Ordinance No. 20413 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the wetland. EGR, in testimony provided during the planning commission joint public hearing and deliberation, testified that the aquaclude would not produce the types of impacts to the wetland argued by the opponents. EGR and the applicant provided further testimony during the elected officials' joint public hearing that the aquaclude would be constructed in a manner that leaves the top elevation of the clay-filled aquaclude one foot below the measured elevation of the wetland, approximately six to eight feet below ground surface. EGR testified that, even if the opponents were correct in their arguments that the aquaclude would negatively impact surface water that flows through the wetland (which EGR argues they are not), the modification to the aquaclude construction that positions the aquaclude beneath the measured elevation of the wetland will ensure that its existence and operation will not negatively impact the \vetland. Based upon the cumulative testimony of EGR we find that approval of the application will not result in negative impacts on the wetland. (E) Conflicts with agricultural practices; and We find that approval of the application will not conflict with current agricultural practices within the impact area. The only property within the impact area currently committed to agricultural use is tax lot 900, located on the subject property's northern boundary. The owner of tax lot 900 has maintained nursery tree stock on that property for many years without conflict or negative impact from the nearby Delta Sand and Gravel Company operating facility. The owner of tax lot 900 testified that he did not believe that Delta's mining within the expansion area would have negative effect on or conflict with his agricultural operation. The facility's existing excavation pit is immediately south of tax lot 900, well within 1500 feet of the agricultural use of tax lot 900. Approval of the application will not change the physical relationship of tax lot 900 to the excavation area. Therefore, we find that approval of the applicant will not result in conflicts with current agricultural practices. (F) Other conflicts for which consideration is necessary in order to carry out ordinances that supersede Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI) regulations pursuant to ORS 517.780; No ordinances that supersede DOGAMI regulations, pursuant to ORS 517.780 have been identified and therefore, no consideration of other conflicts associated with such ordinances is necessary. (c) The local government shall determine reasonable and practicable measures that would minimize the conflicts identified under subsection (b) of this sectioll. To determine whether proposed measures would minimize conflicts to agricultural practices, the requirements of ORS 215.296 shall be followed rather than the requirements of this section. If reasonable and practicable measures are identified to minimize all identified conflicts, mining shall be allowed at the site and subsection (d) of this section is not applicable. If identified conflicts cannot be minimized, subsection (d) of this section applies. Noise The applicant's expert, Daly-Standlee, concluded that, with appropriate noise mitigation measures, noise generated by future mining operations in the proposed expansion area will comply with the most demanding interpretation of the DEQ Noise Regulations for Industry and Commerce at all residential properties around the proposed expansion area. Exhibit A to Ordinance 20413 - 17