Loading...
2000-712-Minutes for Meeting May 23,2000 Recorded 6/15/2000VOL: CJ2000 PAGE: 712 RECORDED DOCUMENT STATE OF OREGON COUNTY OF DESCHUTES *02000-712 * Vol -Page Printed: 06/20/2000 13:52:27 DO NOT REMOVE THIS CERTIFICATE (This certificate constitutes a part of the original instrument in accordance with ORS 205.180(2). Removal of this certificate may invalidate this certificate and affect the admissibility of the original instrument into evidence in any legal proceeding.) I hereby certify that the attached instrument was received and duly recorded in Deschutes County records: DATE AND TIME: DOCUMENT TYPE: Jun. 15, 2000; 1:47 p.m. Regular Meeting (CJ) NUMBER OF PAGES: 6 MARY SUE PENHOLLOW . DESCHUTES COUNTY CLERK KEY N D JU 02000 COUNTY CLEO 1130 N.W. Harriman St., Bend, Oregon 97701-1947 (541) 388-6570 • Fax (541) 388-4752 www.co.deschutes.orus Linda L. Swearingen Dennis R. Luke MINUTES OF DECISION Tom DeWolf DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS TUESDAY, MAY 239 2000 1130 NW Harriman Street, Bend, Oregon Administration Building Before the Board was a Request for a Decision on PA -98-10 and SP -98-65, Regarding the Rose Pit Amended Site Plan. Chair Linda Swearingen opened the meeting at 6:10 p.m. Present were Paul Blikstad, Community Development; Commissioners Linda Swearingen and Tom DeWolf; Bob Lovelien, representing Bud Rose, the owner of the Rose Pit; and several citizens. Paul Blikstad gave an overview of the subject matter. (See his two-page statement, attached as Exhibit A.) Commissioner DeWolf asked what constitutes too much dust, or watering more heavily; how is this measured? Paul Blikstad stated that he discussed this issue with Roger Olson and Tom Blust of the Road Department; they stated that if they get complaints, they then tell the owner of the Rose Pit to water more heavily. Commissioner DeWolf observed that there seems to be tremendous acrimony between the owner and the neighbors, which could generate a lot of calls. Bob Lovelien, an attorney representing Bud Rose, the owner of the Rose Pit, asked for clarification on how to decide an objective standard. (He presented a photo display of the water bar inaction. General discussion occurred. The display was submitted to Paul Blikstad to enter into the record.) Mr. Lovelien stated that there is always someone on site to assure the water bar is used. Minutes of Decision - Rose Pit Berm & Water Bar Page 1 of 4 Pages Tuesday, May 23, 2000 Quality Services Performed with Pride Chair Linda Swearingen said that the law states a tarp should be used, but that the tarp could be removed by the driver when he gets down the road. Mr. Lovelien explained that Avion Water is expensive; and that Public Works being next door enhances enforcement. He further stated that Mrs. Jane Ohlemann would be the only beneficiary of the berm, and she is emphatic that she does not want it. He explained that when Gary Stanley did his report in 1994, there was nothing on the site so he made assumptions regarding how much equipment would be there, how it would be run; and some calculated guesses were made as to whether a sound berm would be necessary. It was deemed to be unnecessary for sound protection, and would not be visually desirable. He asked that the berm not be made a condition of approval, as it would not serve anyone's interest. He further said that Mrs. Ohlemann is a good neighbor, and never voiced an objection to the removal of the berm. He further explained that the Stanley report indicated if the mechanical screening device, the dozer and the scraper all in the same spot, this might meet or exceed DEQ standards at the perimeters. He stated that considering the site has an appropriate water bar and the way the land is being reclaimed and being brought back to grade, the berm should not be a condition of approval. It will not serve anyone's best interest. Commissioner DeWolf asked when the condition for a berm was first put in place. Mr. Lovelien stated it was not required to be put in place until operations were within 1,100 feet of the house, and they aren't there yet. Commissioner DeWolf explained that this is difficult because it is neighbor vs. neighbor. He asked if anyone has looked into the fast-growing trees discussed previously. Bud Rose, the owner of the Rose Pit, replied that Mrs. Ohlemann does not want trees planted. He further stated that he has not discussed this with the other neighbors since they are not immediately adjacent. (A general discussion of an oversized map occurred at this time.) Bud Rose said that the berm would have been built before being required by the pipeline company, but this was denied to them by the County. He elaborated that Mr. Stanley's report did not recommend the berm for a visual barrier. Bob Lovelien stated that the operation cannot be heard at the Ohlemann residence, and the beneficiary of the berm does not want it. Minutes of Decision - Rose Pit Berm & Water Bar Page 2 of 4 Pages Tuesday, May 23, 2000 Charles Coffee, who lives in the area but is not an adjacent property owner, then spoke. He requested that trucks be covered; that the problem is not the dust but the rocks coming off of the trucks. He stated that he feels the water bar is not enough of a fix, and does not cover the entire load; the loads shift and blows off. He further said that it is difficult to pass the trucks if driving behind them; that the trucks are not usually not covered in this area. Chair Linda Swearingen stated that it is not fair to request one property owner to do this and not all of the others; that this constitutes an economic disadvantage to one company over another. She explained that all of the operators would need to be required to comply, and it is impossible to get the buy -in of the excavators and contractors. Commissioner DeWolf said that sometimes drivers can get hurt while doing their tarping, and the truckers feel it is a safety hazard. He further stated that requiring this is a liability risk to Deschutes County. He said that the fact is that the drivers can take the tarp off right after leaving the facility. Mr. Coffee replied that the truckers should know how to properly do this. Commissioner DeWolf replied that the use of water bars is much safer. Mr. Coffee noted that the noise from Knott Landfill is much louder than that from the Rose Pit, although he can't see either one from his residence. He asked whom to contact if he notices the water bar is not being used. Bud Rose replied that he should call 480-9604, which is the phone number at the operation. Commissioner DeWolf said for Mr. Coffee to call the Commissioners' office if there is a problem, and Bud Rose will be contacted to look into it. He further stated that constant nagging may be the best way to handle the problem. In winter, the public has to deal with the County, City and State when the roads are sanded. Mr. Coffee said he'll try to cooperate and work with the operator. He said the Rose Pit isn't the problem, it's the trucks after they leave the site. Bud Rose introduced Phil Peterson, who oversees the operation, and invited the Coffees out to view the operation. He further explained how the water bar is used, and that the wind factor has to be factored into its use. He said that they give the drivers a choice, either the water bar or the tarp; and that they are not allowed to leave until one or the other is used. Minutes of Decision - Rose Pit Berm & Water Bar Page 3 of 4 Pages Tuesday, May 23, 2000 John Garr, who lives adjacent to the Rose Pit, Central Electric Cooperative and Knott Landfill, then spoke. (A general discussion of the map occurred.) He stated that he is a truck driver, and had visited almost every pit in the area He further explained that he feels this water bar is the best one in Central Oregon, and that about 70% of the pits have one. He stated that he feels Mr. Rose has gone overboard trying to accommodate and be helpful to truckers and the public. Commissioner DeWolf asked if an ordinance has ever been considered regarding water bars and/or tarps. Paul Blikstad answered no. Commissioner DeWolf stated that perhaps there should be standards to apply these conditions. John Garr said some pits are so far out that it wouldn't help. Chair Swearingen asked that since the beneficial owner does not want the berm, why should it be required? Paul Blikstad answered that it isn't logical. SWEARINGEN: I move that the use of the water bar be required, and that the berm not be required to be built. DEWOLF: Second. VOTE: DEWOLF: Yes. SWEARINGEN: Aye. Being no further discussion, Chair Linda Swearingen adjourned the meeting at 7: OS p. m.. Dated this 23rd Day of May 2000 for the Deschutes County Board of Commissioners. inda L. Swearingen, Chair ATTEST: Minutes of Decision - Rose Pit Berm & Water Bar Tuesday, May 23, 2000 Dennis R. Luke, Commissioner Tom DeWolf, Commissioner Page 4 of 4 Pages Before the Board tonight is a hearing on a matter previously heard by the Board in October on 1999. These applications were for a plan amendment to amend the ESEE (Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy) findings for surface mining site no. 392 (the Rose Pit) to allow screening of the fill material on the site, and to allow a water bar for dust abatement for trucks leaving the site in lieu of tarping, and to not require an earthern berm to be placed for buffering; a site plan to amend the original approval granted for the actual mining operation at the site in conjunction with the plan amendment was also submitted. The Board limited the hearing tonight to two issues: 1) Allowing the use of a water bar rather than requiring tarping of loads; and 2) whether or not a berm is required for a noise and visual buffer, the plan amendment criteria do not apply to the two issues before the Board. These issues were not part of the ESEE findings adopted by the County. As the Board is aware, these applications were denied by the County Hearings Officer by a written decision mailed on June 23 of 1999. The applicant appealed the denial and the -Board -agreed -to -hear the appeal de novo by Order No. 99-126. A previous hearing before the Board was held on October 7, 1999, and the record was left open to November 12th. The Board at the December 9, 1999 meeting initially decided to uphold the hearings officer's denial of the plan amendment and site plan, with the exception of the water bar. A "trial period" with the water bar was proposed in the motion and was accepted by both Commissioners Swearingen and DeWolf. The staff person assigned to the application left employment with the County in the interim and the written decision of the Board was never issued. Since the date of the December decision, the applicant has requested further review of the matter, specifically the possibility of removing the earthern berm construction requirement for buffering what was the "Manwiler" residence, which is now apparently the Ohlemann residence. The Board has received letters from Ms. Ohlemann indicating she does not want the eathern berm to be constructed. She apparently does not believe it will -have much, if any, impact on the noise, and as indicated in her latest letter, "would be unsightly." In quoting from her May 11`h letter, "The noise is minimal at this time and if it remains at or near the current level in the future I do not see it as a problem." In her decision Hearings Officer Karen Green found that the earthern berm was required for both visual and noise abatement, based on the site plan approved for the mining operation in 1993 and the applicant's most recent noise study. Based on the letter from Ms. Ohleman, the berm in her opinion will create a visual and dust problem rather than a visual buffer. The question of noise created by the mining operation and whether the berm will prevent any violation of the DEQ noise standard is unclear in staffs opinion. The noise study appears to indicate that if only the scraper is used in the vicinity of what is now the Ohlemann residence, the berm is not needed to mitigate noise from the scraper or the dozer if not operated at the same time. It is not clear if the mining operations require more than just one piece of equipment to be operated in the same location at any one time, including any trucks being loaded. Staff believes clarification of the noise impacts may be needed to make a determination that the noise berm is not needed. It appears the berm is not now needed as a "visual" buffer for the Ohlemann property.. g 4,54X Ma&,!; A0 7S�d�: �<�S wt k'CS�Pc 7� be,,-" -%I" L l -Co j, X A -f—, 6 V f h r C S/ -f v7 Ce5 . Regarding the tarping of loads requirement versus a water bar, much input from neighbors has come out against easing this restriction. Staff notes for the record that a water bar has been installed at the site. Staff made a site visit out to the Rose Pit on Friday May 12'' from approximately 10:00 to 11:30 am. Several trucks were observed leaving the site after having been loaded. It appeared that all the trucks were watered, but none were tarped. Based on this observation and letters from neighbors, it appears that if any tarping does occur it is few and far between loads. Staff believes that given the location of the Rose Pit adjacent to the County Landfill and direct access onto a collector street, tarping does not appear to be a necessity if the loads are actually watered. If there are dust problems associated with trucks leaving the site, they should be required to water more heavily. Staff believes that dust blown from the actual mining site would be of much more concern than any transient dust from trucks leaving the site. Staff noted on the site visit that the noise from traffic on Rickard Road was much more obvious at the Ohlemann property than any noise generated from the surface mining operation. In fact the mining operation was almost inaudible from the Ohlemann property near the dwelling during the site visit. Staff believes that the watering of truck loads is a reasonable alternative to tarping. Whether the berm required along the common property line with the Ohlemann residence is an absolute requirement to mitigate noise impacts is not totally clear. It is clear that the berm is not needed for a visual buffer as indicated in the letter from Ms. Questions for staff.