05/25/2006: "Use Of Grinder Still Not Settled"

ig_HE_Wick_Lee-1 (40k image) Hearing Examiner Wick Dufford, and Planner Lee McEnery review new information)

The Conditional Use Permit Application of Thor Black to operate a tub grinder on property near the end of the Friday Harbor Airport, and next to a residential area, has been bounced back-and-forth as the attorneys for the applicant, Thor Black, and the neighbors, represented by Mr. & Mrs. Cable, have battled it out in front of the Hearing Examiner ( Previous Story), who decided a permit should be approved, and then when that decision was appealed by the neighbors, to the current County Council members -siting at the time as the BOCC.

The BOCC heard argument that the Hearing Examiner failed to adequately take in account the compatibility of the proposal to the surrounding neighborhood and ruled against the issuing of a permit to Mr. Black. (Previous Story)

It was then Mr. Black's turn to appeal, but this time the appeal went to Superior Court, where, it was ruled the Hearing Examiner should take a second look at the application, and in particular review his findings on the compatibility/noise issue.

So the County, Black, Cable and all of the lawyers went back to argue the case in front of the Hearing Examiner, but this time the discussion was restricted to the noise of the Tub Grinder.

After failing to complete all of the arguments and testimony by the expert witnesses, the hearing had to be continued. The continued hearing also lasted for hours, but at last came to an end, and all parties left and began the wait for the findings of the Hearing Examiner.

On May 23rd, the Hearing Examiner came back with a decision. He found that the applicant's attempts to address the concerns of the neighbors and the County to mitigate the noise by the building of noise barriers -not previously proposed in the original permit- raised a set of new questions and issues that needed to be resolved by staff research and evaluation by experts on noise. The HE stated that "the project alterations proposed at the end of the hearing crossed the line with respect to what the existing record can effectively deal with. I am concerned about several things. a) How will the proposed roof and side curtains affect noise from the grinder as perceived on other properties? b) how will the proposed new structure affect the drainage plans; c)) what will be the impact of the new structure on aesthetics? ".

So it is not back to square one, but the HE suggested that "the applicant should, as soon as possible, submit the latest plan for the tub grinder facility to the Community Development and Planning Department for additional evaluation by concerned County departments. ". Once the additional information has been received, "the record will close and the Examiner will make a decision based on all the information received". And of course, whatever the HE decides is still subject to appeal, so the arguments may continue for sometime, unless one of the parties is ground down

The following is the complete findings of the Hearing Examiner

To the Parties:

It is not unusual for changes in proposed projects to be made during the hearing process as a means to resolving the differences of contending parties and of achieving Code compliance.

However, at some point proposed changes can become so substantial that they cannot simply be accepted in the context of existing review because they raise additional questions that need to be answered before any final determination on the project is made.

On reflection, I believe that in the instant case, the project alterations proposed at the end of the hearing crossed the line with respect to what the existing record can effectively deal with. I am concerned about several things. a) How will the proposed roof and side curtains affect noise from the grinder as perceived on other properties? b) how will the proposed new structure affect the drainage plans; c) what will be the impact of the new structure on aesthetics?

I am reluctant to ask the parties to spend more money, but the noise impacts of the latest proposal really do require expert evaluation in order for an informated judgment to be made in this case. Further, additional Staff review is needed regarding any necesary revisions to the drainage plans, and drawings that present an accurate picture of how the structure will look and exactly where it will be are necessary to evaluate the appearance of the development.

Therefore, the applicant should, as soon as possible, submit the latest plan for the tub grinder facility to the Community Development and Planning Department for additional evaluation by concerned County departments. The plans should be accompanied by expert evaluation of the impact of the new design on noise. The plans and accompanying reports will be made part of the application file and made available to members of the public who wish to inspect them.

Within one month after the receipt of the plans and noise data, the Staff is asked to provide a Staff Report Addendum that addresses the new design in terms of noise, safety, drainage, appearance, conformity with County dimensional criteria, and any other Code issues they may consider relevant.

The record will be held open through the issuance of the Staff Report Addendum and for an additional two weeks thereafter. Then the record will close and the Examiner will make a decision based on all the information received.

The June 1, 2006 comment deadline announced at the hearing is hereby cancelled and replaced by the deadlines set forth in the above paragraphs.

SO ORDERED, this 23d day of May, 2006.

__
Wick Dufford, Hearing Examiner