Loading...
1989-31184-Minutes for Meeting October 25,1989 Recorded 11/22/1989 89-31184 ( 99 - 0182 MINUTES SURFACE MINING DECISION MEETING DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIO f.=f October 25, 1989 Chair Prante called the meeting to order at 10:30 a.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop and Lois Bristow Prante. Also present were Karen Green, Community Development Director and George Read, Planning Director. Commissioner Prante disqualified herself from these discussions and Commissioner Throop chaired the meeting. SITE 288 (Tumalo Irrigation District) George Read reported that this was a 20 acre parcel which was currently zoned EFU-20 in a Wildlife Area Combining Zone and contained 250,000 cu yds of good quality aggregate. There were a number of letters in opposition in the file. The staff recommended approval of surface mining zoning with standard conditions and seasonal operating requirements because it was a deer winter range. Karen Green stated that the staff report at the public hearing indicated there was no evidence of prior surface mining activity on the site. Commissioner Throop said that Dan Kearns had testified that there may have been some fill material taken from the site for canal repair. THROOP : My sense is that this area is committed to uses other than surface mining, that the rural residential uses, the open space resources, the fact that it's in a winter deer area, the fact that there are outstanding scenic views and sites, those kinds of natural resource values. My view is that the resource should not be protected, and the existing EFU-20 and Wildlife Combining Zone zoning should be retained, and if Tumalo Irrigation District is in a position to prove up some historic use, to allow them to continue that use as they've had it historically, but not to provide that this become zoned surface mining and become a major surface mining site. Commissioner Maudlin felt that there was conflicting testimony regarding the amount of gravel, if any, at sites 287, 288 and 290. He felt that there was not enough information on which to make a judgement, and therefore the site should be designated 1(b). Commissioner Throop felt that there was just as much information on this site as on several other sites where the Board did make a decision. rrz;. PAGE 1 MINUTES: 10-25-89 ~ -)9 - (.1183 George Read stated there was a letter from Tumalo Irrigation in the file which stated the quality and quantity, and that there were no opposition letters in the file that contested the quality or quantity information on this site. Karen Green said that since the Board had made decisions on sites with the same amount of information before, she felt that there was no basis to treat site 288 as a 1(b) site. MAUDLIN : I would move that with the information as provided by Commissioner Throop's comments on site 288, that site 288 not be zoned for surface mining. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Disqualified THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES SITE 290 (Coats site George Read reported that this 80 acre parcel was currently zoned SMR in a Landscape Management zone and Wildlife Area Combining Zone. The staff report indicated there was 1.5 million cu yds of ODOT quality aggregate on the site. The staff recommended approval of surface mining zoning with standard conditions including the seasonal operating conditions set forth by ODF&W, but that processing not be allowed on the site. He clarified that processing could include screening or crushing. Commissioner Throop pointed out that after the public hearing, the staff recommended that this site be put into the 1(b) category. He said he objected to this site being in a 1(b) category primarily because he wanted the Board to make a decision now rather than to delay the decision for all the people that had been involved. Also he felt there was information in the file that was similar to the level of information that they had on some other sites. George Read said there was a letter that was listed in the front of the file which was missing from the file. It was a letter from R.L. Coats and Scott Boles dated 11-3-87. It could have included the quality and quantity information which was no where else in the file. Thinking the letter had probably been misfiled, they had recently searched the remainder of the surface mining files but had been unable to locate the missing letter. Karen Green said there had been testimony about statements that Mr. Coats had made to the neighbors about the quantity of material on this site. In his testimony, Mr. Coats did not restate what amount of resource he felt was on the site, but he did indicate that he had given different figures to people over the years. Using his words, he said he had "fibbed" on the amount of material PAGE 2 MINUTES: 10-25-89 0 9 0184 on the site to keep the value down when he was attempting to purchase it. She said that there was no way of knowing what was in the missing letter, and there was nothing else in the record to support the staff report's quality and quantity statement. Commissioner Maudlin said the Board received testimony from the opposition that they had been told by Mr. Coats' brother that they had dug test holes and there was no resource at this location. Since the testimony was so conflicting, he felt they would be in error to make a decision on this site. He said the resource needed to be protected if it was there, but in order to get better information, he felt the site should be put in the 1(b) category. He asked what the time frame would be on consideration of the sites classified 1(b). Karen Green said the staff would recommend to the Board that the time line should coincide with the periodic review time line. During periodic review, the County would either get adequate information to make a decision or, if there was not adequate information, drop the site from the inventory. She said they were looking at probably one year until the periodic review, but that the Board could set any time schedule for the next review. Karen Green said the sites that were on the 1(b) list were in limbo until the review process. If an owner wanted to apply for a particular land use on the property, the existing ordinance and the statewide goals would be used to establish if they were entitled to make that particular use of the property. Commissioner Maudlin asked if the 1(b) classification would preclude the adjacent property from being developed for housing. Karen Green said that it would not, which was one of the disadvantages of having a site designated 1(b) since the Board could not protect the resource from development on adjacent property. George Read said there was a DOGAMI application in the file from 1972 which was filled out by R.L. Coats stating there was 2 million cu yds of gravel on the site. Karen Green said that there was highly conflicting resource information on this site and that DOGAMI typically did not verify the information on the applications. Commissioner Throop asked if the primary difference between this site, with one piece of information that said 2 million cu yds and another piece of information that said 1.5 million cu yds, and other sites was that this information might be unreliable? Karen Green said there had been testimony that there was no resource on this site, that there was 2 million cu yds, and the staff report which reported 1.5 million cu yds. All of this conflicting information came from the owner. PAGE 3 MINUTES: 10-25-89 0913 - 0185 MAUDLIN: I will move to make site 290 a 1(b) site. THROOP: I'll second the motion. Commissioner Throop said he was very reluctant to make this site 1(b) but did not feel that there was any choice. In terms of consistency throughout the package that would be submitted to the Department of Land Conservation and Development, it was important to get better information on this site. VOTE: PRANTE: Disqualified THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES MAUDLIN: Mr. Chair I'd like to set a time not later than August 1, 1990 for review of the 1(b) sites. THROOP: If we moved it one month ahead we would coincide that with the end of the fiscal year. MAUDLIN: That's fine with me. THROOP: Could I place that motion for June 30, 1990? MAUDLIN: I would so move. THROOP: I'll second the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Disqualified THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Karen Green said staff would probably have to present the time line to the Board again at the end of the process to formally adopt the program and the time line as part of the County's acknowledgement package, but that it would obviously be presented with the June 30, 1990, time line. SITE 292 (Coats site) George Read reported that this site was 40 acres with 326,000 cu yds of ODOT quality aggregate. It was currently zoned EFU-20, Landscape Management and Wildlife Area Combining zone. The staff recommended surface mining zoning with the standard conditions. The Planning Commission recommended no processing on the site. Karen Green said that Mr. Coats testified he didn't want to process on site 292, and that he didn't have as much material on site 292 as he did on 293. She said there were a number of people who testified in opposition to site. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 10-25-89 0186 Commissioner Maudlin said Mr. Coats testified that he primarily purchased the site for protection than anything else. Commissioner Throop thought that he had referred to the parcel as a "buffer." MAUDLIN: I would move that we not zone site 292 for surface mining. THROOP: I'll second the motion. Commissioner Maudlin said the owner didn't particularly care whether the site was zoned for surface mining and there was a site of more significance immediately across the road. Going into site 292 would not be conducive to the best uses of the area. Commissioner Throop said it was zoned Landscape Management zone and Wildlife Combining Area, it is heavily treed and removal would heavily impact the winter deer range and wildlife area. He agreed that the lack of enthusiasm on the part of the applicant, the relatively small amount of resource compared to other location indicates that is lower priority than the other uses and resources. There was also conflicting rural residential development to the north and the west. Commissioner Maudlin asked that their comments be incorporated into the motion. VOTE: PRANTE: Disqualified THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES SITE 293 (Coats site George Read reported that the site was 160 acres which were zoned SMR on the west 80 acres and SM on the east 80 acres. There was 3 million cu yds of aggregate that met ODOT specifications. The staff recommended approval of surface mining zoning with the standard conditions including winter operating hours by ODF&W, but no processing on the site. The Planning Commission recommended that the no processing condition be removed and that a new condition be added stating that processing would be allowed on site 293 only on TL 500, the furthest easterly tax lot. Commissioner Throop said he had a copy of a letter from State Parks which asked for vegetative screening on the north and east boundaries of TL 500 and on the northeast corner of TL 600 to help with noise abatement and to screen the project from the park. Commissioner Throop asked if this parcel was in the scenic waterway. George Read said that probably the western one-half of TL 500 was within the scenic waterway, and Tumalo Creek flooded through there also. He said the northeast corner of the property PAGE 5 MINUTES: 10-25-89 v (:)':)9 - 0187 was approximately one-quarter mile from the confluence of the Deschutes River and Tumalo Creek. MAUDLIN: I am going to move that we zone site 293 surface mining which would include TL 500, 600, 700 and easterly 40 acres of TL 800. THROOP: I'll second the motion. Commissioner Maudlin said that on TL-800, which he believed was approximately 80 acres in size, the western half would connect with site 292 to leave a buffer along the road all the way through the area. Commissioner Throop said that many of the conditions that were described on the decision on 292 carried over onto the westerly 40 acres on TL 800. Karen Green asked if they wanted to impose conditions on the portion that was being zoned surface mining. Commissioner Maudlin said he wanted to use the staff report, that the processing only be allowed on the westerly one-half of TL 500 with vegetative screen in that particular area on TL-500 through the easterly one-half of TL-800 if it was actually surface mined. Commissioner Throop proposed processing on TL 500 and the easterly part of TL 600. Commissioner Maudlin said sure. Karen Green asked if he wanted to include in the motion all of the other standard Planning Commission conditions. Commissioners Throop and Maudlin said they were included in the motion. Commissioner Maudlin said that State Parks was asking for screening in the wrong place since there was no surface mining on the easterly half of TL 500. Commissioner Throop said he would like to add a general condition that would ask that they screen the surface mining parcels from the park. THROOP: The motion before us is Site 293 to zone TL 500, 600, 700, and the easterly half of 800 for surface mining with the standard conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and staff including the screening from the Park and also including processing be limited to TL 500 and the easterly part of TL 600. PAGE 6 MINUTES: 10-25-89 MAUDLIN: No, let's say the west half of TL 500, the portion that is on the west side of Tumalo Creek, and all of TL 600. VOTE: PRANTE: Disqualified THROOP: YES MAUDLIN: YES Karen Green said that she didn't feel there was enough time on Friday morning to accomplish the remainder of the site decisions. She suggested continuing the meeting for the next day since the trial that she and George Read were scheduled to attend had been canceled. The meeting was continued until 8:30 a.m on Thursday, October 26, 1989. DESCHUTES COUNTY B ARD OF COMMISSIONERS Lois Bristow Prante, Chair Tom Throop, Commissioner Di ud in, o issioner BOCC:alb PAGE 7 MINUTES: 10-25-89