HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-14-09 Latham Appeal
Board Memo – Latham Excavation
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 15, 2009
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Paul Blikstad, Senior Planner
RE: Appeal of Hearings Officer’s decision on CU-07-102, SP-07-46 (MA-08-3, MA-
08-4); also file nos. A-08-14, A-08-20, for Latham Excavation
This memo is a supplement to the memo I sent to you on October 30th. This is intended to give
an overview of the main issues that staff sees are involved in the Latham appeals.
• What constitutes a noise and dust sensitive use:
The Hearings Officer determined that the entire area of adjacent properties that are within the
half-mile radius constitute a noise and dust sensitive use. We as staff have consistently
interpreted the code such that dwellings are noise and dust sensitive uses (or the other uses
listed in the definitions – churches, hospitals, libraries, etc.), not the areas around them. We
think this is the correct interpretation of the code, and what was intended when the ordinance
was originally adopted in 1990.
• Whether the expansion of the proposed surface mine operation requires a revised
ESEE (Environmental, Social, Economic and Energy) analysis by the County,
through a plan amendment;
The Hearings Officer found that the proposed expanded operation did not require a revised
ESEE analysis. Her findings on this issue are listed on pages 6-7 of the decision. The last
paragraph of the findings on this issue states:
“In sum, there is nothing in the adopted Goal 5 program for mining, the Site 303 Program or the
SM Ordinance provisions that prohibit the submittal of an application to mine pumice and
Tumalo Tuff at the site.”
• Whether the use of the term “processing” in the ESEE analysis (at site 303 as well
as numerous other sites in the County) was intended to allow crushing;
The Hearings Officer found that the use of the term processing for site 303 did allow crushing.
Her findings on this are on pages 10-11 of the decision. Staff believes this is consistent with
prior surface mining decisions, and is also consistent with how this same language was used in
the ESEE findings for other mining sites in the county. Additionally, the definition of processing
in Title 18 (county zoning) includes “crushing.”
• The degree of protection to be afforded under the visual screening standards of
the code and the manner in which the topographical exception should be applied;
The ESEE analysis does list Tumalo State Park for protection. In the analysis, the “Program to
Meet the Goal” (page 12), the ESEE states:
“23. The Board finds that in order to protect both the aggregate resource and the conflicting
resources and uses, the site on top of the plateau will be zoned for surface mining, subject to
the following ESEE conditions:
(b) Noise and visual impacts shall be mitigated by buffering and screening, with
particular attention paid to screening from Tumalo State Park or the eastern,
northeastern and southeastern boundaries.”
The primary issue is whether the “headwall” that has been produced at the site should or should
not be allowed, based on the perceived impacts to the Park, and surrounding lands (see
condition no. 17). Staff is not sure what was meant to be protected for the “eastern,
northeastern and southeastern boundaries” other than possibly the dwellings that were in place
in 1990.
As staff has previously stated to the Board, the headwall is visible only from the upper trail at the
park. It is not visible from the day use or overnight camping areas, where staff believes the
majority of the park use occurs.
The other screening issue is the requirement that the applicant establish either a berm or
vegetative buffer on the northern 100 feet of the property to buffer the Hoffman property from
the mining activity (condition no. 12). The Hearings Officer states on page 20 of the decision
the following:
“However, the hearings officer concludes that the processing activities, equipment and
excavated south wall are visible from the Hoffman property, and that supplied screening
and berming along the north boundary is feasible and appropriate to ensure that views
from the Hoffman’s property are protected. A condition of approval is warranted to
ensure that a berm is installed and supplied screening is planted within the setback to
screen the site from the Hoffman property.”
• Where the proposed crushers and washer (if allowed) should be located on the
site.
The Hearings Officer required that the crushers, as well as the washer (see footnote 10 on page
13 for the washer), should be located in the southwestern site as depicted on the applicant’s site
plan (this was staff’s recommendation also). The three locations were pointed out to the Board
at the work session yesterday. The Hearings Officer’s findings on this issue are located on
pages 13-14 of the decision (also see condition no. 9). The decision states on page 14:
“The hearings officer therefore finds that because there is a location on the site that
minimizes the impact of noise and dust from the crusher, that site is the most
appropriate location for the activity. Accordingly, the hearings officer imposes a
Board Memo – Latham Excavation
Page 2 of 4
condition of approval limiting the location of the crusher to the southwestern site,
depicted on the applicant’s aerial overlay and contours, dated February 18, 2008.”
• Reclamation of the site. Whether incremental reclamation is required and
whether the County has any authoritative role in the reclamation.
Both staff and DOGAMI believe that the reclamation of the site is under the authority of the
State. The zoning ordinance requires that the reclamation plan be submitted with the
application, which the applicant submitted. Whether incremental reclamation is required is up to
the State. The applicant has State approval for the mine, including reclamation. The Hearings
Officer’s decision has no conditions related to reclamation. The decision states on page 30 the
following:
“Even if DOGAMI exempts certain areas within the site from reclamation, the site as a
whole is subject to DOGAMI control. The only role the county has in that case is to
ensure that the reclamation plan proposes an ultimate use that is consistent with the
county’s post-reclamation plans for the site. Here, the site is planned and zoned for
surface mining, and no post-mining use of the site has been identified. The proposal is
consistent with those designations and the reclamation plan.”
• Dust abatement at the site.
The hearings produced much testimony on the amount of dust produced from the site. During
the hearings process the applicant applied hydro-mulch to some of the open areas on the site,
specifically to the eastern portion of the site where there is no current mining activity (nor is any
proposed there). The hydro-mulching appeared to be a very good way to control dust at the
site. Prior to the application of this material, dust appears to have been a substantial problem at
the site, as evidenced by the numerous testimony from neighbors and pictures submitted into
the record by property owners in the area. The Hearings Officer, under condition no. 7, includes
item b, which states: “application the (sic) dust-supressant and/or sealant products that meet
State regulations.” Staff believes that this condition could be “beefed up” by actually putting in
the condition the requirement that the exposed areas, including that portion of the headwall not
being mined all be treated with the hydro-mulch. Staff believes that anything that can reduce
dust and the complaints from neighbors is needed in this application. Dust is a major issue for
this and well as any other mine. Also in the record is a letter from the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality dated June 2, 2008. The last sentence of this letter states:
“Therefore, the Department, while recognizing that dust from the site could be an
unpleasant nuisance to nearby residents, has concluded that it is very unlikely to pose a
significant threat to the health of these residents.”
• Impacts to the ground water supply (aquifer) in the area.
The neighbors were concerned about the possible contamination of the ground water supply in
this area from the mining operation. The main concern appeared to be directed at
contamination from possible spills at the site (such as fuel or other chemicals from the mining
activities) on the well for the Tumalo Rim Subdivision. The applicant submitted evidence of an
Emergency Response Plan for the operation, which was attached as an exhibit to the
modification submittal, and included as a condition of approval (see condition no. 8) of the
decision. Based upon that plan and the recent comments staff received verbally from Water
Resources (Kyle Gorman), there should be adequate protection for the ground water source.
Board Memo – Latham Excavation
Page 3 of 4
• Additional traffic impacts (including noise) from more trucks coming to and
leaving the site, and insufficient sight distance at the intersection of the entrance
road and Johnson Road.
Staff notes that both the County Road Department and the County Transportation Planner
recommended that no improvements to Johnson Road were necessary. The notice of appeal
from Paul Dewey also lists as an alleged error in the decision any analysis and mitigation of the
Highway 20/O.B. Riley/Cook Avenue intersection. This intersection was not addressed in the
Hearings Officer’s decision.
The Hearings Officer addressed the noise from the trucks on page 23. The finding states: “The
noise measurements exclude warning devices not operating continuously for more than five
minutes, or sounds created by the tires or motor used to propel any road vehicle complying with
the standards for road vehicles. OAR 340-035-0035(4).”
Board Memo – Latham Excavation
Page 4 of 4