After 6-hour MSB meeting, gravel extraction ordinance vote postponed…again

Like an old CD stuck on repeat, so too did the Gravel Extraction ordinance once again come up for public hearing, dominating a good portion of the 6-hour long regular meeting on Tuesday.

“I am really tired of addressing this gravel ordinance. It started out with no identified problem that needed fixing. We’re here tonight again with a proposed registration ordinance that fixes nothing, increases the yardage, and has no public notification, and much less Borough monitoring tools,” said Donna Massey of Trapper Creek.

Massey vocalized complaints that have been repeated for months, specifically that the proposed ordinance eliminates public notification or comment.

“What is the problem with the current administration process?”

Massey went on to ask if there had been a stack of complaints regarding the current extraction process before inferring that members “seems to be intent on bullying through a change that is not justified or wanted.”

This is the third time the MSB Assembly member Mokie Tew has put forth a change to the current gravel extraction process, which has been in place since 2005.

MSB Planning Director Alex Strong was on hand to explain the new ordinance and what modifications are in place in the gravel regulations within MSB.

Currently, there a 3 different processes for owners who need or want to extract gravel from their property. First, if the amount to be extracted is less than 2000 cubic yards, there is no need for a permit. If someone wants or needs to take out more than that, they would have to apply for an Administrative permit to extract an unlimited amount of yardage for 2 years, or extract up to 7000 cubic yards indefinitely.

“The Admin permit requires development plan for traffic, phases of development and public notice. And they are adjudicated by Planning Director,” Strong told assembly members.

The final option is a Conditional use permit if the user doesn’t fall into other categories. This would need to be adjudicated by the Planning Commission, and would still require a plan, public notice, and adherence to the MSB code, and this process is required by code to be adjudicated within 30 days.

The proposed ordinance would essentially create a new category for yardage over 2000 but under 10,000 cubic yards. Under the proposed ordinance, there is a requirement for an application of registration with no public notice or comment.

Users would be limited to 5 annual registrations, would need to adhere to hours of operation; extraction must be 100 feet from water body, owners would need to leave the area flat when finished, and, cannot be within half mile of another registered gravel extraction property.

While residents have voiced their disapproval to many items within this newest version of the ordinance, the issue many residents are most upset about is the lack of public notice or comment.

“There would be no public input whatsoever,” said Strong.

Nor would it go to Planning Commission, but rather straight to permit center for review and subsequent approval or denial.

“I don’t really think I can say anything different necessarily than anybody else has said in opposition of the ordinance,” said Mat Su Borough resident Janelle Gagnon, who thanked the Assembly for engaging in a robust discussion with an earlier speaker on a different issue concerning public safety, then pointed out the irony that public comment would be taken away if the ordinance passes.

“For me, the biggest issue, and what would be most ironic would be taking away the public process by passing this ordinance...why would you want to take that away from people who might have issues about gravel concerning water or noise or traffic levels?”

When pressed by MSB Assembly member Nowers about how many gravel extraction permits have been approved under the current ordinance, Planning Director Alex Strong 85% have been approved, based on recent analysis.

“So we have a process that meets with approval most of the time and give residents a say and we’re switching to a process that would remove the process-why?”

The ordinance does have supporters who were just as vocal during the meeting.

David Miller, President of the Mat Su Homebuilders Association spoke in support of the proposed ordinance after first objecting the original ordinance that was proposed last year.

“I understand the need for gravel. When this ordinance was first introduced over a year ago, I looked at the content of the ordinance and it was objectionable to me.”

He said that the Association has examined the newest proposed ordinance.

“We looked at it, examined it, and there were several points that were lacking. We were able to see several good ideas come forward in the form of amendments.” He applauded the efforts of those who made sure that the proposed ordinance has some valuable components

“We do need something between the 2000 cubic yard tool and the excess of 7000 cubic yard or higher. This does meet that need. Is everything perfect in this? I don’t think so.”

“As a Home Builders Association, we did discuss this, went through several versions of where this would go, and as long as it met some basic criteria, we would support it.

For other residents who oppose the ordinance, the question is why this keeps coming up?

“The folks who are profiting from this are also the ones who are writing it and also the ones who are legislating on it,” said Robert Lada, who would like those assembly members who could profit if the ordinance were to pass, instead recuse themselves from voting on the ordinance.

Deputy Mayor Rob Yundt was the only MSB Assembly member to leave the decision to the Mayor after explaining his occupation as a home builder, and would step out if so requested.

“I don’t own equipment to move gravel. I don’t own dump trucks. I’ve never sold gravel. If it’s in my way, it’s costing me money, so there’s been times in my career where I’ve given it away.”

“I recommend recusal for those members who are going to invest in it or going to profit from this…that means there’s a bias. Our trust in the government system is ebbing, and these are the types of things that decrease our trust in our government,” said Lada.

This is not the first time recusals have come up regarding the gravel extraction ordinance, and just as in preceding public hearings and votes on the previous version of this ordinance, no MSB Assembly members felt they needed to recuse. At the time, it became a non-issue when Assembly member Tew pulled the legislation to rewrite the ordinance into the version that is now before the assembly.

After closing the public hearings, the MSB Assembly discussed the ordnance at length, forcing an extension of the meeting until midnight.

Four amendments were brought to the table that would have covered dust mitigation and changing the name of the ordinance, which was ultimately pulled. An amendment that could have addressed what the public had been wanting-public notification and hearings-was entered by Assembly member Nowers

“Before issuing approval or denial or registration, the planning director will issue notification of surrounding property owners in accordance with current MSB Code 17.03, and hold a public hearing within 30 days of receiving a signed registration statement to consider the applicant’s ability to comply with the standards of operations.”

Assembly member Nowers said that her amendment would simply ensure that people know that something’s happening, that they have a chance to comment, and that the Planning Director can take those into consideration when approving or denying a registration.

“What I have heard over and over from residents and taxpayers is that when it comes to developments that could significantly impact their use of their property, and their property value and their neighborhoods that they deserve a seat at the table to express those concerns.”

“It’s not to stop development, it’s just to recognize that they’re when you have a gravel pit next to you that can have significant impact on your use of property.”

“I appreciate the idea of adding some notifications and public hearings to this,” said MSB Assembly member Tim Hale.

Deputy Mayor Yundt said he could not support the amendment because if the intent is there to move gravel in a timely manner, he suggested it would take no more than 4 to 5 days, and that the noise levels involved would be “substantially lower than a lawn mower.”

Meanwhile, Assembly member Dee McKee said that in the last 2 meetings, 84% of the public said “no” to the proposal and was disappointed that they could not give the public what they wanted.

“84% holds a lot of sway with me. I don’t care if its 4 days or not, they are saying ‘we don’t want it.’ If we’re going to shove it down their throats, then they ought to be able to give them this,” she said.

Ultimately, the amendment failed.

Due to time constraints, other timely items on the agenda that needed to be addressed, and with other amendments needing to be voted on, the ordinance was postponed until the next MSB Assembly meeting on June 6.