Item A: Public Hearing onMetro Plan Amendment (Delta Sand and Gravel)

Home Browse Search

Respondents argue first that the language that petitioners rely on in Morse Bros. I Ine. is dicta, because the issue in that case was whether the county could use its surface mining ordinance to impose criteria that are in addition to those set out at OAR 660-023-0180. Even if the language is not dicta, respondents contend that LUBA's and the Court of Appeals' decisions merely recognize that OAR 660-023-0180(2)(c) and (7) prohibit local governments from using local standards to add to the list of conflicts that must be considered under OAR 660-023-0 180(4), or from adding sta~dards of approval that are not identified in the rule. According to respondents, OAR 660-023-0180(2)( c) and (7) do not categorically prohibit what the county has done in this case: conclude that because petitioner has not satisfied OAR 660-023-0180 requirements, neither a plan map amendment nor a zoning amendment is justified. 17 The Goal 5 rule for aggregate establishes a comprehensive regulatory scheme that is intended to supersede local review standards for aggregate. Here, the county appears to have based its denial of the application in part on local code provisions that are not intended to implement OAR 660-023-0180, and its reasons for denial are based in part on considerations that are not set out in the rule. For example, the county found that LC 16.252(2) had not been met because the rezoning is "contrary to the public interest." Record 75 (see n 17, setting out the finding). Therefore, the county erred to the extent it based its denial on those local code 17 The county's findings state, in relevant part: "33. Based upon the evaluation that the proposed mining plan does not meet the requirements of the Goal 5 Rule for mineral and aggregate resources in OAR 660- 023-0180 and the proposal fails to meet the other listed reasons for amending the Rural Comprehensive Plan, the Board concludes that the Rural Comprehensive Plan should not be amended." Record 74. "35. [With respect to LC 16.252(2), the Board of Commissioners] finds that the requirements for rezoning the property to Sand, Gravel and Rock Products Zone (SG) are not met because the proposal fails to meet the requirements of Lane Code 16.400 to receive a Rural Comprehensive Plan designation of Natural Resource: Mineral. The proposal also fails to meet the requirements of the Goal 5 rule for mineral and aggregate resources * * * and the Board [of Commissioners] concludes rezoning would be contrary to the public interest." Record 75. Page 42