Item 1: PH on Ordinance Amending Metro Plan (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

In response to.aptoceduralquestionraised at the August 29, 2006 Lane County Planning Commission meeting, Mr. Howe, upon consulting with the County Counsel, said it was not legally required for commissioners to listen to recorded tapes of prior deliberatio~ they had missed. Mr. Sullivan said he had listened to the tapes of the deliberations meeting in question. In response to'Ms. Colbath, Mr. Howe said if the impact area needed to be greater than 1,500 feet; it should be raised individually with each issue discussed. He added that GoalS established an' automatic 1,500 foot impact area around the perimeter of the s~bj ect property in a PAPA plan amendment. Furthermore, he stated that because the variance process was a separate one, the commissioners should assume a request for a related variance was approved. Mr. Howe concurred with Mr. Sullivan's assertion that that the applicant would not request a variance in the residential zoned area, but would ask for a variance in the agricultural area. In response to Mr..Cannichael, Mr. Howe iterated that the variance issue had been adequately addressed, in that the assumption that the variance was approved. In response to Ms. Arkin, Ms. Schulz said there was no map of the variance location in the record. However, a written legal description of the subject property, Exhibit 50, shows the site. Responding to Mr. Belcher, Mr. Howe stated that the Planning Commissions could make a recommendation to the elected officials to address. minimizing the impact of fencing at the site. Mr. Carmichael opened the discussion, comm~ncing with: · Determine if mining conflicts can be minimized: o Groundwater: .. Is there a conflict due to groundwater? Mr.Siekiel-Zdzienicki sought clarification of the location of the low-permeability barrier within the 150 foot . -setback. Mr. Howe stated that the aquaclude had been well presented in the record around the perimeter of the. expansion area. Ms. Schulz said theaquaclude had never been removed from the proposal, explaining that it would be constructed to provide the mitigation for reduction of groundwater in the area. She concurred with Ms. Arkin's statement that EGR's February 16, 2006 Exhibit 55 contained a diagram that illustrated the . groundwater barrier. The question, Mr. Howe stated, was there conflict due to groundwater? Ms. Colbath called fora Eugene Planning Commis'sion straw vote that asked: Was there a conflict due to groundwater without the aquaclude. The result of the straw vote was 5:0 that there was a conflict due to groundwater. The Lane County Planning Commission took a'straw vote,. 6:0 that there was a conflict due to groundwater.