A few of the letters that have been posted in the Archuleta County Planning Department ‘Dropbox’ account have asked questions about who, exactly, will be able to give public testimony tomorrow night at the Planning Commission public hearing.
At the meetings I attend in Pagosa Springs, a member of the public testifying at a public hearing is granted three minutes to speak. Typically. Not always. I have no idea who first decided to limit public comment to three minutes, but I personally find that people have used up all their best arguments, about three minutes into a comment. Generally speaking.
But who, generally, will be speaking at tomorrow’s public hearing?
Many people have opinions about the proposed C&J Gravel mining application for a Conditional Use Permit, to mine gravel on the Dutton Ranch, adjacent to Piedra Road… and many of them, presumably, would like to express their concerns tomorrow night at the County Administration Building, 398 Lewis Street.
Some of them have already expressed their concerns in emails and phone calls made to the County government. And signed their name (and provided their email address, phone number, and other contact information) to an online petition, opposing the Oakbrush Hill gravel mine and hosted by citizen group, Stop The Rocks. About 270 people are listed in the ‘Dropbox’ as having contacted the Planning Department about the proposed mine.
Apparently, one or more persons were told, by County staff, that anyone who previously submitted written comments to the Planning Commission might not be allowed to speak publicly at the hearing on February 23.
From one of the letters, from John Montgomery, the attorney retained by ‘Stop The Rocks, LLC’:
Having said that, if [‘Stop The Rocks’ organizer] Michael Caponnetto has written a letter, do you intend to bar further comment from him? We have already retained a civil engineering firm and I expect other expert opinions.Through me and other experts, I expect my client will be “commenting” throughout the process. In short, I understand the need for reasonable speech “guardrails” but drawing bright lines will beproblematic. Ultimately, this community is engaged in political speech and decision makers would do well to err on the side of more, rather than less, speech.
…No question, this application at the proposed location is more controversial than most issues before the planning commission and BOCC. In accord, I’d like to get off on the right foot, see where we can find areas we can find agreement and design a process that your residents will buy into whether I represent them or not. I look forward to a frank exchange of views and an evidence-based decision…
Development Director Pamela Flowers had previously written to Mr. Montgomery:
I obviously agree with you that signing a petition is not the same as public comment. However, several individuals included comment along with their signature on the petition. And many have signed the petition as well as submitting written comment via letter and/or email. These are the individuals who I will recommend not be allowed to provide additional verbal comment. Please remember, I am only making a recommendation to the Planning Commissioners and County Commissioners. They will make the final decision of who will speak and for how long…
We can do a quick calculation. If all 270 people listed in the “Public Comment Tracking” Excel file (in the County Dropbox) were to speak for three minutes, the Planning Commissioners would be listening to testimony for over 13 hours.
We will find out who will be allowed to speak, and who won’t, on Wednesday night, when the Planning Commission Chair makes a decision.
The letter posted to the County website on Friday, written by County Attorney Todd Weaver, quotes two sentences from the County Land Use Regulations concerning the approval of gravel mining permits.
“It is the intent of Archuleta County to ensure that sand, soil and gravel are available to the public and that mining and related uses for sand, soil and gravel occur without compromising the goals and objectives of the Archuleta Land Use [Regulations]. It is the intent of Archuleta County to assure that these requirements are addressed without duplication of, or contradiction with, pertinent state or federal requirements for such mining.”
Looking through the remaining text of Section 9.1 of the Regulations (which you can download here) we find a few requirements for a ‘Major Sand & Gravel Permit.’
For example, compatibility with surrounding land uses is to be determined according to these criteria:
(1) Surrounding uses are primarily agricultural, forestry, or industrial.
We are not told what “surrounding” means, however. Does it mean, adjacent properties? According to a search on the County Assessor’s website, all of the (rather large) properties immediately adjacent to the Oakbrush Hill site are zoned ‘Agricultural Ranching’… except for one property zoned “Agricultural Estate”.
Could “surrounding” mean, “Properties located within one mile”? Or does it mean merely the ‘surrounding uses’ on the Dutton Ranch itself?
(2) Truck traffic will not access the mining operation through residential, recreational or commercial areas, or such traffic will be mitigated.
Piedra Road could be classified as passing through “residential areas”, although very few homes are located along the road itself. It could also be classified as a major arterial, intended to handle all types of vehicle traffic through the Piedra Road/Pagosa Lakes area. (The County officially classifies Piedra Road as a “Minor Arterial” in its list of “Primary Roads.”)
(3) The mining site will not be visible to adjacent surrounding residences or will be mitigated to the extent reasonably possible, to have reduced visibility. Placement of the operation a sufficient distance from public roadways, behind natural land forms and existing major vegetation, and/or away from growth centers will minimize visual contact.
I have been assuming, all along, that an excavated hole in the ground at the top of Oakbrush Hill would not be visible to adjacent properties, due to the simple physical fact that you normally have to be higher than a hole to look down into it, and there are no adjacent properties higher than Oakbrush Hill (as far as I can tell.) Tall piles of crushed and sorted gravel are another matter entirely, unless they are located within the excavation itself.
Will be mitigated to have reduced visibility? What extent is “reasonable”?
(4) Equipment used for the operation will not be visible from adjacent surrounding residences or will be mitigated to reduce visual impact.
Note the word ‘adjacent’, which in the case of land use, typically means, ‘sharing a property line’.
(5) The operation will not generate noise or vibration apparent to surrounding residences, or such impacts will be effectively mitigated, to the extent required by the performance standards at Section 5.4.2.1.
I assume these regulations will be debated tomorrow — perhaps at some length — by the lawyers who represent each side of this controversy.
Read Part Three, tomorrow…