Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the River Haven Development Agreement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oakley commission recommends River Haven agreement but keeps 100‑foot river setback; neighbors oppose privacy fences
Summary
The Oakley Planning Commission recommended the River Haven development agreement to City Council with a 10‑year effective period while rejecting changes to a 100‑foot river setback and refusing proposed railroad‑tie fencing after neighbors raised privacy, trespass and environmental concerns.
The Oakley City Planning Commission on June 3 recommended the River Haven development agreement to the City Council while declining requests to change a 100‑foot river setback or to permit a Mill Race Road‑style railroad‑tie fence. The commission voted 4–1 to keep the 100‑foot setback and approved a 10‑year effective period for the DA; Commissioner Kevin Barker was the lone dissenter on the setback vote.
Neighbors who back the riverfront properties said the development’s proposed opaque fencing and marketing had misrepresented river access and harmed wildlife and views. Monte Hurt, an adjacent property owner, objected to a proposed railroad‑tie fence and the use of creosote, saying: "That ugly ass railroad tie fence... I don't want the creosote in the ground." Kaitlyn Gortat, representing several homeowners, told commissioners she and family members wanted a privacy fence "at least six feet tall" because lots border private backyards.
Developer counsel Lauren Bolger told the commission the DA’s existing language could block lot owners from installing privacy fencing and asked that the DA be clarified so owners could work with neighbors; she said the developer was willing to use natural wood fencing and withdraw the railroad‑tie idea: "we'd be happy to put in a natural wood fence. We're, please scratch the railroad tie idea." Commission members, however, expressed a preference for landscaping barriers and conservation easements over large privacy fences and voted to retain the DA language that restricts certain opaque fencing except along Mill Race Road.
During deliberations commissioners passed several motions related to the DA: granting a 10‑year effective period for the agreement, approving item 3.8 of the DA as written, denying the Mill Race railroad‑tie fence, and keeping the northeastern fence provision from the original agreement. The commission formally recommended the DA, as amended in committee, to the City Council for final action.
