Loading...
1989-19648-Minutes for Meeting May 23,1989 Recorded 8/7/198989-19648 0096 0728 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS SURFACE MINING HEARING MINPT -7 V.1, Tuesday, May 23, 1989 A''= Y 1 -pt f f` 6:00 PM TY£1"RK Administration Building Conference,Room Call to Order Chair Prante called the meeting to order at 6:07 P.M. Commissioner Throop and Commissioner Maudlin were also in attendance. Staff members present were Craig Smith, Planning Director, Karen Green, Legal Counsel, Chuck McGraw, Planning Staff, and Sue Stoneman, recorder. Public Hearing Chair Prante outlined the rules and procedures of the hearing and called for declarations of conflict or challenges. It was noted that such declarations would be allowed as individual sites were heard. Commissioner Throop stated that he had no conflicts to delcare on any of the sites to be heard tonight. Commissioner Maudlin stated that he had received a call from Mike Holmes that afternoon. Mr. Holmes contacted Commissioner Maudlin regarding a prossible property purchase. Commission Maudlin stated that this would not present a conflict. Chair Prante stated that she resides near one of the sites, but has had no discussions with anyone regarding the proposed site and has no bias or conflict on this site. There were no challenges from anyone present. Because of the large attendance, there was a show of hands to indicate which sites had the most people present to testify in order to determine the sequence of the hearings. Contestoga Site Chuck McGraw gave the staff report. This is known as Site 400, described as T18-R13-S15 taxlots 4501 and 4502. This 80-acre site is owned by Eric Coats, who estimates an aggregate resource on the site of 1,250,000 cubic yards. Staff has identified two conflicting Goal 5 resources: open space land and fish and wildlife areas and habitats. The site is in the Paulina deer winter range. Conestoga Hills subdivision abuts the SW corner of taxlot 4501. Staff recommended SM zoning of the site. He noted that the Planning Commission recommendations on the site. Chair Prante called for advisory testimony. Hearing none, she called for proponent's testimony. There was none. She then called for opposing testimony. . ~ I,rYP HE© AU G t 0096 0'7;9 Larry Blanton, 23303 Butterfield Trail, came forward. He stated that the subdivision was first developed in 1975-76 and the site is now zoned for agriculture. He stated that after unsuccessful sales attempts, the applicant planned to request zoning for surface mining. The site has already been developed for mining, and now contains a large open pit from which dirt has been taken. He stated that most of the site is now beyond reclamation. Chuck McGraw stated that Mr. Coats had indicated that some excavation has taken place on the site to construct an irrigation pond. He had allowed Kevin Peterman to take material out of the site. DOGAMI has indicated that the area of excavation is very close to one acre in size. Sites of or over an acre in size require a DOGAMI permit. Mr. Blanton continued that a 50-foot wide access road has been constructed. This pit started when Knott landfill ceased dirt sales recently. He encouraged the Board to visit the site before reaching a decision. The Board agreed to do so. He stated that they were not notified of this hearing. He stated that Mr. Coats does not follow the rules limiting noise and operating hours. They are also accessing this site through the Conestoga Hills subdivision and they want this discontinued. He questioned the recommendation to approve SM zoning when there have already been violations at the site and when the site has not yet been visited by the Board. Commissioner Maudlin asked about the violation. Mr. Blanton responded that he lodged a complaint with the county and DOGAMI representatives and county officials visited the site, but since that time the use has continued. He noted that dirt had been removed from the site throughout the week. He stated that his main concern was for the surrounding property values. Commissioner Maudlin asked if the site was visible from Conestoga Hills. Mr. Blanton responded that it was. Michael Holmes, 21476 Hyde Lane, came forward. He is in the process of purchasing a home at 23348 Chisholm in Conestoga Hills which is adjacent to the subject property. He stated that the people from whom he is purchasing the house were not notified of the hearing. Mr. McGraw stated that all residents within 1/2 mile of taxlot 4502 were notified. Rick Lewis, 19154 Choctaw in Deschutes River Woods, came forward. He is a realtor representing "someone here today". He presented testimony on property values from a real estate agent's point of view. He felt that most people looking for property in that area are looking for peace and quiet, but the mining would create a conflict with that. Kevin Raichl, 23249 Butterfield Trail, came forward. He moved to that area about six months ago to get out of town. He stated that 2 0000 0'730 the addition of a rock pit is against the reason they all moved out there. He felt that wildlife use of the area would be reduced as a result of mining. Charlie Creese, 23122 Butterfield Trail, came forward. He stated that since this is a rural road, the speed limit is 55 mph. Most of the families in the area have young children, which the trucks associated with the site would pose a great hazard to. He stated that they live out there for the quiet which will be greatly affected by such a use. He questioned the legality of the easement to the site. He stated that he owns another five acre parcel in the area that he is selling. Bill Hosier came forward. He found out about this hearing that afternoon at 4:00 PM. He is in the process of buying a lot in Conestoga Hills, and he currently resides on Overturf Butte. He stated that with the pit there, they have deer carcasses all over and they don't want the same thing to happen at Conestoga Hills. Jamie Stanley, 60576 Chickasaw Way, stated that he is a multiple lot owner in this subdivision. One of his lots is on a hillside. He stated that he has a hard time believing that a one-acre pit is for a pond to hold surface runoff in this dry area. He stated that he just had an increase in his tax assessment, but he doesn't mind paying high taxes because of the aesthetic value of the place he lives in. This pit would ruin that, and it poses dangers to the nearby residents. Donna Patterson, 60670 Crockett, came forward. He stated that he drove out there and discovered a very ugly road going clear out to Highway 20, however, the trucks have obviously been coming through Conestoga Hills. He did not know who owns the property in between. It was noted that BLM owns that property. It was also noted that the request for surface mining zoning was for taxlot 4502. The original map furnished by Eric Coats was for a 40-acre site on taxlot 4502, but the resource area took in both taxlots so they were both placed on the inventory. The pond is located on taxlot 4502 one mile west of milepost 11 on highway 20. The pond is located less than 4/10 of one mile from the nearest house in the development. There was no further testimony on this site. Chair Prante closed the hearing for oral testimony. Written testimony will be accepted until 5:00 PM on May 31. They will make their decision at the June 14 Board meeting at 10:00 AM. At 9:00 AM Tuesday, May 30, they will tour the site. At this time the meeting recessed from 7:00 until 7:10 PM. 3 0096 0'731 Gisler Site Commissioner Throop stated that he had contact with some of the surrounding homeowners that predated any of the ESEE analysis. When discussing the development of Tumalo Mall, the topic of surface mining did come up. He made contact with Pat and Joe Gisler who were interested in buying a lot that was county-owned. Commissioner Throop had indicated that he was interested in selling the property in exchange for the surface mining rights on this property. Those discussions and that contact at a different point in time did not bias him in these considerations. Chair Prante called for any challenges. There were none. Chuck McGraw gave the staff report. This is known as Site 358, described as T16-R12-S31D, taxlot 1100. This is a five acre parcel estimated to contain 100,000 cubic yards of high quality aggregate. Staff identified no conficting uses. Mr. McGraw then read the Planning Commission's recommendation. The Planning Commission had recommended SM zoning with certain conditions, including no processing to be allowed on site. Dick Heinz came forward. He stated that there had been notification problems, he had only known about this action because Mr. McGraw had contacted him one afternoon letting him know about the hearing. He stated that was the extent of county notification. He objected to having the hearing before the board under those conditions. Mr. McGraw stated they had made an effort to contact people within one half mile of the proposed site, but he cannot verify that everyone received notice. He also noted that it was posted in three public places and advertised. After some discussion, it was concluded that none of the neighbors that were present in the audience had received notification. Mr. Heinz continued that his primary concern was traffic and access. He was also concerned about noise and pollution, saying they have complained about the dense dust generated by Bend Aggregate and Paving across the street with little success. He was concerned that the problem would be compounded by the additional development at this site. He questioned the benefit of a county ordinance if it is not enforced. This is a real problem for the surrounding residents. Don Jackson came forward. He lives immediately north of the site. From the edge of his property to the edge of the site is 50 feet. He estimated that the site is 150 feet across at the most. He would be seeing equipment operating 50 feet from his living room if this were to be allowed. The dust is his biggest concern. He stated that the dust blows from the southwest to the northeast, and 4 0096 0732 his house lies directly in the path of dust that would come from this site. He noted that there are a lot of children on bikes in the area and pedestrians who would be endangered by the truck traffic. He noted that the trucks at that corner have to swing wide to make the turns which will add to the hazard. He asked how wide the buffer zone would be. Chuck McGraw responded that it would be determined during the site plan process. Mr. Jackson stated that there is some runoff water in the area, and the mining would probably affect the water table. There are wells in the vicinity that are only 50 feet deep. He noted that the current road surface is substandard, and any truck traffic over it on a regular basis would require that it be resurfaced. He questioned whether the value of the resource was worth the adverse impacts. Fred Heise, 19909 Elm Lane, came forward. He indicated his agreement with previous testimony. He stated that his well is about 10 to 15 feet from the river, and 65 feet deep. They have been using the well for 25 years and just recently there have been some problems with sediment, but it is still a good well. He doesn't want a lot of traffic to be going by and fill it up. There was no further testimony on this site. Chair Prante announced that the Board would visit the site on May 30. Commissioner Maudlin asked if anyone had discussed this site with any of the Planning Commission members. No one had. It was noted that the Planning Commission had recommended that the entire site be mined in four months. It was noted that a water main goes on the property along Riverside which would require a buffer of at least 30 feet. Cyrus Sites/Squaw Creek, Jordan Road and Camp Polk Chair Prante called for any conflicts or challenges. There were none. She then called for the staff report. Chuck McGraw gave the staff report. The first site is known as Site 541, and is described as T14-R10-S35. This is the west half on the Squaw Creek side of that section. The site lies just west of Camp Polk Road along the banks of Squaw Creek. He showed the location on a map. The next site, Site 542, is located where Camp Polk Road adjoins Highway 126. Site 543, described as T15-R10-S13, is located further to the south. The access is from Jordan Road. There was some confusion about the site number used in the staff report, it was clarified that this was site 543 and site 270 is an adjacent county-owned site. The site (541) is 22 acres in size and contains an estimated 528,000 cubic yards of resource. Staff had identified major conflicting Goal 5 resources in fish and wildlife areas and habitats. Mr. McGraw explained that Squaw Creek runs through the middle of this site and provides riparian and vegetative habitats. He further noted that there are some rural residential uses in the 5 0096 0 733 area. The Planning Commission had recommended that this site not receive SM zoning. He explained that this was in the Wild Horse Plains subdivision but it has not been developed. This is the same area that has been proposed for an RV park and golf course. Because this site is within the flood plain zone, the county ordinance does not permit surface mining. Chuck gave the staff report for site 5421 tax map number 15-10-01- TL2700. This is a five-acre parcel also owned by Swarens & Co. This is an aggregate resource. There is one conflicting Goal 5 resource in the area, a deer migration route. Rural residential development is a site specific conflicting use. The Planning Commission had recommended that this site be zoned for surface mining, with some of the standard conditions to apply, particularly the condition which allows ODF&W to place seasonal restrictions on operations. Chuck then gave the staff report on site 543. This is a 70-acre site owned by Keith Cyrus, which contains an esimated 1,100,000 cubic yards of good quality aggregate. This site is also in a deer migration route. The site is surrounded by farmland and some county-owned land to the west which is zoned SMR. This site is located on Jordan Road. The Planning Commission had recommended that surface mining be allowed on this site. Keith Cyrus, 17204 Highway 126, Sisters, came forward. He explained the purpose of the excavation at Camp Polk and Squaw Creek are to create trout ponds in conjunction with the proposed golf course and residential development. He stated that these could be scaled back to a couple of five acre ponds if necessary. He displayed an aerial photograph of the area. They propose a pond of 750' in length at the Squaw Creek site. Commissioner Maudlin asked where the flood plain extends to. Mr. Cyrus responded that the majority of the west part backs up against the basalt rimrock. The plan to use a lot of the material excavated from the ponds for development purposes, using primarily pit run gravels. The will need a crusher for the base rock for the road. The land is presently being farmed. He felt this should be a compatible use. He stated that the pond would be of benefit to area wildlife, especially geese, osprey and eagles. He stated that the Camp Polk site will be a pond of about five acres in size, and contains an estimated 80,000 cubic yards of material. At Squaw Creek they estimate creating about 20 acres of water surface and excavating approximately 528,000 cubic yards of material. The minimum size they will need for a trout pond is five to six acres. They would prefer ten acres. They anticipate the project would take about two years to complete. The subdivision and golf course are proposed to go to the east and north of the mining site. The pond will be at the entrance. 6 0050 0'734 With regard to the Jordan Road site, Mr. Cyrus stated that he has no plans in the near future of having any activity there, he just wants it on the inventory in order to get it zoned SM. Hearing no further testimony in favor, Chair Prante called for testimony in opposition. William Boyer, 17575 Jordan Road, came forward. He distributed copies of a map to the Board. He felt that the Jordan Road site provided a good source of aggregate, and recommended examining access issues for that site. He noted that there is access from the west, north, and east of the site. The road to the west has no houses along it and would provide no conflicts with truck traffic. The road to the east has many houses along it, some with children. He suggested that access should be limited to the other two routes. This would reduce the danger and conflicts with the community. Keith Cyrus stated that they are not planning to mine this site any time in the near future. They are only requesting that it be placed on the inventory to protect it for future use. With regard to access, he stated that with the nature of access of Cloverdale Road they approach Highway 20 by going to the right. It would be impossible to to make the left turn off of Jordan Road (the west access) due to the angle of approach to Highway 20. Tye Redfield, 68860 Goodrich Road, came forward. He submitted a map to the record of the subdivision that has been platted but not developed. He showed the location of the creek in relation to the subdivision. He stated that one of the problems with placing a lake within the flood plain is that all the water will drain into the surface excavation. He noted that Mr. Cyrus had earlier testified that he hit water at six feet when digging test holes. He noted that people below this use on the creek who have water rights may be affected by such a use. Keeping two five acre trout ponds continually fed from Squaw Creek may produce adverse affects to those water rights. He expressed concern about the effect on instream water flows, noting that the state is now trying to protect instream water flows. He also asked about how may taxlots would be affected. Commissioner Throop asked what water rights would be used for the ponds. Mr. Cyrus responded that he will get water from a well that pumps 48 gallons per minute, and that no more water will be used for this purpose than to farm it. They could also transfer Squaw Creek water rights to the parcel. Jim Cummins, 17732 Edmondson Rd., came forward. He stated agreement with Mr. Boyer's recommendation on the truck traffic for the Jordan Road site. He noted that access to Highway 20 from Cloverdale Road is very dangerous. He asked for clarification about what water rights would be on what site-- the Camp Polk site 7 0000 0'755 and the Squaw Creek site. He noted that there is very little water in the creek in the late summer and use of that water would have an affect on the downstream water users during that period. Walter Paul, Camp Polk Road, stated that he owns the property downstream from this meadow. He expressed concern about the increased liklihood of flooding this meadow if a pond is built. He also referred to the possible effects of floods caused by Carver Lake. He asked how they intend to remove the rock from the site, noting that access to the meadow is very limited. Mr. Cyrus responded that they will access from the north end of the site. It was noted that there is a house within 100 feet of the proposed access. Richard Mason, 16686 Bitterbrush Lane, came forward. He indicated his support of previous testimony. He stated that six other people in addition to those who have testified also want to be included. There was no further testimony from opponents. Under rebuttal testimony, Keith Cyrus stated that they have approximately 50 acres of water rights, and a portion would be flowing to the proposed ponds. The water in the ponds would be a higher level than that in the creek. They will either clay seal or betonite the pond floor. If they have any interference with the other water rights the watermaster will come and shut them down. He stated that he struck water at about six to seven feet during the winter time. He thinks it is possible to hit water in the summer, but at a deeper depth. He noted that there was a lot of gravel rock buildup in the area. They will use some of the creek flow the property is entitled to in maintaining the water level. Tye Redfield stated that the creek cuts into the flood plain at an approximate depth of two to three feet. Unless the ponds were only one and a half feet deep there is no way that Squaw Creek would not influence the water level in the ponds. He noted that seepage influences crops in the area, and the ponds would affect that seepage. Jim Cummins asked that a condition of approval be placed on these sites requiring that the material be used for the proposed improvements. Otherwise, if they are allowed to sell it elsewhere and the development doesn't go in, they will be left with a gravel pit. He expressed his support of the gravel pit at the Jordan Road site. William Boyer noted the question about whether these are extraction sites to water the golf course or just fishing ponds. The question of what the irrigation source for the golf courses was to be was not answered. The meeting then recessed from 8:55 to 9:00 PM. 8 0056 0756 Site 292A, R.L. Coats' Johnson Road Site Chuck McGraw gave the staff report. He noted that this was a site added to the inventory after the board had adopted the inventory in December. The site contains approximately 326,000 cubic yards of aggregate which meets ODOT specifications. There are two conflicting Goal 5 resources in the area; open space and fish and wildlife habitats. He noted that Johnson Road is a landscape management corridor. The site is in the Tumalo Winter Deer range with a high frequency of use by deer and a medium frequency of use by sensitive raptors. There are also rural residential site specific conflicting uses. Because of the blasting, drilling, and crushing, the Planning Commission had recommended not zoning the site for surface mining. He then showed the location of the site on the map. There are seven existing dwellings within 400 to 500 feet of property line. There were no pre-hearing contacts, conflicts, or challenges to the Board. Chair Prante called for proponent's testimony. Hearing none, she called for opposing testimony. Greg Hendrix, attorney representing Herbert Hunt who owns property abutting the parcel on two sides, came forward. He submitted a map into the record. He noted the site is currently zoned EFU and that there are other SM and SMR zoned parcels in the area, but this is the only one he is objecting to. He noted that there are other neighbors opposed to this parcel as well. He stated that this parcel is not officially in the inventory and that this site has been an afterthought. They only became aware of this site when Mr. Hunt was trying to sell his property and Mr. Coats told the prospective buyer that he planned to mine the property. This occurred after the inventory process had begun and gone through the Hearings Officer. He indicated they believe the reason this is now before them is that Mr. Coats is trying to limit the amount of property development in the area by making it a distasteful place to build because of the surface mining area. Mr. Hunt owns property on both sides of Johnson Road. The Board needs to place this on the inventory if they find credible evidence that aggregate exists on the property. They feel that no credible evidence exists to confirm resource deposits on this site of the quantity and quality estimated. The reason they question the credibility is due to conflicting testimony provided by Mr. Coats about when and where he dug test holes. His testimony also conflicted in that he stated he purchased the property ten years ago, but he is a contract vendee and they still have no testimony from the property owner. He stated that Mr. Coats had testified that he purchased this property to stop subdivision development in the area to minimize conflicts with the mining. Since that time, the county has gone through the surface mining process and Mr. Coats did not include this parcel in the process at that time. Mr. Hendrix felt that this was significant in showing there is no rock in that area. He 9 0006 0'73'7 stated that Kitty Warner and Dan Hunt have walked the property and found no evidence of any test holes. Mr. Coats then stated they had been dug about ten years ago and that is why they have grown over. Mr. Hendrix stated that testimony conflicted in that when Mr. Coats had been asked why he did not include this site in the inventory initially, he responded that he had only recently dug the test holes. He stated that they walked the property yesterday and found some evidence of activity on the site at that time. He felt that the fact that Mr. Coats or his attorney were not present at this hearing was further evidence that there is no rock on this site. He asked why, if Mr. Coats had dug the test holes ten years ago, he did not ask for SM zoning the last time they went through this process. He also questioned why he dug holes again if he had dug them once ten years ago. He then asked for a show of hands from members of the audience who agree that this is not a proper site for SM zoning. Most of those present responded. David Davidson, who holds a BS in geology, had theorized in the Hearings Officer's hearings that the county would not find rock in certain sites. He used the same contour lines and the knowledge of the area and that this has the same geologic connotations as one of the county's abandoned sites. If they still choose to place the site on the inventory, he asked they consider that Mr. Coats had stated there was only eight acres in the southwest corner that would be suitable for mining, but they would be impacting by the road which runs nearby. He stated because of reclamation and the sloping and setbacks, the Planning Commission decided there was not sufficient resource there to zone the parcel for surface mining. With regard to the wildlife combining zone, he noted the restrictions that had been placed on area residents in the interests of the wildlife. He felt there was great disparity between those restrictions and those placed on surface mining. With regard to the economic impacts, he felt that the resulting decrease in surrounding property values would constitute the equivalent of transferring money from the surrounding property owners to Mr. Coats. With regard to social impacts, the entire neighborhood would be completely interfered with by surface mining activities. He also stated there were significant notice problems on this site. He urged them to reexamine the issue of notice at this site. Dan Kerns, Tyler Road, came forward. He noted that Mr. Coats had testified earlier that he does not know when he would mine the site but he did want the property zoned SM. He had also testified that he did not want a subdivision in the area. He asked if Mr. Coats had the ability to control the zoning in the area by having this site zoned SM. Karen Green explained that whatever the person's motive, the county has to consider the evidence and plact it on the inventory accordingly. 10 0096 0 738 Diana McClaskey, 19449 Tumalo Reservoir Road, asked about DEQ's role in this process. She felt someone from DEQ should be at this hearing. Ms. Green noted that early in the process a DEQ representative had attended a work session with the Planning Commission members discussing the DEQ regulations that apply to surface mining. Ms. McClaskey stated she felt allowing surface mining here would spoil the beauty of the area. There was no further testimony offered on this site. Tyler Road Site, No. 290 Chuck McGraw gave the staff report. The site is described as tax map number 17-11-11, taxlot 500 and 600. The site is 80 acres in size, presently zoned SMR and owned by R. L. Coats. It contains an estimated 1.5 million cubic yards of aggregate resource. There are three conflicting Goal 5 resources present; open space, fish and wildlife, and scenic views. The Planning Commission had recommended zoning the site for surface mining due to the significant amount of the resource and its location near the Bend market area, and they also recommended allowing processing at the site. Chair Prante called for declarations of conflict or pre-hearing contacts. She then disclosed that she lives nearby but that would not bias her decision. Under challenges, Doug Grist, 64145 Tyler Road, challenged Chair Prante's ability to hear this impartially. Chair Prante responded that when she purchased her property, she knew this parcel was zoned SMR. She believes she can put her personal sitation aside and would be able to maintain the same level of objectivity as on all other sites. Chuck McGraw noted that staff had recommended to the Planning Commission that processing not be allowed on site, due to concerns about cumulative effects and because Mr. Coats has a processing plant only 1.5 miles away. However, the Planning Commission had voted to allow processing. Chair Prante called for testimony in favor. Ted Lyster, 63755 Johnson Road, came forward. He is a real estate broker and indicated he was presenting neutral testimony. He showed the location of the subject property on the map, explaining its proximity to property owned by him and indicating where the Tumalo irrigation canal runs. He stated that there are aggregate deposits on both parcels. He stated he owns a nice home on the rim and is very much against mining the site, however, this is the time to identify resources. He had submitted an application to place his property on the inventory, but was told that since he was unable to determine how much aggregate was n the parcel it was his presumption that he would not have the zoning granted. He noted that he had received a hearing notice for the hearing on May 10, 11 0000 0'739 but the notice did not give the date of the hearing, he had to phone in to get it. He did not know that the Tyler properties, his or Mr. Coats', would be the subject of tonight's hearing. He stated that his property is closer than 250' to Mr. Coats' site, but he has never received a notice of hearing on that property. He stated that he is opposed to on-site processing on the Coats site. He was also concerned about traffic hazards on Johnson Road. He stated that if the Klippel Acres site is mined, it will immeasurably increase the traffic hazards on Johnson Road. He felt Johnson Road should be improved, and the money being spent on Tyler Road would be better spent on those improvements. Chair Prante called for opposing testimony. Luke Springer, Tumalo Reservoir Road, stated that he was also hear for the Johnson Road site, he did not know about this hearing. He stated that one of the reasons he left Europe was because he saw so much of the beauty destroyed and he hates to see it happen here. He moved to the area because of the beauty here. He stated that he is in real estate, and that people notice the beauty of the Tumalo area. Dick Northon, 19273 Tumalo Reservoir Road, stated that he also was not aware of the Tyler Road hearing. He gave a brief resume of his background, noting he's been a science and health teacher for 20 years. They live across from Cascade Pumice's mining operation, which he feels is the greatest blight on the landscape in the area. He stated that the wind envelopes all the homes in the area in pumice dust. They have visibility of 100 feet or less due to the dust. Cascade Pumice makes little or no effort to control the dust and they start the equipment up at 5:30 AM. He stated that pumice is silica, one of the hardest common materials known, and it is very damaging to the lungs and eyes. If more sites are developed, they will have the heavy pumice dust almost continually year round. He stated that he gets no response to complaints either from Cascade Pumice or DEQ. He urged the commission to stop this use. He felt that rock crushing would have the same effect as the pumice mining does. He felt the use would drive away the deer and the elk in the area, noting that a very large deer herd is in the area. Mr. Northon stated he has lived in this house for ten years. Kenneth Johnson, 64144 Tyler Road, stated they moved here three weeks ago from Phoenix, Arizona. They purchased their property here four years ago because of the beauty in the area. They looked around alot before investing in their land, house, and property. He said that east Arizona is famous for their mining and their ability to move entire small mountains. Entire towns will be covered in dust. They don't want that to happen here. He said they found out about, this hearing by word of mouth. He noted that it will be easier to get mining approval than it was for them to build a house in the deer range. 12 OOS6 0 710 Dan Kerns stated that he never received notice of any hearings on this property. His is the next abutting property to the subject property. He stated the quantity estimate is based on just two test holes on the property. He stated due process had not occured because of the lack of adequate notification. He stated that Mr. Coats had told him there was gravel on that parcel, but not enough to bother with. He also felt they were being penalized for prefering to live on larger parcels, and if this were near a 200- home subdivision, they would not permit it to go in. John Gill, president of Rock Springs Guest Ranch, came forward. He noted the guest ranch is about 3/4 mile from this site. He gave some background on the ranch. They have guests from around the world. If they allow processing on the site, he felt it would impact the golden and bald eagles, osprey, deer, and geese. He noted that this is one big valley and the noise travels very well. He also expressed concerns about traffic safety, noting that the road on the south end stays icy for months at a time during the winter. They are currently building a building on the ranch, and have to take a lot of steps to mitigate effects to the deer population. He questioned the benefit of those regulations when it appears to be so easy to put in a surface mine. He noted that State Goal 3 states that destination resorts and dude ranches are appropriate and important resources in the state. They are the only dude ranch in the area. They have a very large investment that they feel is very conducive to the area. He encouraged them to decide against this conflicting use. Doug Grist came forward. He mentioned the notification problem, and stated that his greatest concern is foor the wildlife. He urged the commission to disapprove this application. Vonda Giles stated that she and her brothers recently inherited the property to the north of the Coats site. She expressed concern about the dangers to her children and others as they walk the road to the bus stop. She also was concerned about the possible effects mining would have on the irrigation canal. She stated she was sure that they would have no property value if this were to be mined, they would have to tear down their house and mine the land. She also noted they were not notified. There was some general discussion regarding the notification process. It was noted that written testimony would be accepted until May 31 at 5:00 PM. The testimony needs to be delivered to the Board of Commissioners or the Planning Department. Jim Atterholt, 63735 Johnson Road, stated between Ted Lyster's and John Bell's. He impact of truck traffic on Johnson Road, school children, buses, and bicycles. The has dangerous curves. that his property lies was concerned about the especially hazards to road is very hilly and 13 QOS6 0741 Site 305 and 306 Chair Prante called for conflicts or challenges. There were none. Chuck McGraw gave the staff report. This is 90 acres owned by R. L. Coats. This is the mined out area that is part of a site mined prior to 1972. The legal description of this parcel is 17-12-6, taxlot 100. It contains an estimated 150,000 cubic yards of remaining aggregate and quarry rock. There are three conflict Goal 5 resources present; open space, fish and wildlife habitats, and outstanding scenic views and sights. Staff had recommended not mining the site, however, Mr. Coats had promised that in exchange for surface mining zoning he would voluntarily reclaim the site. Mr. Coats had indicated that he could have all mining activity completed at this site in one and half years. The Planning Commission had recommended not allowing processing on the site. Chair Prante called for proponent's testimony. There was none. She then called for opposing testimony. Kitty Warner, 64141 Highway 20 West, stated she did not know this would be on the agenda tonight. She has lived directly across the river from this site for the past 21 years. She had found the past mining activities at this site offensive, but she felt that as long as Mr. Coats would agree to reclaim it, it might be worth it. She suggested that they require a guarantee of the promise through a bond or deposit. Sharon Hubler, 19565 Tumalo Reservoir Road, stated that he also was not aware this was on the agenda for this evening. He lives close to Tumalo Rim, and he wondered if others in that area had been notified of this hearing. Adjournment There was no further testimony or questions from members of the public. Chair Prante announced that this hearing would be 14 0096 0742 continued until next Thursday night. The meeting was adjourned at 10:37 PM. DESCHUT S C :NT', BO D OF COMMISSIONERS F,"' Bois Bras ow Prante, Chair ~T h Tom oop llfcommis Di lin, Co issioner BOCC/ss 15