No preview available
1991-20535-Minutes for Meeting June 19,1991 Recorded 7/16/19910107'11P328 91-2�J535 ..� MINUTES Jilt- ERIC COATS SITE #400 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS June 19, 1991 Chairman Maudlin called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. Board members in attendance were Dick Maudlin, Tom Throop, and Nancy Pope Schlangen. Also present were Bruce White, Assistant Legal Counsel; Karen Green, Community Development Director; George Read, Planning Director; and Dave Leslie, Associate Planner. Dave Leslie gave the staff report on Coats Site #400 which was southeast of Bend. Last summer, the Board of Commissioners had decided to place this site on the inventory for aggregate resources in Deschutes County and decided to deny the rezoning of the property from EFU-40 to surface mining. LCDC in reviewing the entire acknowledgement package from Deschutes County, remanding this site back to the Board to reconsider two issues: (1) to provide an opportunity for the site owner to submit additional information regarding the quality of material located at site #400, and (2) to provide an opportunity for the Board to consider mitigation of wildlife values. The Board had until July 31, 1991, to submit information back to LCDC regarding this matter. The ESEE analysis regarding inventory on this site required the Board to consider three criteria: location, quantity and quality of material. They must also consider the conflicts and consequences of zoning this site surface mining or retaining the current zoning. Because the owner of the site had not submitted any additional subsurface information, the staff recommended the Board reverse its decision from last summer and remove this site for the inventory of aggregate resources. In so doing, the question of mitigation for wildlife values became moot, and the site would retain its current EFU zoning. He gave the Board material which had come in after the staff report was prepared, which included a statement in opposition from Martin Hansen representing the Conestoga Hill residents; eight letters in opposition; and a copy of the report from Century West Engineering of March 29, 1991, on behalf of the owner which did not include any subsurface testing. Chairman Maudlin opened the public hearing and asked if the Board members had had any contact with the parties outside this hearing. Commissioner Throop said he had had none. Commissioner Schlangen said she had been contacted by Mrs. Porter approximately two months ago. Mrs. Porter asked if she had visited the site and offered to go over the property with her. Commissioner Schlangen said no to the offer, but did visit the site on her own. Chairman Maudlin said he had a telephone call from Eric Coats approximately two weeks ago concerning the surface mining of soils rather than rock at this site, and whether he would be ableto--Oge, his PAGE 1 MINUTES: 6/19/91 application from rock to dirt. think so but would try to find him on this issue. 0107 0329 Chairman Maudlin told him he didn't out. He was unable to get back to Chairman Maudlin asked if there was anyone who wished to challenge any Board members ability to hear this evidence. No one made a challenge. Chairman Maudlin asked that those in favor of the zone change testify first. No one came forward to testify. Commissioner Throop asked if that meant there was no one at the hearing representing the proponent, that the proponent had no information to offer, and that the Board should base its decision on the information that had been provided in the past. Chairman Maudlin said that was correct. Chairman Maudlin asked for testimony in opposition to the zone change. Martin Hansen, 1201 NW Wall Street, Suite 300, Bend, and attorney representing the opponents of the zone change, said the opposition would be brief, not because they didn't have anything to say, but because the Board had heard most of it at the previous hearings and already had their written statement. Chairman Maudlin said this site was remanded to the Board on narrow grounds, however the Board had decided to open the hearing to whatever anyone wished to say. Commissioner Throop stated that he was a member of LCDC, which was the body that remanded this site back to the County, however he disqualified himself from participating in the LCDC decision on this site because of the conflict with his position as Deschutes County Commissioner. Martin Hansen said they were in favor of the removal of Site #400 from the County's inventory. He presented an aerial photo of the site to the record to show the proximity of Conestoga Hills to the proposed site. Even surface mining on the farthest point away from the subdivision would still have dire impacts on the subdivision. According to their noise expert, Mr. Dooble, it would still violate DEQ noise standards. There would be an increase of 10 decibels from the ambient noise level even if the mining were done on the farthest point from the subdivision. Their geologist did a supplemental report on the east 40 acres, and felt that because this site was within the Newberry flow, there could be no reasonable opinion from a surface test that could warrant this parcel being included in the County's inventory. He had given the Board an updated report from their wildlife expert concerning the LCDC question that the Board had not considered mitigation. Mr. Hansen said that was not the Board's fault, because there was no mitigation before the Board for consideration. He had given the Board a report indicating why mitigation of this site wasn't feasible. He said there was now a new subdivision (1880 Ranch subdivision) within one mile of this site. He said that the haul road was a new question since any hauling to the west would have a PAGE 2 MINUTES: 6/19/91 010'7 0330 dire impact on many more people than the route that was considered in the previous hearings. People purchased property in this region because of the very calm and pristine quality of life. Karen Richey, 23272 Chisholm Trail, Bend, indicated her driveway on the map, said she was a resident of Conestoga Hills, and was in opposition to site #400 being listed on the inventory of surface mining sites. Her home was approximately 1/2 mile from Mr. Coats' property. The reasons she wanted to live in Conestoga Hills were: (1) importance of living in a planned development with covenants which establish property owner expectations, (2) a place to care for and raise horses, and (3) quiet escape from a stressful job. She considered her home a sanctuary; a quiet and serene retreat where she could renew her energy. She urged the Board to deny the request for the zone change. John Armetta, 23173 Butterfield Trail, in Conestoga Hills, testified that the proximity of a surface mining operation to a residential use would result in diminishing and perhaps destroying the living conditions and the value of the property. People in Conestoga Hills were making the statement that location was the most important element in selecting their homes. There were two homes for sale in the area and prospective buyers backed out when they heard of the possible zone change. He had been in real estate for 40 years, and it was his experience that identical houses would sell for considerably more (30%-40%) the further they were from a rock mining pit. When his family moved to Bend. they couldn't find a house with the kind of location they wanted, so they decided to build. They wanted this to be their last home, and because of their age, they didn't have the will, energy, inclination, or possibly the time left to build again. He asked that the Board reject this application. Linwood Hester, 552 Blyton Way, Livermore CA, said he was recently informed of this meeting and felt it was important enough to take off work, and drive up from California to testify. They had been coming to Bend for skiing for 10-12 years. He had about six more years before he would retire to this area. A year ago he looked for some property with serenity and decided on property in the 1880 Ranch. The restrictions on the property were to protect the area, and he decided they were important to preserve the area. The close proximity of a gravel pit would directly affect his property, especially if they hauled the rock on Rickard Road. He asked that the Board reject this application. Jamie Stanley, 60526 Chickasaw Way, in Conestoga Hills subdivision, said that his testimony referred to surface mining Site #400 located in the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of S15, T18S, R13E, W.M. or known as TL 4502 and currently zoned EFU-40. He wanted to point out the conflicting situation this zone change would bring to a trend in residential developments in the area. The new road in the area directly linked the proposed surface mine to the west. Anyone PAGE 3 MINUTES: 6/19/91 010'7 0331 living along Rickard Road would suffer considerably from a rock pit zone change. He said land use regulations were supposed to protect the lands and commit them for certain uses. He had a college background in economics with an emphasis in land use planning and understood the intent of land use zoning. He said there was no greater conflict in land use zoning than to change prior EFU-zoned property to surface mining next to an existing, high-end residential community. He and the 120 property owners he represented urged the Board to continue the current, natural environment in which they lived without fear of a land use change allowing a rock pit. Mr. Hansen summarized that everyone in attendance was equally committed to removing this site from the resource inventory. Chairman Maudlin closed the public hearing. THROOP: I would move that site 400 be removed from the inventory of mineral and aggregate resources in Deschutes County and that the site be retained in the EFU-40 zone. SCHLANGEN: Second. Commissioner Throop said the bottom line was that there was no evidence to indicate that Site 400 had any quantity of acceptable aggregate and in fact, the available information seemed to indicate the opposite. Because of that, he felt it was important that Deschutes County remove this site from the inventory. Commission Schlangen said the quality and quantity concern had not been met by Mr. Coats, no subsurface sampling had occurred, and no in depth study of the aggregate quality had been brought forward, so she felt the site should be removed from the inventory. Chairman Maudlin said the LCDC remand required the Board to open a public hearing to allow an opportunity for the applicant to provide information on quality and quantity of material. Since no additional information was provided, the motion had been made to take the property off the inventory and leave the EFU zoning. Bruce White agreed that the Board did not need to cover the ESEE balancing given the fact that there was not enough quality and quantity information to put the site on the inventory. VOTE: THROOP: YES SCHLANGEN: YES MAUDLIN: YES Bruce White asked if the Board was directing him to bring back findings which would support the Board's decision for their adoption, and the Board indicated they were. PAGE 4 MINUTES: 6/19/91 010'7 0332 DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS To`m hroop, C 'ssioner / 1 � Nancy �Pope hla^ en, Commission Dirk Maudlin, Chairman BOCC:alb PAGE 5 MINUTES: 6/19/91