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

Home Browse Search

The Lane County Pla~ing Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with Commissioner~ Becker, Kirkham, Carmichael, and Sullivan voting in opposition. . Can -the conflict due to agricultural practices be minimized through the applicant's proposed conditions to a level that will not force a significant change inac.ceptedfarmus nor increase the cost to conductfarming significantly? The . agricultural practices sta'ndard is found under the provisions. of ORS 215.296~ Ms. Colbath commented the person testified against the proposal and who lived within the 1,500 foot expansion area was leasing the property. She asserted a lessee, as a third party, did not have the same level of independence or ,authority to comment on the request. Mr. Belcher said there would be no way to mitigate the conflict on a farm that would not exist if the request was approved. Mr. Sullivan stated the owner had a right to farm or not to farm the property. If he chooses not to farm the property and chose to use Goal 5, Goal 5 took precedence over farm land if the owner could meet the requirements. He added whether it was a farm or not a farm was moot if the owner met the PAPA requirements since Goal 5 clearly superceded a farm. Mr. Sullivan stated that the person who testified from OSU Extension Services was a good friend. He said it was important to look at the broader picture" asserting that fann land was extremely important and veiy valuable. He said the issue was not farm land versus Goal 5, but rat.her does the PAPA meet the requirements necessary for that owner to be allowed to use that property the way s/he chooses to. The Eugene Planning Commission took a straw vote on: Can the conflict due to agricultural practices be minimized through the applicant's proposed conditions to a level that will not force a significant change in accepted farm use nor increase the cost to conduct farming significantly? The agricultural practices standard isfound under the provisionsofORS 215.2'96. The result was unanimous, 0:5. The Lane County Planning Commission took a straw vote the result of which was 2:4, with Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Carmichael, and Sullivan voting in opposition. The Planning Commissions took at recess from 7: 19 p.m. to 7:31 p.m. Mr. Carmichael reconvened the commissions. He stated the goal was to conclude the Step 3 discussion and proceed to Step 4. Mr. Howe stated the commissioners had successfully completed Step 3, and each kp.ew where their respective commissions stood on making recommendations to the elected ,officials on the various areas of potential conflict. Referring to.the GoalS process flow chart previously distributed, Step 3 called for determining if the mining conflict. could be minimized. Mr. Howe recalled on the issue of dust, both,Planning Commissions were recommending to the elected officials that the dust conflict was not minimized to the level that would meet DEQ and LRAP A standards through the conditions proposed by the applicant. Mr. Howe said this was the time for each Planning Commission to make-final recommendations to the - elected officials,. He explained that if the commissions feh an impact had not been minimized, the applicant '