Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses Medical Lake for written answers on wetlands, citizen working group and critical‑areas changes
Summary
A resident and presenter urged the commission to clarify how wetlands will be protected in the comprehensive plan update and asked four specific questions; city staff told commissioners outreach is being designed and said the land‑use decision previously challenged followed due process.
Tammy Robertson, a Medical Lake resident, urged the Planning Commission on Jan. 23 to provide specific, written responses about wetlands protection, community involvement in the comprehensive plan update and the city’s critical areas ordinance.
Robertson said she had raised concerns in late 2024 about the comprehensive plan revision and that she had not received written answers. "I had specifically asked some extremely important questions, and I have yet to hear back in writing from the city of Medical Lake," Robertson said during the public comment period. She submitted four formal questions asking whether the city will form a citizen working group for the comprehensive plan and concurrent development regulation updates, how the city would notify residents if such a group is formed, whether the city conducted a lessons‑learned review of a referenced wetland application (which she called the "Burke's North Martin wetland fiasco") and whether the city plans to keep making its Critical Areas Ordinance (CAO) less restrictive.
City staff responded during the scheduled staff report. The staff presenter said the city is "in the process of designing a public outreach and approach to the comprehensive plan and development regulations periodic update that is mandated through state law" and that City Council had approved a service agreement with Big Sky Public Relations to prepare a communications plan. The staff presenter said that while citizen advisory boards such as the Planning Commission and Parks & Rec Advisory Board are appointed via a city application, any separate working group for the comprehensive plan would follow a different, not‑yet‑finalized process and would be announced on the city website and social media when ready.
On the contested land‑use application Robertson cited, staff said due process was followed: a neutral wetland consultant reviewed the record, the Planning Commission voted 4–1 to recommend approval in May 2023, City Council approved the application unanimously in July 2023, and the appeal period passed with no appeals filed. Staff noted there is no current permit or building project on the site and that any claims about hypothetical future encroachment would be addressed when a concrete application is submitted.
Robertson told commissioners she still had substantive concerns, including whether "best available science" had been used in the wetland reviews and whether recent CAO changes made the code less restrictive. She said the CAO had removed a 15‑foot building setback (as stated in public comment). Staff reiterated that the plan and regulations work is ongoing and that the communications plan will spell out outreach and involvement opportunities.
Robertson also delivered a public presentation marking World Wetlands Day, describing wetlands' role in biodiversity, carbon storage and hazard mitigation and asking the city to incorporate wetland protection into hazard and planning documents. She requested timely written answers to her four specific questions and left a written handout with details.
No formal action on her requests was taken at the meeting beyond staff responses and a commitment to publish outreach opportunities on the city's channels.
