Gravel ordinance delayed as Planning Commission tries again to fix it

In what feels like legislative déjà vu, the Matanuska Susitna Borough (MSB) Planning Commission discussed the controversial Gravel Extraction Ordinance before it goes back to the MSB Assembly.

“It seems that this issue is never-ending. I guess it’s going to go on as long as we have gravel in the Borough,” said MSB resident Patty Fischer during the public hearings for the gravel extraction ordinance.

Introduced during the last MSB Planning Commission meeting on April 3, it was up for public hearing during the April 17 meeting, and again was met with resistance from the public as people from different pockets of the Borough spoke out in opposition of the legislation.

This is not the first time this legislation has been brought before the Planning Commission, as it was presented earlier this year. That proposal would have allowed for persons to extract up to 10,000 cubic yards of gravel without a permit. It quickly came under public scrutiny during the public hearings, with a majority of constituents urging the MSB Assembly to not adopt the proposal, citing no measures in place for public comment, absence of measures to ensure limits of water and noise pollution, as well as complaints of increased heavy equipment traffic this measure could bring to roads.

It was reintroduced after the Matanuska Susitna Borough (MSB) Assembly voted to pull the original ordinance indefinitely during the March 21 MSB Assembly meeting. MSB Assemblyman Mokie Tew, who drafted the original extraction ordinance, told the assembly that he would take the legislation back to the drawing board, and would add resolutions proposed by other assembly members to the ordinance.

The new ordinance, Resolution 23-11, again requested by MSB Assembly member Tew, establishes a registration process and basic standards for operations for 2,001 to 10,000 cubic yards. Operations that would not meet the standards or exceed the 10,000 cubic yard limit would be required to obtain an Administrative or Conditional Use Permit.

Within the ordinance, there would need to be a small gravel registration filed that would not require public notification and would need to be approved by the Director. Registration may be filed up to 5 times for 1 parcel and would be required prior to extracting material greater than 2,000 cubic yards.

The ordinance has provisions to address noise, dust, and traffic issues that have brought up previously, stating activities be limited to Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm, and Saturday, 9:00 am to 5:00 pm., and no extraction activities would be permitted on Sundays.

While this version does add several amendments that address concerns the public has been unhappy with, many still spoke out in opposition.

Alex Strong, the Planning Director for the MSB, spoke about the registration process addressed in the current ordinance.

“Under this legislation, you would register your gravel pit and it would be a simple form that you would come into the MSB Planning Department,” Strong told the commission.

“Each entity, whether it be a person or corporation, would be allowed one registration, and registrations would only be allowed if spaced out a half-mile from any other gravel pit that is registered.”

There remains the option for residents to obtain a conditional use permit or an administrative permit. The threshold for needing an administrative permit is that any amount of earth materials can be harvested within a 2-year period, or up to 7,000 cubic yards indefinitely.

“That is a quicker and easier process that is adjudicated by the (Planning Director)” said Strong, who also said that when those administrative permits come up before him, the meetings are advertised and there is a public hearing in which public testimony is submitted before making a decision.

“The current permit requirements are working well. Without them, the rural areas in the borough could turn into the wild, wild west of uncontrolled and unsupervised earth materials extraction,” said DJ McBride, chairperson for the RSA in Caswell Lakes.

“If it ain’t broke, why fix it,” she added.

“It was just over a year when a similar ordinance was defeated by the assembly, and then we had another one come up this spring, so now we’re on the 3rd one. Each time, the voters have spoken out loudly in opposition,” said Fischer, speaking in opposition to the ordinance.

“I trust that you will remember all the voices of people that have come into this room and spoken out in opposition to this legislation,” she said, saying that the issue isn’t really about gravel, but the public process, echoing sentiments voiced during the spring when the earlier version of the legislation cycled through the Borough.

“The legislation cuts neighborhoods out of deciding what’s good and appropriate for them. That is the most important failing of this legislation.”

Fischer went on to say that the “small registration” in the ordinance title is also misleading as “it increases the level of gravel mined without a permit by 5 times.”

“The proposed ordinance has the potential to be abused and could harm many Borough residents, while it appears to benefit very few people or businesses,” said Sean McBride, who was also in opposition.

Mark Catini, a civil engineer and landowner with a gravel pit, also said that this particular legislation is a great improvement from the previous, but is lacking some protections for current gravel extraction sites, and that there is room to improve the ordinance.

“This does not promote fair regulation among business owners, especially us gravel pit owners and operators,” he said.

He also took issue with the half-mile spacing between gravel extraction sites, asking about the spacing between existing gravel pits.

“I don’t think it’s fair. Either take it out or put it in those existing pits. They should all have the same protective buffer around them and that adjacent property owners need to be protected, specifically with visual screenings.

“I would recommend that if you’re not going to have (visual) screening plans, at least require a 10-foot buffer.”

“It protects the neighbors and it protects the operators,” he said, adding, “If you can see or hear the mining, you’re being good neighbors.”

Jim Stocker raised the conflict of interest issue that seemed to dog some assembly members when the gravel ordinance was brought up several months ago.

“There seems to be and appears to be a very serious conflict of interest with the assembly person that brought this ordinance forward,” he told the Planning Commission.

He was speaking of Mokie Tew, who had previously owned and operated several gravel pits, but says none of them are in operation. During a previous MSB Assembly meeting, several assembly members told MSB Borough Mayor Edna DeVries that while they worked in industries that utilize heavy equipment or build homes, they believed there was no conflict of interest, and that they would be able to vote on the ordinance without prejudice.

“It is an insult to the people of the Borough that this keeps coming back,” said Ruth Wood of Talkeetna, via telephone, who also expressed that she believes this ordinance is not well-thought out nor in the public’s best interest.

“I guess you’re hoping to wear us out,” Wood said.

Only 1person spoke in support of the ordinance:

“I am absolutely baffled,” said Shaena Khang. “The current 2000 yards is a complete joke. It took me 2 years to take only 8 inches off my property. Year after year, I remove only a few inches from my property.” He said that benefits would include more road building because road construction crews could buy more gravel from nearby neighbors, and it could ultimately reduce traffic because there would be more gravel for people to use.

After the public hearings were closed, several commissioners expressed exhaustion over the continued discussion of any gravel extraction ordinance, with 1 commissioner who spoke out of turn in regards to procedure, posing questions that seemed to give pause.

“I’ve heard a lot of comments inside and outside of the Assembly chambers about this particular ordinance, and while I understand at some level, this may benefit certain people with their own agendas for their property, can anyone share with me why is this ordinance being proposed?” asked Commissioner Willfred Fernandez.

“Was there something that was broken in our system? Is there some barrier that the Borough has created that is just becoming too overwhelming for the community?”

“I feel like we have discussed this so much over the last year, and I think the core thing about the change from 2(000 cubic yards) to 10(000 cubic yards) is really at the heart of the objection from the community, and I’m very dubious that there’s anything we can do to dress this up that is going to be acceptable to the majority of the people,” said Commissioner Rick Allen, before suggesting that the commission vote one way or the other.

Commissioner CJ Koan, who had made a motion to take more time with the ordinance, hoping to delay it until next meeting, said that while she understands the comments from her fellow commission members, she would rather have something that goes back to the Assembly, rather than just a ‘no’ vote.

“I personally would like to do some more work on it,” she said, saying that she would to try to make some changes and perhaps bring the ordinance back with some amendments.

“Maybe there’s some things that can be changed, maybe they can’t. There’s been so much discussion with this I would like to see if we could find something to finalize it and not just say ‘no’ and have it come back again.”

The motion to delay for another 2 weeks while the Planning Commission takes another look to see anything can be done to assuage the public passed in a 4-3 vote.

The next Planning Commission meeting will take place May 1 at the MSB Chambers at 6:00 pm.