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

Home Browse Search

As stated previously in these findings, the established agricultural use of tax lot 900 and the established mining operations of the adjacent existing facility have co-existed for many years without conflict. We find that approval of this application will not change the relationship between the two adjacent uses and will not result in conflict between the two uses. Accordingly, approval of this application will have no effect on the farm practices occurring on tax lot 900, will not change those practices and will not significantly increase the cost of those practices on tax lot 900. We further find that the historical relationship between the two uses, as testified by the applicant and the owner of the adjacent agricultural land, coupled with the immediate location of each to the other, provides a factual basis for the reasonable conclusion that approval of this application is consistent with ORS 215.296. (d) The local government shall determine any significant conflicts identified under the requirements of subsection (c) of this section that cannot be minimized. Based on these conflicts only, local government shall determine the ESEE consequences of either allowing, limiting, or not allowing mining at the site. Local governments shall reach this decision by weighing these ESEE consequences, with consideration of the following: (A) The degree of adverse effect on existing land uses within the impact area; We find that the applicant has demonstrated, through the analysis and evaluations of its professional consultants, that all potential significant conflicts to all existing and approved land uses within the impact area resulting from mining activities in the proposed expansion area can be minimized. All existing and approved land uses within the impact area have been identified. All potential and significant conflicts have been identified under the requirements of subsection (c) of this section. Reasonable and practicable measures have been identified to minimize all identified conflicts. A conflict is deemed minimized when there is conformance with the applicable standard. OAR 660-023-0180(1)(f). If an identified potential conflict can be demonstrated to comply with the applicable local, state or federal standard, an ESEE analysis is not required to determine whether the conflict has been reduced to a level that is no longer significant. Based upon the analysis and conclusions of the applicant’s professional consultants, as discussed herein, we find that all significant potential conflicts can be minimized. Following that determination, we are not required to determine the ESEE consequences of allowing, limiting or not allowing mining within the proposed expansion area. OAR 660-023-0180(4)(c) provides that if reasonable and practicable measures are identified to minimize all identified conflicts, mining shall be allowed at the site and subsection (d) of that section is not applicable. We find that the applicant has demonstrated that reasonable and practicable measures have been identified to minimize all identified potential significant conflicts. Consequently, the requirements of OAR 660-023-0180(d) are not applicable to this application. (e) Where mining is allowed, the plan and implementing ordinances shall be amended to allow such mining. Any required measures to minimize conflicts, including special conditions and procedures regulating mining, shall be clear and objective. Additional land use review (e.g., site plan review), if required by the local government, shall not exceed the minimum review necessary to assure compliance with these requirements and shall not provide opportunities to deny mining for reasons unrelated to these requirements, or to attach additional approval requirements, except with regard to mining or processing activities: Page 19 – FINDINGS OF FACT