Item B: Delta Sand and Gravel Metro Plan Amendment

Home Browse Search

The Lane County Planning Commission took a stra\\' vote the result of\vhich was 2:4, with Commissioners Becker, Kirkham, Cat1nichael, and Sullivan voting in opposition. . Can ti,e conflict due to agricultural practices be minimized tltrougll the applicant's proposed conditions to a level that will not force a significant change in accepted fart1l us nor increase the cost to conductfarlning significantly? The agricultural practices standard is found under the provisions of ORS 215.296. 1\18. Colbath comlnented the person testified against the .proposal and \vho lived \vithin the 1,500 foot expansion area \\las leasing the property. She a.sserted a lessee, as a third party, did not have the same level of independence or authority to C0111TI1ent on the request Mr. Belcher said there \vollld be no\vay to n1.itigate the conflict on. a farm that \vould not exist if the request was approved. Mr.. Sullivan stated the owner had a right to faml or not to faml the property~ Ifhe chooses not to farln the property and chose to use G'Oal 5, Goal 5 took precedence over farm land if the owner could tlleet the requirements. He a.dded \vhether it was a faul1 or not a farm \vas moot if the O\Vnernlet the PAPA requirenlents since Goal 5 clearly superceded a fann. Mr. Sullivan stated that tlle person who testified from OSU Extension Services was a good friend. He said it \vas iUlportant to look at the broader picture, asserting that farm land was extremely important and very valuable. He said the issue \vas not fann land versus Goal 5, but rather does the PAPA l11eet the requirements necessary for that o\vner to be allowed to. use that property the ,vay s/he chooses to. The Eugene Planning COlnmission took a stra\v vote on: Ca~1 the conflict due to agricultural practices be minin1ized through the applicant's proposed conditions to a level that ltdll not force; a significant change in accepted farm use nor increase the costoto con (luct farlning significantly'? The agricultural practices standard isfound under the ]Jrovisions o./YORS 215.296. The result "las unanitnous, 0:5. ,. Th.e Lane County Planning COl11lllission took a stra\v vote the result of which \vas 2:4, with C0111mlssioners Becker, Kirkham, Carmichael, al1d Sullivan voting in opposition. The Planning Commissions. took at recess from 7: 19 p.m. to 7:31 p.m. Mr. Caullichael reconvened the con1ffiissions. He stated the goal was to conclude the Step 3 discussion and proceed to Step 4. Mr. H.o\ve stated the conllnissioners had successfully con1pleted Step 3, alld each knevv where their respective commissions stood on making recomtnendatiotlS to the elected officials on tile various areas of potential conflict Referring to the Goal 5 process flow chart previously distributed, Step 3 called for detenllining if the tninin.g COllflict could be minimized. Mr. :Ho\ve recalled on the issue of dust, both Planning Comt11issions were recQtnmending to the elected officials that the dust conflict was..not luini111ized to tIle level that ,vould meet DEQ. and LRAP A standards through the conditions proposed by the applicant Mr. Howe 'said this was the tinle for each Platmitlg COmIl1ission to ll1akefinal recoIllinendatiolls to the elected officials. He explained tllat if the comnussions felt an impact llad not been Ininimized, the applicant MINUTES--- August 30, 2006 Joint Lane County and E.ugene PI aIming C01TI111.ission Page 8