My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel
COE
>
City of Eugene
>
Council Agendas 2008
>
CC Agenda - 04/21/08 Work Session
>
Item A: Delta Sand and Gravel
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/9/2010 1:00:57 PM
Creation date
4/18/2008 9:50:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council
City_Council_Document_Type
Agenda Item Summary
CMO_Meeting_Date
4/21/2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
79
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
(ORS 215.296 Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive <br />farm use zones. (1) A use allowed under ORS 215.213 (2) or <br />215.283 (2) may be approved only where the local governing <br />body or its designee finds that the use will not: <br />(a) Force a significant change in accepted farm or forest <br />practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or <br />(b) Significantly increase the cost of accepted farm or forest <br />practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use.) <br /> <br />As stated previously in these findings, the established agricultural use of tax lot 900 and <br />the established mining operations of the adjacent existing facility have co-existed for many years <br />without conflict. We find that approval of this application will not change the relationship <br />between the two adjacent uses and will not result in conflict between the two uses. Accordingly, <br />approval of this application will have no effect on the farm practices occurring on tax lot 900, <br />will not change those practices and will not significantly increase the cost of those practices on <br />tax lot 900. We further find that the historical relationship between the two uses, as testified by <br />the applicant and the owner of the adjacent agricultural land, coupled with the immediate <br />location of each to the other, provides a factual basis for the reasonable conclusion that approval <br />of this application is consistent with ORS 215.296. <br /> <br />(d) The local government shall determine any significant <br />conflicts identified under the requirements of subsection (c) of <br />this section that cannot be minimized. Based on these conflicts <br />only, local government shall determine the ESEE consequences <br />of either allowing, limiting, or not allowing mining at the site. <br />Local governments shall reach this decision by weighing these <br />ESEE consequences, with consideration of the following: <br />(A) The degree of adverse effect on existing land uses within the <br />impact area; <br /> <br />We find that the applicant has demonstrated, through the analysis and evaluations of its <br />professional consultants, that all potential significant conflicts to all existing and approved land <br />uses within the impact area resulting from mining activities in the proposed expansion area can <br />be minimized. All existing and approved land uses within the impact area have been identified. <br />All potential and significant conflicts have been identified under the requirements of subsection <br />(c) of this section. Reasonable and practicable measures have been identified to minimize all <br />identified conflicts. A conflict is deemed minimized when there is conformance with the <br />applicable standard. OAR 660-023-0180(1)(f). If an identified potential conflict can be <br />demonstrated to comply with the applicable local, state or federal standard, an ESEE analysis is <br />not required to determine whether the conflict has been reduced to a level that is no longer <br />significant. Based upon the analysis and conclusions of the applicant’s professional consultants, <br />as discussed herein, we find that all significant potential conflicts can be minimized. Following <br />that determination, we are not required to determine the ESEE consequences of allowing, <br />limiting or not allowing mining within the proposed expansion area. OAR 660-023-0180(4)(c) <br />provides that if reasonable and practicable measures are identified to minimize all identified <br />conflicts, mining shall be allowed at the site and subsection (d) of that section is not applicable. <br />We find that the applicant has demonstrated that reasonable and practicable measures have been <br /> <br />identified to minimize all identified potential significant conflicts. Consequently, the <br />requirements of OAR 660-023-0180(d) are not applicable to this application. <br /> <br />(e) Where mining is allowed, the plan and implementing <br />ordinances shall be amended to allow such mining. Any required <br />measures to minimize conflicts, including special conditions and <br />procedures regulating mining, shall be clear and objective. <br />Additional land use review (e.g., site plan review), if required by <br />the local government, shall not exceed the minimum review <br />necessary to assure compliance with these requirements and <br />Ordinance - 21 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.