I.V. significant aggregate site hearing continued
From our weekly issue dated April 23, 2008
Planning director Michael Snyder presented evidence to commissioners.(Photo by Michelle Binker Illinois Valley News)
Whether to add an Illinois Valley property to Josephine County’s list of significant aggregate sites has yet to be settled after a series of three public hearings.
The county board of commissioners was to take up the issue again at 9 a.m. Wednesday, April 30 at Anne G. Basker Auditorium in Grants Pass.
During the third hearing on Wednesday, April 16, from which Commissioner Jim Raffenburg was absent, Jim Dole, legal counsel for the applicant, Barlow Sand & Gravel, asked for a continuation to address questions about the unlikelihood of the mining proposal’s bar-skimming element being granted a permit, and which portions of the property under the proposed activity are required to be included in the soil classification acreage.
Click here to learn more about how you can tell us what you think
After county commission Chairman Dave Toler read an e-mail from Frank Schnitzer, of Oregon Dept. of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI), into the record, Toler asked Michael Snyder, county planning director, “Why would we entertain including into the inventory for aggregate a portion (of the property) that it appears would never be permitted?”
Snyder replied that he’d had no chance to review the new evidence. But he stated that Schnitzer has no regulatory jurisdiction over a project below the traditional high-water mark, which is overseen by the Oregon Dept. of State Lands (DSL).
“I have no idea of what DSL does or how they go about their process,” Snyder said. “If DOGAMI is telling you that the (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) won’t issue that permit, maybe you need to hear from DSL.”
Bill Peterson, representative for Barlow, argued that the property owner has the right to apply for the permit.
“The question here ... in seeking to include the property in the inventory is, ‘What is the intent of the owner?’ It is the intent of the owner to seek a permit on this property and then do bar-shaping and skimming on this land,” Peterson stressed.
“No matter what Mr. Schnitzer may assert is the potential outcome of a permit application,” he continued, “the fact is that the statute specifically permits an application to be filed … and that the agency would receive such a permit. That has not been withdrawn. There is no moratorium that would prohibit the owner’s attempt to make such an application, so it is in fact our intent.”
Merlin resident Holger Sommer took exception to the fact that Snyder had met with the applicants prior to the hearing.
Advertisement:
“Everything we heard from him today was arguments for the applicant,” Sommer said. “The opposition had no chance to meet with him on these issues, so he could make a balanced presentation to (the commissioners).”
Sommer also reminded the commissioners that in past decisions they have sought to protect the potential agricultural uses of the land, which is also a top priority of state land-use goals.
“It would make no sense to go against the Oregon land use rules and go with the lower use of the soils,” Sommer stated.
The agricultural suitability of some soil types is improved with irrigation.
Grants Pass attorney Dole reiterated Barlow’s request for continuance to address the “new evidence” of Schnitzer’s e-mails.
“You’ve got a statement from a responsible agency official on what’s obviously an important concern for you,” Dole told the commissioners. “Quite frankly, our position legally is that it shouldn’t make any difference, because the rules that you’re operating under say ‘proposed mining area,’ it doesn’t say, ‘permitted mining area.’ And that makes all the difference in the world.”
Dole stressed that requiring an applicant to show that a site would be permitted before it is added to the inventory is “backwards,” and would discourage future applicants.
“The idea is that you consider if it’s a viable source for a proposed mining permit so as to give the applicant -- or for that matter if the county wanted to add something to the inventory for its own purposes – give it the ability to move forward on that,” Dole explained.
“The permitting process,” he continued, “is extremely complex and very expensive. Unless you give the opportunity to add something to the inventory to get it out of the gate there is no manageable way to address this.”
The suggestion that the continuation be held in Cave Junction was rejected for lack of adequate recording abilities, which is important, as Snyder pointed out, because the case likely will come next before the state Land Use Board of Appeals.
