Laserfiche WebLink
02/07/2017 MINUTES 2 <br />SEPA APPEAL: RICH BROWNLEE, APPELLANT expressed various concerns relating to the <br />SEPA determination including the fence with no buffer for sight or <br />sound and suggested installing a 6-8 feet screened fence; insulating <br />the barn; keeping events inside the fenced areas; traffic control; <br />different exits and entrances; setbacks; glare of vehicles as they <br />come out of the property; and noise. He said he was also concerned <br />with potential fires being caused by cigarettes. If parties were <br />granted they should be controlled and have people off the premises <br />by 10:30 p.m. <br /> COMMISSIONER JEWELL explained how they could not implement <br />additional conditions and how their decision has to look at the <br />decision that was made on the Determination of Non-Significance and <br />if was clearly erroneous. He said the issues had been brought up <br />many times including to the Hearing Examiner. MR. BROWNLEE said he <br />has lost privacy, sleep, and serenity because it’s not contained. He <br />didn’t believe the County looked at the effects of his interest and <br />therefore did not adequately address them in conditions. JEFF WATSON, STAFF PLANNER said the SEPA issues were outlined in <br />their brief and believed the appeal should be denied. He noted how <br />one of the conditions of approval was how the activities shall cease <br />at 10:30 p.m. <br /> JEFF SLOTHOWER, ATTORNEY REPRESENTING THE WEBB’S explained how <br />Kittitas County was charged with considering all potential impacts <br />including reviewing information and comments dated back to 2012 <br />which was for much more of an intensive use back then and it’s now <br />been scaled down to 8 events per year. He said the record <br />demonstrated environmental factors and threshold determination of <br />non-significance and under the law the only option for the Board was <br />to deny the SEPA appeal. <br /> COMMISSIONER O’BRIEN explained his reasoning behind why he was going <br />to vote to deny the appeal including how there had been a list of <br />conditions with a response from Staff were considered when granting <br />a Determination of Non-Significance with no further conditions. COMMISSIONER OSIADACZ believed the SEPA appeal should be denied <br />based on the original SEPA application was given a Determination of <br />Non-Significance, and at that time the property was to be used for a <br />much larger scale. She felt the checklist was adequate because the <br />impacts would be less than when it had originally been completed. <br />She stated she would be in favor of denying the appeal. COMMISSIONER JEWELL said no new information had been provided by the appellant <br />and was in support of denying the appeal. <br /> COMMISSIONER OSIADACZ moved to deny the Webb SEPA appeal. COMMISSIONER O’BRIEN seconded. Motion carried 3-0.