Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Water topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Douglas County Water Commission flags irrigation and aquifer-use concerns in Pinecrest Community Church lot-split
Summary
Commissioners reviewed a Pinecrest Community Church application to split a 35-acre parcel and raised questions about proposed turf irrigation (two and three acres) and the prospect of commercial use on aquifers; no formal action was taken and staff will forward comments to the planning commission.
At its June 23 meeting the Douglas County Water Commission reviewed a Pinecrest Community Church application that proposes splitting a 35-acre parcel into two lots and raised questions about proposed turf irrigation and potential commercial use over the county aquifer.
The commission's discussion matters because the application, if approved at the planning level, could increase groundwater withdrawals for large areas of irrigated turf and permit commercial uses sited above unincorporated-county aquifers.
Clark Hamillman (Water Commissioner) said he had no objection to splitting the lot but criticized the application for lacking irrigation detail. "For one of the proposed half-size lots, they were gonna have 2 acres of sod. And the other one, they were gonna have 3 acres of sod... There's no comments about how they were gonna irrigate this, what kind of sod it is, how much water it was gonna take to keep that sod green," Hamillman said.
Harold Snathals (Water Commissioner) echoed the concern and asked the commission to consider county guidelines limiting irrigated ornamental turf. "We're we have such an effort on sustainability in our county... I think it is something that should be looked at. I'm not sure I would say no to this application, but I think it's something the county should look at, guidelines at least," Snathals said. He also questioned allowing a commercial dog‑kennel use over the aquifer when municipal or renewable-system connections may not be available for such businesses.
No formal action was taken on the Pinecrest application during the Water Commission meeting. Commissioners asked staff to collect the comments and forward them to the planning commission for consideration during land-use review.
The commission's remarks continued a pattern of policy questions commissioners want tracked as the county water plan develops: should the county limit nonfunctional turf irrigated from wells in unincorporated areas; should commercial developments be allowed to rely on groundwater when municipal service is available; and how should tap fees influence developer choices. Staff agreed to compile and deliver those questions alongside the technical work products from the consultants.
The Pinecrest application remains with the planning commission; the Water Commission provided advisory comments only and did not vote on the lot split.
