|
Growth Hearings Board turns back county, mining company legal
maneuver - Shine gravel pit expansion waits for state review By
Philip L. Watness 5/31/03 Jefferson County, WA - Opponents of the Fred Hill Materials pit-to-pier project claimed victory last week when a state land use board ruled in their favor. The Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Board dismissed several motions brought by Jefferson County and Fred Hill Materials (FHM) regarding a comprehensive plan amendment appeal by the Hood Canal Coalition. The board, in a ruling issued Monday, May 19, concluded that the pre-emptory motions couldn't be granted because of the complexity of issues raised by the coalition's appeal. The coalition, with support from the Olympic Environmental Council, the Jefferson Green Party and others, has appealed the county's designation of 690 acres as Mineral Resource Lands. The land is on forested property near Shine owned by Pope Resources and leased to FHM. John Fabian of the Hood Canal Coalition said he considered the hearings board's decision a significant victory. But David Alvarez, civil prosecuting attorney for Jefferson County, and FHM spokesperson Dan Baskins said the decision wasn't that important. "From our perspective, it's a victory because FHM was obviously trying to get the appeal thrown out through a summary judgment," Fabian said. "I think our case is better than theirs, though. We wouldn't have filed an appeal if we didn't feel we had a strong case." "We need to defend ourselves thoroughly and completely, and this decision just preserves our legal rights," Baskins said. "It's a checkmark to show our position from the start. We find their position groundless, and we look forward to arguing this on the merits." The gravel company had entered motions with the hearings board to throw out the coalition's appeal because the company maintained the appeal had no merit. But the hearings board ruled it couldn't grant the pre-emptory motions due to the complexity of issues raised in the appeal. "These are complex issues, and summary judgment can only be made on matters that are clear on their face, and these issues aren't clear," Fabian said. Those include the coalition's assertion that the county failed to conduct proper environmental review of the mineral lands designation, including a "no-action alternative" and alternate methods to achieve the same effects but with less environmental degradation. "We still have the chance to debate the issues," Alvarez said. "I think it [the hearings board ruling] is not a big deal because the appellants have a tough standard to meet. We tried to cut out the issues that had already been decided through previous laws or statutes. The board tends to want all issues fully aired." Alvarez said the appellants must prove the county erred in granting the comprehensive plan amendment, a tougher test than required for the pre-emptory motions. Baskins also spoke to that issue: "Under the Growth Management Act, there's an assumption of validity in favor of the county and the applicant. Even a first-year law student understands the importance of a county needing to protect its resources from this very type of attack occurring." Fabian said the county's motion attempted to narrow the scope of the appeal but was unsuccessful. He said FHM had hoped the hearings board would throw out the entire appeal through the motion process. The hearings board hears arguments in the matter at 10 a.m. June 24 in the City Hall council chambers, 540 Water St. In a related matter, Washington Environmental Council has joined Hood Canal Coalition in fighting the proposed pit-to-pier project proposed by FHM. That plan calls for barges and seagoing ships to be loaded at a pier on Hood Canal and a conveyor belt system to carry rock up to four miles from where it would be mined. Fabian said the WEC's support means greater financial and legal clout. Its support "is a major thing because they're an influential
statewide organization and they have a record of winning," Fabian
said. "They said they would consider participating in legal appeals
as those arise. They would weigh in with attorneys and financial resources."
|