the planning commission agreed, saying easing restrictions would alleviate pressure on landowners and shouldn’t negatively affect herds. 

   But planning commissioner Eve Oldenkamp argued against the changes. After studying the history behind the overlays, she said it would negate all the work that was done to preserve the natural beauty the state was trying to protect decades ago. 

   “The overlays were developed to preserve what made Oregon unique,” she said. 

   T he planning commission voted 5-1 to recommend Option 2, with Oldenkamp voting against. Specific definitions for wildlife compatible fencing specified by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife were included in the recommendation. 

   Commissioners unanimously approved the changes.

Overlay changes

   n Homes and accessory buildings cannot be located within a critical habitat area or migration corridor identified by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife that also are identified in the county’s comprehensive plan. 

   n Any fencing shall be wildlife compatible and used only for livestock purposes. Up to one acre may be fenced off from wildlife as long as it is not within wildlife habitat or migration corridors. 

   n Building approvals will be granted only if residents guarantee to control domestic dogs and recognize that wildlife may cause damage to a dwelling when it is in the wildlife overlay. 

   n Off-road vehicle use must be restricted from November to April except for property management purposes. Farm and forest tax deferred properties are exempt, but owners must show proof of deferral at time of development.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted
material  herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have
expressed  a  prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit
research and  educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

Source:   http://pioneer.olivesoftware.com/Daily/Skins/heraldandnews/

navigator.asp?skin=heraldandnews