Proposed Clallam County Code Changes to Accommodate Mining

PPF submitted the following comments to the Clallam County Board of Commissioners on 9-27-20

RE: CLALLAM COUNTY CODE CHANGES TO ACCOMMODATE MINING TITLE 27, 31 AND 33.

We would like to acknowledge the effort staff has committed to this project and that the effort was generated from a legal action taken against the County.

Our comments focus upon one major concern, overlay zoning, as well as a few other staff suggested code changes.

DCD staff provided three documents: Code Titles 27, 31 and 33. Additionally a map and spreadsheet were provided to show where the approved mining operations would be.

Staff has created a new term allowing them to create a new zone: Mining Resource Land Overlay District (MRLOD). (See power point Slide 18)

Title 33:

(68) “Mineral Resource Land Overlay District,” or MRLOD means an overlay designation given to the location of a surface mine or proposed surface mine.  A surface mine located upon land having the MRLOD designation may operate there without first obtaining a conditional use permit, if one would otherwise be required in the absence of MRLOD designation.  Such a surface mine is and remains subject to the regulations listed in Ch. 33.62 of the County Code and all other applicable development regulations.

(2)  Overlay District. The MRL Overlay District or “MRLOD” shall be an overlay district that overlays the prior existing underlying zoning designation.  All parcels in the Rural Areas proposed for a MRLOD are required to submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan amendment, which will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and County Commissioners as outlined in Section 31.08.320 CCC.  

(7)  (a)  Benefits of MRLOD Status: Any land division, building permit, or development within 600 feet of the boundary of land designated as an MRLOD must comply with the terms

            (b)  Mineral extraction, as that term is defined in the County’s development regulations, is an allowed use at any parcel or parcels designated as a MRLOD regardless of whether undertaking mineral extraction requires a Conditional Use Permit in the underlying Zoning District. 

By a scoring point devised by staff, if a site scores above 150 or above, it becomes a MRLOD needing no CUP, nor input from the community. Overlay Districts trump Comprehensive Plan zones throughout the County, inserting unreliability to County residents on lands they once understood to be subject to certain zoning regulations. No more. Any landowner in an MRLOD loses its land protections and rights to comment. And the County risks loss of a tax base.

According to the staff report, DNR has permitted 41 mining sites in the County. There is enough sand and gravel for 117-440 years. There is enough basalt for 50-200 years. Seems much.

QUESTION. Why are more sites needed?

In an email from Mr. Ballard, he wrote that there are 31 pits in the 3 regions. In the PowerPoint, there are 41. We count 49 sites on the 3 spreadsheets: Sequim 12 (5 sites under combined permits & 1 DNR permit cancelled); P.A. 25 (8 sites under combined permits; 4 not permitted); west end 12.

The existing mines presently permitted, are being designated as MRLOD. That’s a huge amount of acreage that can affect many nearby communities.

Also being designated MRLOD are some 272,000 acres that meet two criteria: In a Commercial Forest zone and have a specific underlying geology; any site that scores 150; or any site where the resource meets WA State Dept. of Transportation specifications. Nowhere is safe from an MRLOD.

Section 27.10.020: 2 (1) (b) & (2) (c)  WOW!  This may ensure no one settles on nearby lands, which will ensure loss of funds and taxes to the County. 27.10.30   definitely ensures lost taxes.

What does this mean for nuisance (nuisance claims within 600 feet of a MRLOD have no basis) damage, wrongful operation, public comment? MRLODs must not be allowed. No one or community, outside of cities, are safe from MRLODs.

Automatic MRLODs exempts the impacts that can be done to wildlife and their habitats.

The need for gravel is understood, but the breadth of both land acreage and overlay status does not seem reasonable. Indeed, it is far reaching and could cripple other County needs in the future.

The MRLOD should not be adopted.

Sincerely,
Steve Koehler, Protect the Peninsula’s Future President