The Oak Harbor City Council passed a set of amendments to the city’s comprehensive plan, including a wording change about fire service impact fees, as expected Tuesday night.

But first there was an unexpected vocal kerfuffle.

It seemed pretty straight forward from the agenda the city published. The council was set to hold a public hearing on the amendments to the comprehensive plan, “conduct a public hearing and consider the annual amendments including a change to allow Impact Fees for Fire Service,” the notice said.

But some residents got mighty upset when the mayor and the city attorney told the group of seven that they couldn’t discuss a land-use change they all came to protest.

The residents opposed an amendment that would change a land-use designation of an Ely Street property, which would likely result in an accompanying zoning change allowing duplexes or four-plexes on the site. Two of the residents spoke earlier at the March 4 council meeting. At the time, council members voted to table the amendments until the March 18 meeting after Councilman Paul Brewer suggested a word change to strengthen a policy statement on fire service impact fees.

After the hearing was re-opened Tuesday night, Councilman Bob Morrison asked whether the public could address anything besides the impact fee-related word change. City Attorney Phil Bleyhl answered that citizens should confine themselves to comments about this word change.

This didn’t set well with a number of citizens. Marina Parr, an Ely Street resident, finally interrupted Mayor Patty Cohen after being shushed. “We feel we’re being unfairly shut out,” Parr said.

Then Bleyhl said he re-read the notice and saw that it wasn’t clear about whether testimony was limited. He pointed out that the council could simply choose to broaden the public hearing. Cohen repeatedly asked for direction from the council as to whether the residents should be allowed the speak. The council members were silent on the issue until Cohen pressed them, then they finally agreed to allow the testimony.

Richard Pasewark, a member of the comprehensive plan task force, scolded the city officials for trying to prevent the residents from speaking. He pointed out that they didn’t get a chance to speak at the open public comment period in the beginning of the meeting because they signed up to speak about the amendments.

Pasewark said he was a “minority member” of the task force in that he was against the change of land-use designation on Ely Street. “I believe a resident buying a home does that with the understanding that zoning will not be changed unless there is a pressing or overriding need,” he said.

All of the proposed amendments passed through the citizen’s comp plan task force and the planning commission, both of which are made up of volunteers from the community. Council members appoint members of the task force while Mayor Cohen appoints planning commissioner members.

Five residents spoke against the Ely Street amendment, citing concerns about aesthetics and increased traffic on a busy pedestrian road without sidewalks. Kathy Grecco submitted a neighborhood petition, signed by 22 people, against the change.

John Encinas, the owner of the property, also spoke and tried to allay the residents’ concerns. He said he plans to site the four-plex units on the back end of the lot, bordering commercial property along Highway 20. “Most of the residents won’t even be able to see it,” he said.

Steve Powers, the city development director, pointed out that the state Growth Management Act encourages cities to in-fill, which means to place higher density development within the city instead of allowing sprawl. The Growth Management Act mandates cities and counties to create comprehensive plans to deal with future growth.

Powers also said multi-family units are a good buffer between single-family homes and commercial zones.

Powers and several council members explained that there will be several more chances for the residents to have input before the project is approved. There will be hearings for a zoning change and the building review process itself.

The council members eventually voted unanimously (Danny Paggao was absent) to approve the amendments without further changes. Afterward, Brewer said he was thrilled that his proposed wording regarding fire impact fees was passed.

The new policy states the city “should consider establishing a fire service impact fee in order to ensure that capital facilities can be provided to maintain the adopted level of service as the community grows.”

Brewer said he advocates the creation of the impact fee, which would be charged on new development, in order to pay the cost of a second firehouse. He said the policy statement in the comp plan is “a good first step” toward actual implementation of the fee.

He also wants the city to consider a school impact fee. “I look at impacts fees as buying into our municipality,” he said.