Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />. ~t <br /> <br />provisions. Petitioner's first assignment of error and OCAP A's eleventh assignment of error <br />2 are sustained. <br /> <br />3 XII. CONCLUSION <br /> <br />4 We conclude that most of the conflicts that the county considered and found the <br />5 applicant failed to demonstrate could be minimized were properly considered by the county. <br />6 We also conclude that the county's findings concerning those conflicts are adequate and <br />7 supported by substantial evidence. However, we conclude that the county improperly <br />8 considered dust and traffic conflicts with farm stands as conflicts with "agricultural <br /> <br />9 practices" that may be analyzed under OAR 660-023-0180(4)(c) for compliance with ORS <br />10 215.296. Because we conclude that dust and traffic conflicts with the farm stands are not <br /> <br />11 properly analyzed as conflicts with "agricultural practices," those conflicts with the farm <br />12 stands may not be considered by the county on remand as "significant conflicts * * * that <br /> <br />13 cannot be minimized" in considering "the ESEE consequences of either allowing, limiting, or <br /> <br />14 not allowing mining at the site," under OAR 660-023-0180(4)(d). In addition, the county's <br /> <br />15 decision and the record in this appeal do not adequately explain the county's conclusion that <br />16 the proposed mining will lower groundwater level in a way that results in a significant <br />17 contlict with riparian areas. Accordingly, the county must adopt findings that better explain <br />18 its conclusion that conflicts between mining and riparian areas will not be minimized. <br />19 Finally, on remand, the county must not_consider or apply comprehensive plan and land use <br />20 regulation criteria that go beyond OAR 660-023-0180 in reviewing the application. <br /> <br />21 The county's decision is remanded. <br /> <br />Page 43 <br />