Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezone topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kittitas County affirms MDNS and approves Gibson rezone despite SEPA appeal over rock‑crushing impacts
Summary
The Kittitas County Board of Commissioners on Dec. 17, 2024, affirmed staff’s Mitigated Determination of Non‑Significance (MDNS) and approved a non‑project rezone (docket item 2024‑13) to change parcel 280‑533 (42.4 acres) from AG‑20 to Forest and Range. Appellants argued the SEPA review failed to consider probable impacts from mining and rock crushing; the board found staff review sufficient and approved the rezone with permitting conditions.
The Kittitas County Board of Commissioners on Dec. 17, 2024, denied an appeal of a Mitigated Determination of Non‑Significance and approved a non‑project rezone (docket item 2024‑13) that rezones parcel 280‑533 (42.4 acres) from AG‑20 to Forest and Range, consistent with the rural working land‑use designation.
CDS planner Jamie Elling presented the procedural history and staff’s environmental review. Staff issued a Mitigated Determination of Non‑Significance (MDNS) on Oct. 16 and combined notices for the SEPA and rezone processes, notified agencies and property owners within 500 feet and incorporated agency comments into the MDNS with mitigation measures addressing fill-and‑grade, water availability, and an inadvertent discovery plan for cultural resources.
Appellants, represented in part by counsel Joe Rayburger, argued there were procedural missteps and that the county’s reliance on the non‑project exemption was incorrect: Rayburger asserted the rezone would allow more intensive future uses — specifically expanded mining and rock crushing — and that staff’s SEPA checklist improperly marked many Part B questions "not applicable," failing to consider the probable impacts of future projects that rezoning would allow. He asked the board to reverse the MDNS and remand for a full SEPA review.
Applicant counsel James Carmody countered that appellants lack standing and that the rezone implements the county’s comprehensive plan; he pointed to Department of Commerce review and staff’s incorporation of mitigation measures in the MDNS. Carmody said the record and conditions address concerns such as water supply, habitat mitigation and grading permits, and argued that the appellant’s objections were speculative or raised in the context of business competition.
After questions from the board, Commissioners voted to affirm CDS’ MDNS decision. The board then considered the rezone itself. Jamie Elling summarized the rezone criteria, explained the planning commission recommendation (4‑1 in favor), and noted the proposed condition that the applicant must comply with applicable local, state and federal rules and obtain required permits.
Public commenters — including representatives associated with Ellensburg Cement — reiterated concerns about rock crushing, noise, and parity with existing operators; applicant counsel and staff said the permitting process and imposed mitigation measures would govern such activity if it occurred.
Commissioner 6 moved to approve the Gibson non‑project rezone subject to staff findings and the conditions presented; the motion was seconded. The board voted and the motion passed by unanimous voice vote.
Ending: The board denied the SEPA appeal, affirmed the MDNS, and approved the non‑project rezone for parcel 280‑533 with conditions requiring the applicant to secure necessary permits and comply with applicable regulations. The decision closes the county‑level actions on the docket item while noting that future permits and agency approvals may still be required.
