HomeMy WebLinkAbout08 1208 03
L" lieu
i-I T)
fA.
/.:). iO (' -1
STATE OF WASHINGTON
County of Jefferson
AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT KNOWN AS
MLA#03-231 WITH CONDITIONS
(Phillips/Maki-Mineral Resource
Land Oyerlay)
ORDINANCE NO. 08-1208-03
}
}
}
}
}
}
WHEREAS, the Board of Jefferson County Commissioners ("the Board") has, as
required by the Growth Management Act, as codified at RCW 36.70A.010 et seq., adopted a
Comprehensive Plan via Resolution No. 72-98 on August 28, 1998, a Plan subsequently
amended; and
WHEREAS, the Board has set in motion and has now completed the proper
professional review and public notice and comment with respect to any and all amendments to
the County's Comprehensive Plan proposed in 2003; and
WHEREAS, as mandated by the Growth Management Act, the Board has reviewed and
voted upon the proposed amendment to the County's Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, a modified version of the proposed amendment known as MLA#03-231
[Phillips/Maki-Mineral Resource Land Overlay District] has been approved by the Board
pursuant to the procedures laid out in the County's Unified Development Code or "UDC,"
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it makes the following
Findings of Fact with respect to MLA#03-231 or "the amendment" or "this amendment":
1.
The Board, acting in its legislative capacity, adopted its Comprehensive Plan in August
1998 and adopted revised and unified development regulations through its adoption of
the UDC in December 2000.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
2.
The Growth Management Act, which mandates that Jefferson County generate and
adopt a Comprehensive Plan, also requires that there be in place a process to
amend the Comprehensive Plan.
The amendment process for the Comprehensive Plan must be available to the
citizens of this County [including corporations and other business entities] on a
regular basis, generally no more than once per year.
3.
4.
This particular amendment "cycle" began on or before May 1,2003, the deadline
for submission of a proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment.
5.
MLA#03-231 was timely submitted by Phillips/Maki, the owners and operators of
Penny Creek Quarry located on US Highway 101 south of the Rural Village
Center of Quilcene, Washington, and sought to have the zoning designation
known as a Mineral Resource Land Overlay or "MRLO" placed on approximately
36.79 acres of land that now holds underlying land use designations of Rural
Residential 1:20 ("RR 1:20) and RR 1:5.
6.
Providing an MRLO designation does not alter the underlying land use
designations for the parcels or lots so designated. The underlying land use
designation also remains the anticipated land uses after reclamation, i.e., when the
mining (resource extraction) is completed.
7.
The proposed MRLO is adjacent to an existing 19.34-acre MRLO that was
approved as an MRLO in 1997 under the 1995 Jefferson County Mineral Lands
Ordinance.
8.
The application for a CP amendment was and is solely an application for an
MRLO designation, a non-project action.
9.
The UDC, specifically UDC §3.6.3, contains a process that allows applicants to
obtain an MRLO if certain criteria are satisfied and if the County legislators make
the legislative decision to grant the MRLO designation.
Section 3.6.3 of the UDC, which became effective in January 2001 along with all
the other provisions of the UDC, was never the subject of a Petition For Review
10.
2
...
15.
16.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
11.
before the Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board or
"WWGMHB" and thus is valid and remains lawful.
This amendment is one of five proposed amendments that worked their way
through the entire process laid out in state statutes for such amendments. Three of
the five amendments (including this one) were specific to a particular site or
region; the remaining two are and were known as "suggested" amendments
12.
because they would implement or memorialize a policy decision made by the
elected Commissioners of this County.
Those proposed amendments went through professional review at the County and
State level.
13.
By way of example, the State Department of Natural Resources (or "DNR")
commented on this CP amendment in an email dated August 1, 2003. In the
communication, a DNR staff geologist described the typical characteristics of
Crescent Formation (basalt) and common uses for that material.
Specifically, this amendment was discussed in some detail in a combined County
14.
Department of Community Development Staff Report and SEP A Addendum for
Site-Specific Applications dated August 6, 2002, and a Planning Commission
Recommendation for Site-Specific Applications, dated October 15,2003 and
submitted to the Board of County Commissioners.
The Addendum was undertaken and generated pursuant to the State Environmental
Protection Act (or "SEP A") and a determination by the County planning staff that
the five proposed CP amendments, five distinct proposed non-project actions-as
that term of art is defined in SEP A-considered together as part of an annual CP
amendment cycle, warranted the following threshold determination: Adoption of
Existing Environmental Documents with a SEP A Addendum.
The EIS prepared with respect to the 1998 adoption of the CP also provides some
environmental review for this non-project action, because the SEP A-driven review
for the CP understood that 1) the CP included a process for MRLO designation, 2)
the County would place such a process in its development regulations, and 3)
3
20.
21.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-23 1 with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
17.
would then use that process, in the years following the adoption of the CP and the
development regulations (UDC), to provide MRLO designation for certain suitable
parcels or locations.
The Planning Commission and the planning department, in consultation with the
applicant, concluded that the acreage to be granted the MRLO designation should
be reduced to 31.79 acres from the original request of 36.79 acres. The purpose of
this recommended change was to exclude two small parcels between Penny Creek
and Highway 101.
18.
A corresponding recommended condition of approval is to combine those two
parcels and part of a parcel west of Penny Creek Road in order to create a five-
acre parcel, said five-acre parcel serving to satisfy one of the criteria at UDC
§3.6.3, specifically that an MRLO be surrounded by parcels not less than five
acres In SIze.
19.
The State Department of Ecology (or "DOE"), in an email to the County dated
August 6, 2003, informed the County that Penny Creek Quarry possesses a valid
NPDES General Permit for Sand and Gravel Operations, which addresses water
quality and storm water concerns.
The Sand and Gravel Permit will be reviewed and updated when and if the Quarry
submits mineral extractionlstormwater management permit applications to the
County and a reclamation plan to DNR for future activities in a new MRLO area.
While County planning staff and the Planning Commission recommended MRLO
designation for 31.79 acres, they also recommended five conditions on the
approval, which are listed in the Planning Commission recommendation dated
October 15,2003. The five conditions together with a sixth condition formulated
during the Board of County Commissioners deliberation leading up to the
decision, are made a condition of this approval and serve to, in part:
. Organize parcels adjacent to the new MRLO and in the
ownership of the Phillips family such that the MRLO is
surrounded by parcels no smaller than five acres in size on 100%
4
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
of its perimeter, which is a criterion for MRLO adoption at UDC
§3.6.3.
. Provide for a restrictive covenant on several parcels in the new
MRLO such that each and every parcel in the new MRLO is at
least ten (10) acres in size, which is a criterion for MRLO
adoption at UDC §3.6.3.
. Ensure that a DNR-approved reclamation plan covering the
entire operation and an updated DOE Sand and Gravel Permit
will be in place before the County will process mineral
extractionlstormwater management permit applications for the
new MRLO area.
. Ensure that the entire Penny Creek Quarry operation will be
unambiguously subject to the Mineral Extraction, Mining,
Quarry and Reclamation standards found at Section 4.24 of the
UDc. These standards address, among other topics, hours of
operation, noise, and best management practices for mining
activities in Susceptible Aquifer Recharge Areas.
. Provide for a mechanism by which the legal, nonconforming uses
of sorting, stockpiling, and loading extraction materials on the
two small parcels between Penny Creek Road and Highway 101
which are located upon land found in Rural Residential land use
districts that does not currently hold an MRLO designation, i.e.,
they are not located within the 19.34 acres designated as an
MRLO in 1997, will be moved to locations within the MRLO
22.
designated in 1997 or by this Ordinance in 2003.
Those proposed amendments went through review by the County's Planning
Commission or "PC"; specifically there was a public hearing with respect to this
amendment before the PC on August 20, 2003 and the PC deliberated with respect
to this proposal on September 3 and September 17,2003.
5
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
23. On September 17,2003, the PC recommended approval of an MRLO for
31.79 acres, as suggested by the County's planning department during
Planning Commission deliberation. The PC also recommended to the
elected County legislators that they include five conditions of approval.
This proposed amendment was the subject of a public hearing before the
Board of County Commissioners on November 24,2003.
24.
During the public comment periods associated with review of this proposal
by the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners, the
County received comments that were both opposed and in favor of the
proposal.
The Board concludes that the CP, as a legislative policy decision, reflects
and memorializes the overall opinions and intent of the entire citizenry of
this county and that the CP includes numerous provisions that would
support this MRLO designation and the maintenance and enhancement of
mineral resource extraction activities in general.
The Board also finds that the development regulations known as the UDC,
as a legislative decision, reflect and memorialize the opinions and intent of
the entire citizenry of this county and that the UDC includes a specific
provision that creates a process whereby parcels, if criteria are satisfied, can
be and should be designated as another MRLO.
The GMA and the CP, in the context of the section in the UDC that
describes the process for establishing MRLO Districts, supports the Board
conclusion to approve this request. The CP and the UDC provide support
for this decision because adoption of this CP amendment is in furtherance
of the GMA goal, and the corresponding County CP policy, to maintain and
enhance mineral resource extraction activities.
In general, then, decisions arising under GMA are to be made pursuant to
what the statute mandates no matter how unpopular such a decision might
be.
Decisions made pursuant to GMA should never be subject to what amounts
to a plebiscite.
6
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (PhillipslMaki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
31. For example, as distasteful as the decision to provide more lands with a
MRLO designation might be to some persons in this county, equally
distasteful to others residing in this County is the GMA mandate that rural
32.
commercial lands be strictly limited in size and intensity of uses. Yet both
are mandated by the GMA, although they are requirements of that state law
that are not universally loved.
Furthermore, the Board concludes it is likely that when drafting the GMA
the State Legislature fully understood that resource extraction industries,
particularly mining or excavating, would never be a popular "neighbor" and
thus the Legislature made it clear that the resource industries are to be
protected from incompatible development such as homes and not vice-
versa.
This amendment was the subject of a vote to approve, modify, or reject by
the Board of County Commissioners.
That vote to approve was made only after the three elected County
Commissioners recognized, heard and seriously weighed the strong
opinions held by various members of the Jefferson County community both
for and against this proposal. Ultimately, however, the decision rested with
the sole legislative discretion of the elected County Commissioners.
This amendment was approved unanimously by the Board of County
Commissioners because, in part, it is in conformance with the requirements
of GMA that counties such as this one that are planning pursuant to GMA
designate mineral resource lands [RCW 36.70A.170] and assure the
conservation of mineral resource lands by, in part, not permitting the siting
of incompatible uses adjacent to such lands [RCW 36.70A.060].
This amendment is also in conformance with the County's CPo
Numerous goals and policies described in the County's CP are supported
and furthered by adoption of this MRLO designation. They are designated
as a Goal each of which has related Policies listed under it. In order the CP
goals and policies most prominently furthered by this CP amendment are:
7
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
. Land Use Goal ("LNG") 12.0 [locate new resource industries in
rural areas near the resources to be extracted],
. LNG 13.0 [conserve and manage mineral resource lands for
sustainable natural-resource based economic activities that are
compatible with surrounding land uses],
. LNG 24.0 [foster sustainable resource-based industry in rural
areas of the County],
. Natural Resource Goal ("NRG") 1.0 [encourage the conservation
of resource lands and the long-term sustainable use of natural
resource-based economic activities],
. NRG 2.0 [encourage resource-based economic activities which
are environmentally compatible],
. NRG 6.0 [conserve and protect mineral resource lands for long-
term economic use], and
. NRG 7.0 [provide for mitigation of potential adverse impacts
associated with mining extraction and processing].
38.
This amendment for a proposed MRLO designation has been reviewed against
Table 4-3 in the CP, entitled "Matrix for Assessing Lands for designation as
Mineral Resource Lands." That Matrix contains 13 topics, including such items as
"Quality of Deposit," "Size of Deposit," and "Visual Impact." For each topic
there is a spectrum of five possible responses from "Not Suitable for Designation"
39.
[the left-hand column] to "Designation Highly Desirable" [the fourth column from
the left] and "Designation Critical" [the fifth column from the left, i.e., the far-
right column].
The Staff Report notes that the material in the area meets Washington State
Department of Transportation ("WSDOT") specifications for degradation. It
would be more accurate to state that the material may meet WSDOT specifications
for highway use. Each stockpile would require individual testing.
8
42.
43.
44.
45.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-23 I with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
40.
Pursuant to Section 9 of this County's UDC, all proposed amendments have to be
"considered," [the precise verb used in the UDC] in part, through the "filter" of the
seven growth management indicators (or "GMI") listed at UDC §9.5.4(b),
although those GMI represent only some of the criteria that the County
Commissioners must consider when deciding whether to adopt or reject a
proposed plan amendment.
41.
Because of the general nature of the GMI, each and every GMI will not be
applicable or apropos for each and every amendment that this County Commission
has considered.
However, the County Commissioners, in order to comply with UDC Section 9,
should and must make generalized findings of fact with respect to the seven GMI
and do so now.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(1), which concerns whether the rate of growth and
development for the County is greater or lesser than was anticipated at the time of
Comprehensive Plan ("CP") adoption in 1998, the County Commissioners find,
that in the short-term the population of this County has not increased as quickly as
the Comprehensive Plan envisioned, but that such a smaller growth rate is not
relevant to this particular amendment, since the obligation to protect resource land
and maintain and enhance resource extraction industries is stated expressly within
the GMA at RCW 36.70A.020(8) and that mandate is not dependent on any
particular growth rate or lack of one.
Nor is the mandate to maintain and enhance the natural resource extraction
industries dependent on current economic needs, both generally and for the
applicant, i.e., the ability (or inability) of Penny Creek Quarry to sell what might
be extracted is not relevant to the legislative or policy decision this Board faced.
Furthermore, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources ("DNR")
holds the opinion that Jefferson County is one of the counties that presumably will
be net "exporters" of mineral resources to supply mineral resources to other
Washington counties that lack mineral resources themselves.
9
48.
49.
50.
51.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-23] with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
46.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(2), the County Commissioners find that the
capacity of the County to provide adequate services has not changed and will not
change as a result of the decision to adopt this CP amendment.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(3), which speaks of whether sufficient urban land
47.
has been designated, the County Commissioners find that resource extraction
industries should never be located within an Urban Growth Area or "UGA"
(pursuant to state law and County Wide Planning Policy 7, Section 4), and thus
this GMI is not relevant to the deliberations or decision reached with respect to
this amendment.
It should be noted that the estimated average annual per capita need of
construction aggregate in Washington State is some 12 to 15 tons (which come
from extracted mineral resources).
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(4), the County Commissioners find that most of
the assumptions that supported the policies and goals of the 1998 Comprehensive
Plan remain valid, including the policies and goals that require the classification
and designation of mineral resource lands, the protection of those mineral resource
lands and the encouragement of the natural resource industries.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(5), the County Commissioners find that the Board
recognizes that it must consider routes and actions that may create economic
opportunity and a healthy economy. This becomes particularly important in the
face of increasing unemployment and our current national recession. While this
shift in priorities does not necessarily require any changes to the goals of the plan,
it does and will require implementation of goals and policies intentionally placed
inside the County's CP that refer to the natural resource lands and the maintenance
and enhancement of natural resource industries.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(5), the County Commissioners find that an MRLO
that effectively expands Penny Creek Quarry will allow [with whatever permits
might be needed] it to continue to extract (in economically feasible segments)
IO
54.
55.
56.
57.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (PhillipslMaki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
52.
mineral resources from the area and will allow Penny Creek Quarry to maintain or
increase its full-time employee roster.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(5), the County Commissioners find that to the
53.
extent that this amendment may generate in the future jobs located in the rural
portions of the County, its adoption supports the GMA mandate that any County
planning under GMA must "foster... . rural-based economies, and opportunities
to both live and work in rural areas," pursuant to RCW 36.70A.O30(14)(b).
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(6), the County Commissioners find that there have
not been any changed circumstances to dictate a need for amendments; instead this
amendment implements numerous CP policies and goals that work for the
maintenance and enhancement of the natural resource industries.
With respect to UDC §9.5.4(b)(7), the County Commissioners find that any
inconsistencies between the County's Plan and the GMA exist because Jefferson
County has only begun to utilize or consider every 'tool' found in the GMA
'toolbox,' including, by way of example only, using its development regulations
(only enacted three years ago) to examine whether any other locations in the
unincorporated county are appropriate for MRLO designation.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(1), the County Commissioners find that this is
amendment to the CP does not arise because circumstances in Jefferson County
have changed but because it serves to fulfill CP, UDC, policy and societal goals.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(2), the County Commissioners find that the
assumptions on which the CP was based remain valid and are furthered by the
adoption of this CP amendment.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(3), the County Commissioners find that this CP
amendment spurred limited public comment both for and against it, the comments
against it coming primarily from neighbors who testified that their right to 'quiet
enjoyment' of their property is at risk as the Quarry continues in business and the
MRLO is increased in size.
11
62.
63.
64.
65.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (PhillipslMaki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
58.
Although there were voices in opposition to this CP amendment, the Board
concludes with respect to UDC §9.8.1(b)(3) that since adoption of this CP
amendment furthers goals in two documents that broadly represent the 'will' of
this County's populace, specifically the CP and the UDC, then this CP amendment
59.
does reflect current widely held views of this County's residents.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(1), the Board finds that adoption of this CP will
60.
not negatively effect transportation levels of service or concurrency requirements.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(2), the Board finds that adoption of this CP is
61.
consistent with the goals and policies of the County's CPo
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(3), the Board finds that adoption of this CP has
been studied for probable' significant adverse environmental impacts and there will
be no such impacts to the infrastructure or utilities of this County.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(4), the Board finds that the parcels that will
become part of this MRLO are suitable for mineral extraction (basalt is present
there) and that access and utilities can be reasonably provided to these parcels.
While resource extraction (mining) is never perfectly compatible with certain land
uses that surround the Penny Creek Quarry, i.e., rural residential, it is the policy of
the GMA to protect the resource extraction activity from the neighbors and not
vice-versa. The Board offers those residential neighbors of this quarry, in light of
UDC §9.8.1(c)(4) the buffers provided by parcels not less than five acres in size
and the relocation of certain non-conforming uses to MRLO land pursuant to
condition #6.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(5), the Board finds that adoption of this CP
amendment enlarging an existing MRLO designation will not cause a domino
effect to have other parcels designated as being within an MRLO.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(6), the Board finds that adoption of this CP
amendment, which enlarges an existing MRLO, has no impact on the county's
population projections or general size and proportion of different land use
designation categories countywide.
12
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (PhillipslMaki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
66. With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(7), the Board finds that this CP amendment does
not impact or touch upon land within an urban growth area.
67.
With respect to UDC §9.8.1(c)(8), the Board finds that this CP amendment is
consistent with the GMA, the Countywide Planning Policies and benefits the
populace of the County.
Adoption of this amendment promotes the health and welfare of the citizens of
Jefferson County.
68.
The Planning Commission recommended that Parcels 702224011 and 702224012
be removed from this amendment to meet the requirements Section 3.6.3(1)(d) of
this County's UDC.
At the public hearing before the Jefferson County Board of County
Commissioners held on November 24,2003 the issue of utilizing Parcels
702224011 and 702224012 as part of the mining operation, which are no longer
part of this amendment, was brought up during testimony.
The Hearing Examiner issued a decision on December 5, 1996 on an appeal (ZON
96-0034) of the issuance of a building permit (BLD 96-0583) for an 8 foot by 14
foot scale building. The Hearing Examiner determined that the truck scale
building was an exempt accessory use to the non-conforming mineral extraction
activity that had been occurring on Parcel 702224011. From this decision it can
also be reasoned that stockpiling of material is also considered an accessory use of
mineral extraction.
Because most of the mineral resources had already been extracted from Parcel
702224011, known as pit site Y-86, the Hearing Examiner's decision on ZON 96-
0034 indicated that the truck scale could be utilized in conjunction with the
mineral extraction from the Phillip's other parcels across Penny Creek Road.
On August 9, 1996 the Phillips sought to have their existing pit on a 4.46 acre
Parcel 702224002, designated Mineral Lands of Long- T erm Commercial
Significance. This parcel was too small for such a designation.
On November 26, 1996 Phillips proposed a boundary line adjustment (EXM 96-
0060) to have Parcel A - 702224002 grow to 10 acres, while Parcel B- 702224006
was reduced to 9.34 acres and Parcel C - 702224020 was enlarged to 5.0 acres to
13
75.
76.
77.
78.
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (PhillipslMaki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
satisfy the minimum size as a buffer parcel for the newly-created Mineral Lands of
Long-Term Significance of 19.34 acres, specifically Parcels A and B described
earlier in this finding.
On July 14, 1997 the Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners
designated 19.34 acres, which was comprised of parcel A (702224002) and Parcel
B (702224006), as Mineral Lands of Long-Term Commercial Significance
through ZON 96-0042.
These actions established the Phillip's intent to expand their mining operation. On
December 16, 2002 the Phillips purchased at public auction three parcels from
Jefferson County, which was recorded by Auditor File Number 463382. These
three parcels were: Parcel 702224012 a long narrow 2.6 acre parcel lying
southeast of Penny Creek Road; Parcel 702224010, the 3.7 acre old county pit;
and Parcel 70222403, which is a 9 acre parcel that surrounds the county pit.
There is no evidence in the record that a Parcel 702224012 was utilized for
mineral extraction or an accessory use to mineral extraction.
Furthermore, it has been determined through this Amendment that noise from the
mining operation is a significant concern of neighbors across Highway 101.
During the deliberations of this Amendment at the Jefferson County Board of
County Commissioners held on December 1, 2003 it was acknowledged that the
rock sorter should be removed from Parcel 702224011, and there was discussion
whether the material stock piles should be removed or whether they provide noise
mitigation to the neighbors across Highway 101. Jefferson County Community
Development Staff conducted a site visit on December 4, 2003 and researched this
issue. This information is now reflected in this Ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, as follows:
Section 1 - MRLO Designation:
With respect to MLA03-231 (Phillips/Maki) the following real property constituting
approximately 31.79 acres, be and hereby is granted a Mineral Resource Land Overlay, to
be added to the existing 19.34-acre MRLO to create a total MRLO of approximately
51.13 acres, subject to conditions listed below in Section 2:
14
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
Parcel Nos:
Parcell: AFN No. 702224003 (per stipulated BLA)
Parcel 2: AFN No. 702224010
Parcel 3: AFN No. 702224023
Parcel 4: AFN No. 702224024
Parcel 5: AFN No. 702224025
Parcel 6: AFN No. 702224026
Description:
North 1/2 ofthe Northwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22, T27N R2W, W.M.
Together with;
North 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 22 west of the northwest
boundary ofthe Penny Creek Road right of way, T27N R2W, W.M.,
Except a tract defined as follows: beginning at a point defined by the intersection of the
north west boundary of the Penny Creek Road right of way and the east/west centerline
of Section 22, thence westerly along said east/west centerline of Section 22 a distance of
250.89' mil, thence southwesterly a distance of 408.13' mil to a point on the north east
property line of Parcel 70222401043.69' mil north west of the intersection of said north
east property line of Parcel 702224010 and the north west boundary of Penny Creek Road
right of way, thence 43.69' mil south east along said north east property line of Parcel
702224010 to the north west boundary of the Penny Creek Road right of way, thence
north easterly approximately 602.74' mil along the north west boundary of the Penny
Creek Road right of way to the point of beginning.
All situate in Jefferson County, Washington.
Section 2 - MRLO Conditions
The MRLO designation granted to Penny Creek Quarry, by and through the
Comprehensive Plan amendment submitted by Phillips/Maki, owners and operators of the
Penny Creek Quarry, shall be and is subject to the following eight (8) conditions:
1.
A Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) process is required under Sections 7 and 8 of
the UDC involving the combination of parcels 702224011, 012, and the northeast
corner of 003 such that a parcel is created equivalent to five (5) acres, the purpose of
which is to fulfill the UDC criterion that an MRL overlay be surrounded by parcels
no smaller than five acres in size on 100% of its perimeter.
A restrictive covenant is required for parcels 702224023, 024, 025, 026, 003, and 010
for the purpose of providing that each and every parcel in the new MRL overlay be at
least ten (10) acres in size.
Submittal of a proposed reclamation plan to the State Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) that encompasses the entire operation, including the current
Quarry site and the newly-designated MRLO lands, shall occur concurrently with
submittal of mineral resource extraction/stormwater management land use permit
applications to the County.
2.
3.
15
Ordinance No. 08-1208-03: Approving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#03-231 with Conditions
(Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
4.
Mineral extraction shall not occur in the newly-designated MRLO parcels until such
time as the owners of the quarry have in place and provide to this County a copy of a
reclamation plan approved by the DNR or an updated NPDES General Permit for
Sand and Gravel Operations from the State Department of Ecology, if deemed
necessary by that agency.
Upon issuance of County mineral resource extractionlstormwater management
permits for the new MRLO parcels, should that occur, UDC conditions for Mineral
Extraction, Mining, Quarry and Reclamation, found at Section 4.24, shall apply to
the whole of the Penny Creek Quarry operation, including the existing operation site
and the area previously under County ownership, to protect the general health, safety
and welfare of the public. The conditions address, among other issues, hours of
operation and noise (UDC 4.24.6) and performance standards and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for mining and quarrying within designated Susceptible Aquifer
Recharge Areas (UDC 4.24.8 and 6.17). Permit application review may result in
additional conditions.
Prior to any mineral extraction occurring in excess of the 19.34 acres authorized by
ZON 96-42, (which may include mineral extraction from the MRLO designated in
1997 and/or by this Ordinance in 2003) the legal but nonconforming uses of the truck
scale, stockpiling, and loading mineral resources on the Rural Residential parcels
between Penny Creek Road and Highway 101 (parcels 702224011) shall be relocated
to areas located within the total Penny Creek Quarry MRLO of 51.13 acres. A berm
with trees planted on it shall be established on parcel 702224011 upon the removal of
the truck scale, stockpiling, and loading mineral resources from this area.
Prior to the issuance of County mineral resource extractionlstormwater management
permits for this Amendment, the sorting of material and any stockpiling of materials
greater than 4 inches in size shall be re-Iocated from Parcel 702224011 to within the
total Penny Creek Quarry MRLO of 51.13 acres.
Prior to the issuance of County mineral resource extractionlstormwater management
permits for this Amendment, the stockpiling and loading of material shall be
removed from Parcel 702224012.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Section 3 - Severability:
If any action, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or section of this Ordinance or its
application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance
or its application to other persons or circumstances shall be fully valid and shall not be
affected.
Section 4 - Effective Date:
This Ordinance becomes effective upon adoption by the Board of County Commissioners.
16
Ordinance No. 08- 1 ::! 0 8-00pproving a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Known as MLA#O3-23 I with
Conditions (Phillips/Maki Mineral Resource Land Overlay)
(Lii
,...V'
)
day ofj(,' I;' /)/"",[,J,I . ',', ),
'J' " I l :.c, {...',~'
'2
, 200~"L .
Approved and adopted this
SEAL
~
'1,
. . ¡ '.
... /.
, ,
" .
.{,
. o-
J . ,..
, .
".
, J
,
..
'"
,
. .
0
ATTEST:
C)J.v. ~MCLrth2..Þ>-~ '/)Yff-,Jo
/Î . (' J!j "/1"
t-/ Julie Matthes, CMC (/
Deputy Clerk of the Board
JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
~¡)'
! ",/, '1, --",,-~
I, " .-
D ~'lfteme~~, C~:-
Patrick M. Rodgers, Member
17