2017-311-Minutes for Meeting June 06,1990 Recorded 6/22/2017Recorded in Deschutes County CJ2017-311
Nancy Blankenship, County Clerk
Commissioners'Journal 06/22/2017 1:26:04 PM
For Recording Stamp Only
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners
Bend, Oregon
DESCHUTES COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
Audio Cassette Recording Titled: WORK SESSION REGARDING A SURFACE MINING
ORDINANCE
March 6, 1990; 3:00-4:00 PM.
A meeting of the Board of County Commissioners was held on March 6, 1990.
Commissioners present were Lois Prante, Tom Troop and Dick Maudlin. Also in
attendance were Rick Isham, County Counsel; County Administrator Mike Maier;
and other staff including George Read, Karen ? and Bruce White.
Discussion of Ordinance No. 90-014, revising provisions concerning surface
mining, and declaring an emergency.
Staff indicated that changes have been made based on testimony and other
factors. (Reference was made to the Ordinance.) There were a variety of
housekeeping changes to reference other parts of Code. Changes were made
regarding allowing a caretaker residence. There was a minor change in language
regarding natural screening, the types of screening and how much screening
would be required.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, March 6, 1990 Page 1 of 4
Also discussed was the exception for an 18 -month operation, which was clarified
to indicate that there needs to be screening if the work starts up again.
Streams and natural drainage clarifying language was added at the request of
LCDC.
In regard to blasting, an issue was raised in this regard. It would not be allowed
unless it was specifically permitted under the ESEE analysis. The ordinance has
been clarified to reflect this. Mr. Maudlin said that blasting is a part of mining and
processing, especially in hard -rock sites. There was a long discussion about this
issue, and whether blasting should be a conditional use.
The group referred to the definition of surface mining in the ordinance, which
does not specifically refer to blasting. It does refer to processing and production.
Staff has been asked why they don't use the definition of mining as written by
DOGAMI. Staff feels it is substantially the same.
Ms. Prante pointed out that they cannot place restrictions that prohibit access to
the resource. Staff said that they can if the argument can be held that the
resource is not that significant. This is particularly important for hard -rock sites.
That is the only way to protect the resource. The property owners are not going
to blast unless they have to. This is probably relevant in about twenty of the sites
that were examined.
Regarding fish and wildlife impacts, a long discussion occurred whether this
should be a requirement for all sites, or addressed individually. They would ask
Fish & Wildlife, and it would also be in the ESEE analysis. Mr. Maudlin objected to
adding even more words.
There was further discussion about mitigation if the ESEE indicates that habitat
must be protected.
Specific use standards were addressed for the impact area. A new paragraph
would be added to clarify when locating a home too close to operations. This
cannot prevent the mining from proceeding.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, March 6, 1990 Page 2 of 4
Regarding irrigation district sites, where the material is being used by the district,
it is felt that those need to be removed from the inventory altogether, and treat
them as non -Goal 5 resources. Most of them are grandfathered in anyway.
Highway construction connected uses need to stay on the inventory, as these
sites need to be protected for processing purposes. This means that someone
cannot build close to the site and then try to shut down the operation — it would
be protected.
Mr. Maudlin asked to discuss what surfacing mining includes. This should list pit
mining, open operations and processing. He wants to know how the word
`processing' is defined. Mr. Read stated that this assumed that this included
batch plants and concrete plants were processing. This was challenged in a
couple of court cases, and it was found that they were not processing by DOGAMI
definitions, but the legislature changed this and indicated they are.
The County ordinance was amended in between these cases and legislative work,
excluding batch plants and concrete plants, so now the County has to change this
again. This will supersede the old language.
Actual bagging the material on site is an industrial process and not allowed under
the zoning. The same would apply to making concrete blocks. It would have to
be a resource dependent use with no other reasonable place to do it. They could
apply for a limited use combining zone.
Mr. Maudlin pointed out that surface mining includes process. Processing
includes crushing, mining, milling and screening. The ordinance shows other
things as being a conditional use or subject to site plan review, such as crushing of
mineral on designated sites per the ESEE. It seems to be redundant. Ms. Prante
said they split the uses into lower and higher impacts. Some can be done outright
without site review or a conditional use. Others with a higher impact need to be
done as a conditional use. Mr. Maudlin said this doesn't seem to make sense the
way it is written. Mr. Throop indicated that now he is confused as well.
The meeting was continued until the next Monday to allow staff to clarify some of
the points discussed.
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, March 6, 1990 Page 3 of 4
I certify that the above is a true and accurate record of a meeting, as reproduced from a
cassette tape identified as Minutes of a Meeting of the Deschutes County Board of
Commissioners, held on March 6, 1990. This record was completed subsequent to the presiding
Deschutes County Board of Commissioners' tenure.
Bonnie Baker
For the Board of County Commissioners
Transcription of Audio Recording of a Work Session, March 6, 1990 Page 4 of 4