Sumner’s city council ruled 5-2 against the residential appellants in a case against a City Transfer Incorporated owned gravel mine.
The appeals case was between several residents of northern 160th Avenue East and the owners of the mine, which resides east of East Valley Highway East and the valley wall behind the residents’ backyards. The mine takes up parcels both within and without city limits; the parcels outside city limits are in unincorporated Pierce County.
In question was whether the company had violated the terms of its more than 50-acre expansion within the city limits—the expansion included another 42.88 acres in Pierce County and the operation’s size is approximately 187 acres in all—by allegedly mining outside its approved area, operating outside of approved hours, negatively affecting property values and not adhering to gradation and distance guidelines in regards to the required 100-foot landscape buffer between the pit and adjacent residents.
The hearing examiner ruled against the appellants, finding that CT Inc. was not in violation of the terms of its agreement with the city.
Appellant Clyde Hill used his speaking time with the council to show video of the valley wall behind his street’s homes, taken from a helicopter, to show that the buffer zone was steeper than the approved grade. The video was taken in September 2010.
“That grade is supposed to be a one-to-one (length-to-height) working slope or two-to-one finished slope,” Hill said. “As you can see, the slope that’s there is nearly vertical.”
Dennis Carns and Randy Sprague were the other appellant residents given speaking time in the council’s quasi-judicial proceedings. Carns said he felt the hearing examiner had not seriously considered the facts of the case.
“The examiner was very much aware he did not have the facts,” Carns said. “Even more egregious, he did not require the applicant to submit evidence to meet their burden of proof. So the decision was not supported by evidence.”
Sprague used just a portion of his time to express his concerns about the danger of the steeply-graded buffer zone.
“I have grave concerns about the steepness of these slopes,” he said. “What happens when the slopes fall over? How many times has the West Valley been shut down by a mudslide?”
William Lynn, the attorney for CT Inc., said the appellants complaints lacked grounds.
“Their fears are legitimate, but they’re not evidence,” he said. “The evidence is this mine has received safety awards.”
Lynn acknowledged the grade of the hill was currently steep, but countered that it was a temporary condition that had not altered the buffer zone between the pit and the residential properties. The valley walls would eventually be mined through or reclaimed until they had four-to-one or six-to-one grades, he said. When it came to the hearing examiner’s review of the case, he “had boxes full” of evidence in favor of CT Inc., he said.
After brief rebuttals from the appellants and a question-and-answer with the applicant’s lawyer, the council adjourned to a more than half-hour executive session before coming to its decision.
Hill said the appellants planned to next take the case to Superior Court.
