Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wildfire Wui topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Chair proposes conditional adoption of cooperative wildfire agreement for Lynndyl
Summary
Planning and Zoning discussed adopting a Cooperative Wildfire System agreement that could shift firefighting costs to state agencies for fires originating in Lynndyl and debated whether to designate town areas as Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI); the Chair moved to adopt contingent on the fire chief’s recommendations and to review changes at the next council meeting.
Lynndyl — At a Planning and Zoning meeting May 28, the Chair proposed adopting the Cooperative Wildfire System (CWS) agreement for Lynndyl but asked that the adoption be conditioned on recommendations from the town’s fire chief.
The Presenter explained that the CWS “allows the Division of Forestry and Fire and State Lands to take on the cost of any fire started by Lynndyl,” and described that the state’s analysis recommends designating certain town areas as Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI). The Presenter said WUI designation triggers building-code requirements only for new construction in designated areas, noting that “only new construction in that area…is subject to that building code.”
Why it matters: WUI designation can impose construction requirements (for example, restrictions on vinyl siding, requirements to enclose low decks, and ember-resistant venting) and — for taxable structures in high-risk zones — a small yearly fee. The Presenter summarized a fee schedule that participants said had been discussed previously ($20 for structures up to 3,000 sq ft; $60 for 3,000–6,000 sq ft; $100 for larger structures) but also said that fees were currently deferred.
Board members pressed for clarity about which parcels would be included. Several members questioned the state’s automated map that flagged some green farmland and industrial areas as high risk and recommended that the town send fire professionals to inspect the highlighted areas before finalizing any designation. The Presenter acknowledged the map could change annually and recommended local review of areas flagged by the state.
On timing and procedure, members discussed public-notice and posting requirements and several possible dates for council action; the group referenced a sequence that could include council review in early to mid-June and a Planning and Zoning adoption on June 25 if the panel wanted to defer for further review. The Chair moved “to adopt this contingent upon recommendations from our fire chief” and said the planning body would review any recommended changes at the next zoning/council meeting. No vote was recorded in the transcript.
The meeting record shows the motion was proposed but not yet resolved in the Planning and Zoning session; members indicated a preference to limit designation to the red high-risk zones where possible and to avoid townwide application without further review.
What happens next: The Chair’s motion ties final adoption to the fire chief’s recommendations and to a subsequent review by Planning and Zoning; the transcript indicates the item can be deferred to allow site inspections and staff review before any formal vote at a future meeting.
