The smokestack and a couple of buildings remain on a former mill site along the Cape Arago Highway Tuesday afternoon. A Charleston couple is looking to build condominums on the site along the bay between Empire and Charleston. The land is currently owned by the F. Willis Smith Trust. Above left, Sunset Market is across the street from the Sitka Dock property. John Pitman, the owner of the market, said he believed the new permanent residences will be good for the area. World Photo by Lou Sennick

Alongside bustling Cape Arago Highway, a 550-foot dormant smokestack looms over the bay, a remnant of industrial prosperity from earlier days. The Coos Head pulp mill, which began production in 1929 and by 1937 was considered one of the most successful of its kind in the Pacific Northwest, closed in 1970 on the Sitka Dock property in Barview. The land has been on the market since 1971.

Before the dawn of major industry in Oregon, the Coos Indians called the land Ki:We'et, which means sticking out, a reference to the property's protrusion into the bay. According to the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, the U.S. government used the land as a prison. And because U.S. soldiers could not identify a difference between tribes, peaceful Coos Indians were held there in 1856 during conflicts between hostile Rogue Indians and European American occupiers.

The tract was largely forgotten and ignored until last year, when Houston-based Steag Power, LLC, considered developing a power facility there. The energy company won Federal Aviation Administration approval for its project, a measure necessary because of the proposed facility's proximity to the North Bend Municipal Airport. But the deal never came to fruition.

Now Robin Stevenot, owner of the Charleston Station, a restaurant and bakery, wants to develop Bay Point Estates, a 54-unit condominium complex and commercial marina on the property just west of the highway.

Permanent community proposed to local officials

The project's development would take five years at a yet-to-be-determined cost, according to Stevenot, who added that she wants to hire only local companies for construction.

"We don't know how much it will cost yet," she said. "Lumber just went up 75 percent."

Stevenot has secured the land, she said, but will wait to purchase the Sitka Dock property until approval from county agencies is finalized. The land remains under the name of the Coos Head Mill owner, the F. Willis Smith Trust. She considers the current owners friends.

Besides the smokestack, the 124-acre property contains several small buildings and a portion of the land is on a 100-year flood plain. Stevenot says the condos will be built above the flood line, 9 feet and higher. She wants the condos to be permanent housing there, though the land is not zoned for residential use.

"I think tourism generates only through a short time frame but we can't determine economic growth and stability by tourism," Stevenot said. "We need families to come and stay, which will generate tax revenue and growth."

According to the Coos County Planning Department, the agency that approved the building permit, the land is zoned under the Coos Bay Estuary Management Plan as a 56 Urban Water Dependent Area with, according to county planner Staci Queen, "intent of recreational use." Queen also said industrial uses are allowed in the 56-UW plan and Stevenot's proposal meets management standards. Stevenot said the recreational standards will be met by allowing commercial use of the proposed dock and marina.

"We wouldn't approve a permit if the requirements were not met," Queen said.

In a letter to the Planning Department, the Confederated Tribes requested a "formal archaeological survey" prior to any ground disturbance. Tribal environmental program coordinator Howard Crombie said thus far, the tribes are supportive of the development proposal.

The same cannot be said for some area residents.

Two sides stress need for conservation

Dennis Phillips, who lives in a bayside neighborhood known as crab flats, which is adjacent to the Sitka Dock property, filed an appeal on April 7 with the Planning Department. The complaint was co-signed by Iain Karroll, another nearby resident. They say the proposed land use violates county ordinances. Phillips said several of his neighbors feel the same.

Ironically, both the developers and the appellants cite conservation as the main motivation for their respective actions. Stevenot wants to build there, she said, to deter industrial development.

"I live here because it is beautiful," Stevenot said. "They just want to know what I am doing and what I am doing is going to be compatible with our neighborhood, which is to keep nature at its core. We're not going to block views or tear down trees. This is about keeping our area free of industry."

John Pittman, owner of the Sunset Market directly across the street from the land, believes the permanent residences will be good for the area.

"If you don't get developers like that, you might as well shut down the city," he said.

Oregon Shores group enters the fray

Phillips, who is a member of Oregon Shores Conservation Coalition, notified the group which has undertaken an investigation of the case, questioning the legitimacy of such a decision without the public's input.

"There has been no public overlook, no public scrutiny, no public discussion and just as a matter of public policy, that's a great concern," said Cameron LaFollette, who works on land-use issues for the coalition in Salem. "Our principle concern is procedural because a decision was made by planning administrators without a public hearing."

Dave Perry, coastal manager for the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, is not directly involved in the case but said he was also surprised at the Planning Department's decision.

"I was a little surprised that the use was allowed in that area because I understood it was a water-dependent site." Perry said.

LaFollette said the case came up quickly and involves complicated issues.

"In a more general sense, since this is a large intertidal area on the property and because it is a multi-year proposal, the decision by only planning administrators is quite surprising," LaFollette said, adding the coalition also is concerned because the proposed development is near an estuary.

Residents give input, land determined clean

Stevenot maintains her mindfulness of conservation. A local herd of elk that grazes in the area will not be disturbed, she said. Stevenot insisted the elk habitat, primarily on the east end of the property, would remain unchanged.

Still, residents have voiced concerns. An April 7 e-mail message from Roger and Carol Partipilo to the Planning Department said, "The proposed development will totally displace this resident herd (of elk) as well as numerous migratory water fowl and nesting birds of prey," mentioning eagles and osprey.

An e-mail message on Monday from the Partipilos stated they were in support of the development after getting information from Stevenot and the Planning Department.

"We have been on both sides of this issue - concerned for the natural state of the area and also wanting some responsible development for our area and economy," the e-mail read. "We are in favor of the developers and what they are doing."

According to the developer, responsible steps have been taken to ensure the land is safe and suitable for an environmentally friendly development. Stevenot said soil on the property was tested for pollution by companies based in Portland and Medford.

"Our land is clean," Stevenot said.

She said reports from those companies were sent to the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, which would oversee further operations should construction begin.

A courthouse hearing to decide land's fate

The proposed development will be discussed at an appeal hearing that, according to Queen, will bypass the Coos County Planning Commission to speed the final approval process. The appeal will be heard first instead by the Coos County Board of Commissioners, usually the final decision-making body when land-use cases are appealed for a second time. According to the Planning Department, the action is allowed under county land development ordinances. The board is scheduled to hear the case on Wednesday at 1:30 p.m in the Coos County Courthouse in Coquille. It will be the first of any public discourse concerning the development.

Early on, residents were able to comment, and Queen said they were entitled to appeal the decision for 15 days after the Planning Department's approval of the project on March 25, provided any appellant would be adversely affected by the development.

"I just happened to be one of the people that realized a deal had to be put in quickly," Phillips said. "I don't think we're thinking enough about the future of the area in terms of the optimal, and my perspective as a biologist and a mathematician is that we're way over carrying capacity."

In a memo to the Board of Commissioners this week, the Planning Department recommended the board dismiss the appeal, saying petitioners Phillips and Karroll failed to "clearly and specifically" identify the issues they seek reviewed.

"It's most unusual for the Planning Department to recommend to have the appeal dismissed with no public hearing at all," LaFollette said.

If county commissioners dismiss the appeal Wednesday, complainants will have an opportunity to take the issue to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals and could pursue further action with the Oregon State Court of Appeals.

Phillips said he was surprised the commission suggested dismissal of the public hearing.

"There are lot of strange things about this case," Phillips said, adding that he would like more information about the project and is exploring options of presenting the case to LUBA.