Ordinance No. 20413 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Construction of the aquaclude within the setback area requires an administrative variance pursuant to Lane Code that Lane County has approved (should the Metro Plan amendments succeed). As discussed above in our findings regarding flooding, EGR has provided adequate and significant evidence that the existence and operation of the aquaclude will not result in flooding of adjacent lands. The applicant and EGR testified that the trench constructed for the aquaclude will be filled with clay material excavated from other locations on the applicant's adjacent ownership and operation. We find that the proposed clay material for the aquaclude is a natural soil that will not decompose and will not pollute underground waters. Both Planning Commissions found unanimously that there was a conflict due to groundwater. The low permeability barrier (aquaclude) is proposed as mitigation, and the applicant should map the specific proposed location for the low-permeability barrier. The Eugene Planning Commission found unanimously that the aquaclude would minimize conflicts with groundwater to an adequate level. The Lane County Planning Commission voted 4-2 that the aquac1ude would not minimize the conflict with groundwater to an adequate level. We find that the proposed aquaclude is sufficient mitigation to minimize conflicts. (ORS 215.296 Standards for approval of certain uses in exclusive farm use zones. (1) A use allowed under ORS 215.213 (2) or 215.283 (2) may be approved only where the local governing body or its designee finds that the use will not: ( a) Force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use; or (b) Significantly increase the cost of acceptedfarm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use.) 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. Step 4 Weigh the Economic, Social, Environmental and Energy (ESEE) consequences of unminimized conflicts and determine whether to allow mining (only need to do this Step if there are conflicts that are not minimized) (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; Exhibit A to Ordinance 20413 - 23