“The act of the expansion of the quarry — during 1989 — when it encompassed this second parcel, in effect, gave Lincoln Count the authority to regulate Eckman Creek Quarry. That authority, to regulate that quarry under a CU, has existed since 1989. I then let Wayne Belmont and Jerry Herbage know what I learned.” Onno Husing May 7, 2018
PLEASE ENJOY these Emails!
Email from Lincoln County Planning Director, Onno Husing dated MAY 7, 2018
Robert, this weekend I wrote and sent an email (see below) to the Planning Commission. My message explains the change in position, we, the staff, have taken. That communication addresses much of what you are asking us to share with you in this email. The County Commissioners are also in the loop on this matter.
I will be contacting Dave Kauffman this week (as noted in the statement below). We will start staff work on a set of recommendations to the Planning Commission for a set of conditions that would be built into a conditional use (CU) permit. We will start by reviewing the conditions we place on other quarries in Lincoln County. We will take this process through the Planning Commission (I will not elect to process the CU it administratively). Once that process starts, we will follow our administrative requirements under the code for public notice, etc. Property owners within 500 feet of the outer perimeter of the two parcels owned by Dave Kauffman will receive written notice of the CU process (because the zoning in this area is timber conservation). Other folks, outside the formal notice area (whether they are impacted or not), are welcomed to participate. To gain standing (standing to appeal) in the CU process you need to submit a letter or establish standing by attending the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission when this is on the agenda.
We cannot, yet, impose land use restrictions on the quarry (things like hours of operation, blasting notices, etc) until the CU process is complete. I expect the staff work on the conditional use process to proceed, in earnest, next week. I will write the staff report. We will be working with our Planning Commission to set a date for an upcoming hearing on the CU. Of course we will keep you informed throughout the process. As such, since you asked me to speculate how long this will take, we may be at least two months or so out from when the CU process is complete (there are notice periods and potential appeal periods that need to be observed). If the CU is appealed my estimates about the length of the process won’t apply.
Thanks!
Onno
E mail from Onno: Sent to the Lincoln County Planning Commission yesterday [early May 2018]
DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION:
Last week Robert Rubin appeared at the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners meeting. He asked Lincoln County to regulate the Eckman Creek Quarry under a conditional use (CU) permit. Afterwards Wayne Belmont requested a packet of information to review.
I took that opportunity, once again, to review all the information. This time, though, when looking at that stack of information, I noticed a map showing the “permit boundary” that — to my eyes this time around — seemed an odd configuration.
That prompted me to look at our GIS system again. I saw the location (including aerial photography) of quarry activities, the permit history, and checked it against the arrangement of the parcels. To my surprise, I realized the quarry operations had, during 1989, been expanded (formalized through a DOGAMI permit) to encompass a second parcel. I contacted staff at DOGAMI, again, to ask their help interpreting DOGAMI’s regulatory record.
Here’s what I determined.
The act of the expansion of the quarry — during 1989 — when it encompassed this second parcel, in effect, gave Lincoln Count the authority to regulate Eckman Creek Quarry. That authority, to regulate that quarry under a CU, has existed since 1989. I then let Wayne Belmont and Jerry Herbage know what I learned.
Robert Rubin, it should be noted, pointed that out. But, I missed it. I thought the “expansion” was elsewhere on the existing parcel. I was in error.
I called Robert Rubin to explain what I learned. I let him know I now agreed with him; that Lincoln County has the authority to regulate the quarry under a CU permit.
I apologized to Robert. I take full responsibility. I told Robert I respected his tenacity in pursuing this matter because he genuinely believed he was correct.
And, as always, when something like this happens, I will take stock of what happened to learn from it.
——————————– NEXT STEPS
This week I will call to Dave Kauffman (the quarry owner/operator). Unless Dave can provide additional-new information to persuade us to reverse, again, the regulatory status of the quarry, he will need to go through a CU process. I don’t expect new information can change these factual circumstances.
Our first step, from a staff perspective, will be to review the list of conditions (operating hours, blasting notices, etc.) for the other quarries we regulate in Lincoln County. Intuitively, I believe our task of preparing a list of draft conditions to regulate the quarry, under a CU, starts with a review of what we require of other quarries (under their CU permits). In any event, I think this is a good outcome. Thank you. [written by Onno Husing, May 2018}
REPRINTED same 2 emails with my commentary 10/3/2018 in Larger BOLD
Email from Onno dated MAY 7, 2018
Robert, this weekend I wrote and sent an email (see below) to the Planning Commission. My message explains the change in position, we, the staff, have taken. That communication addresses much of what you are asking us to share with you in this email. The County Commissioners are also in the loop on this matter.
Dir. Husing has taken more than 26 months defending a 26 year old error, rather than addressing the merits of the complaint. This was bungled and mis handled from the moment Dir. Husing took over from staff.
I will be contacting Dave Kauffman this week (as noted in the statement below). We will start staff work on a set of recommendations to the Planning Commission for a set of conditions that would be built into a conditional use (CU) permit. We will start by reviewing the conditions we place on other quarries in Lincoln County. We will take this process through the Planning Commission (I will not elect to process the CU it administratively).
The reviewing of conditions of other quarries should take no longer than a week.
Onno claims to be relinquishing his authority to administratively process this permit application.
However someone is allowing that quarry to operate illegally, without any restrictions often before 7 AM, moving and crushing rocks , blasting, trucking and operating heavy equipment. According to Onno, since 1989!
Once that process starts, we will follow our administrative requirements under the code for public notice, etc. Property owners within 500 feet of the outer perimeter of the two parcels owned by Dave Kauffman will receive written notice of the CU process (because the zoning in this area is timber conservation). Other folks, outside the formal notice area (whether they are impacted or not), are welcomed to participate. To gain standing (standing to appeal) in the CU process you need to submit a letter or establish standing by attending the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission when this is on the agenda.
No adjacent neighbors have received any notices
THEN lincoln County Planning Director Onno Husing writes.
“We cannot, yet, impose land use restrictions on the quarry (things like hours of operation, blasting notices, etc) until the CU process is complete.”
THIS IS A MOST INTERESTING OPINION MR. HUSING. Can you back up this statement with law or statute? This apparent Catch -22 is a unique flaw in the land use laws enforcement.
Onno Husing states he cannot impose restrictions until the process is complete. Why would anyone apply for a permit, if they are aware the LCPD will not enforce land use laws. Why apply?
I expect the staff work on the conditional use process to proceed, in earnest, next week. I will write the staff report. We will be working with our Planning Commission to set a date for an upcoming hearing on the CU. Of course we will keep you informed throughout the process. As such, since you asked me to speculate how long this will take, we may be at least two months or so out from when the CU process is complete (there are notice periods and potential appeal periods that need to be observed). If the CU is appealed my estimates about the length of the process won’t apply.
THAT NEXT WEEK occurred in MAY 2018! Where is the staff report?
Thanks! Onno
Please see my Sept. 7 E mail below, to ONNO requesting information. NO RESPONSE yet. Not being kept “informed throughout the process”.
Onno’s email to commissioners referred to above:
“Sent to the Lincoln County Planning Commission yesterday” MAY 5-7 2018
“DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION:
Last week Robert Rubin appeared at the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners meeting. He asked Lincoln County to regulate the Eckman Creek Quarry under a conditional use (CU) permit. Afterwards Wayne Belmont requested a packet of information to review.
I attended the CC meeting, after a year repeated attempts to present the facts to the Planning Commission only to be denied that opportunity by Dir. Husing, and finally told to file an appeal with LUBA. Please read the E mails section of the website.
I took that opportunity, once again, to review all the information. This time, though, when looking at that stack of information, I noticed a map showing the “permit boundary” that — to my eyes this time around — seemed an odd configuration.
We received the majority of the information from DOGAMI in Sept. 2016. This included the maps referred to. When the Director issued his NOV. 2017 final determination letter, aka the “cut and paste statute” he wrote:
“the finding our Department issued was based on an exhaustive review of information related to the operation of Eckman Creek Quarry and its regulatory history”
I will address the fascinating cut and paste memorandum elsewhere on the qwyp.com website.
That prompted me to look at our GIS system again. I saw the location (including aerial photography) of quarry activities, the permit history, and checked it against the arrangement of the parcels. To my surprise, I realized the quarry operations had, during 1989, been expanded (formalized through a DOGAMI permit) to encompass a second parcel. I contacted staff at DOGAMI, again, to ask their help interpreting DOGAMI’s regulatory record.
Here’s what I determined.
The act of the expansion of the quarry — during 1989 — when it encompassed this second parcel, in effect, gave Lincoln Count the authority to regulate Eckman Creek Quarry. That authority, to regulate that quarry under a CU, has existed since 1989. I then let Wayne Belmont and Jerry Herbage know what I learned.
Robert Rubin, it should be noted, pointed that out. But, I missed it. I thought the “expansion” was elsewhere on the existing parcel. I was in error.
I called Robert Rubin to explain what I learned. I let him know I now agreed with him; that Lincoln County has the authority to regulate the quarry under a CU permit.
I apologized to Robert. I take full responsibility. I told Robert I respected his tenacity in pursuing this matter because he genuinely believed he was correct.
And, as always, when something like this happens, I will take stock of what happened to learn from it.
This quarry still operates without a permit Oct.3, 2018
——————————– NEXT STEPS
This week I will call to Dave Kauffman (the quarry owner/operator). Unless Dave can provide additional-new information to persuade us to reverse, again, the regulatory status of the quarry, he will need to go through a CU process. I don’t expect new information can change these factual circumstances.
This week, in context would be the second week of May, 2018. Onno uses a variety of methods to stall and delay the permit process. One consistent ploy is to say he has to contact David or visit the site. Aside from using this as a delaying tactic, it is a constant reminder that Onno only wants to do what’s right for the quarry. Not the neighborhood, nor enforcement of the law! Onno, in 2016 immediately adopted a one sided and unbalanced opinion of this land use issue based on his previous and recent “conversations with former Dept. employees and colleagues.“ Not the evidence provided by DOGAMI or statutes. He wasted dozens of hours defending his wrong position. He only discovered the error of his finding, after County Counsel Wayne Belmont requested a packet of information. Thank you Mr. Belmont The quarry operations have been now been leased to ARI a multi state quarry operator headquarted in Sprinfield Oregon. The quarry still operates without restrictions.
Our first step, from a staff perspective, will be to review the list of conditions (operating hours, blasting notices, etc.) for the other quarries we regulate in Lincoln County. Intuitively, I believe our task of preparing a list of draft conditions to regulate the quarry, under a CU, starts with a review of what we require of other quarries (under their CU permits). In any event, I think this is a good outcome. Thank you.
Sept. 7, 2018
Dear Onno,
The new operators at Eckman started at 6 AM, on Wed. Sept. 5.
I visited the site to verify. I was told to call the Sprinfield office regarding any permits.
I then decided to attend the County Commissioners meeting.
On a call back later from the ARI office we received the response, “we are lawful and will work when we need to.”
We think they need a CUP. We believe this type of operation should be regulated. You stated so yourself in early May. [letter below]
We hope that process is nearing completion.
We have not seen or heard anything from your office to believe that process has started.
You made quite a few statements in your letters below.
Would you please copy us with your communications with David since your decision regarding a CUP.
Has an application for a CUP been filed? What date was it filed?
Who applied for the CUP? ARI or Kauffman?
Have you written the staff report? Can we get a copy of it please?
We never received a copy of the official ‘findings’ memorandum regarding your May decision that ECQ does indeed need a CUP.
Could we please get that?
Has staff completed the ‘other quarry conditions review’ and the ‘staff recommendations on conditions’?
Your May 7 comment below, clearly cannot be correct.
“We cannot, yet, impose land use restrictions on the quarry (things like hours of operation, blasting notices, etc) until the CU process is complete.”
We believe that one role of the Planning Dept. is code enforcement. What if they never apply for a CUP???
“An essential responsibility of the Department of Planning and Development is ensuring compliance with land use and building codes in unincorporated areas of Lincoln County through code enforcement.”
” Of course we will keep you informed throughout the process.”
I have not been kept informed of anything except your opinion in an e mail on June 6:
“As I noted in previous correspondence, Lincoln County won’t seek to shut them down because we are still working through the regulatory issues. I promised Dave, after I communicated to Dave that it looks like we need to run him through a CU, that I would visit the site, to understand — from his perspective — what’s happening on the ground.
Maybe you could promise us, you will try to resolve this complaint of Feb. 29, 2016, to correct a quarter century failing, as we believe this is a function of the Dept. you direct.
You also wrote June 6:
“And YES we are paying close attention to the 1989 expansion (the regulatory expansion) which may indeed enable us (indeed obligate us) to regulate the quarry. The bottom line is this time around I am going to MAKE SURE WE GOT IT RIGHT. And if it is clear Lincoln County is under obligation to regulate that quarry then we will put them through a CU process. That’s not a big deal. If that happens the conditions to run the quarry will, I anticipate, match the conditions we have for other quarries in Lincoln County subject to CUs.”
This implies you are re thinking your May decision of the necessity of a CUP. We anticipate seeking Land Use Board clarification shortly to assist you and speed up the process.
Based on your written statements as director of LCPD, your opinion, is LCPD cannot regulate ECQ, until they apply for a CUP. That concurs with the ARI statement “they will work when they want”, and David’s statement ” I have no rules”.
We would love to hear the CUP is progressing and see some verification that the process is in motion.
We appreciated your call Friday afternoon telling us we were correct in our 2/29/2016 alert/complaint to the LC Planning Dept. and that based on additional file review, including evidence of 1989 expansions of lot size, permit area, and new reclamation plans, Eckman Creek Quarry/Kauffman Crushing does need a conditional use permit, and that the process to get that permit may commence.
1….We still would like the information requested below regarding the recent Planning Commission meeting and vote, where the planning commission choose to agree with your Dept. findings, resulting in our being told to go to LUBA at the 4/23 meeting. That suggestion and Mr. Belmont’s suggestion, at the Wed. 5/2 County Commissioner’s meeting, that I ‘have my attorney contact him’, prompted us to retain a land use attorney.
2…. We would like to see the latest official response to our complaint.
3…..We would like to know if Eckman Creek Quarry/Kauffman Crushing has been notified of their lack of Lincoln County land use permissions? Are they aware of what activities they can and cannot do at this time? We would like to be sent copies of those notifications, and other communications related to this issue. We have been told the quarry had activity on Sunday, and has been active this morning, Monday May 7. Gates are open and trucks are on the road.
4…. With the knowledge that this operation does not have any required local land use permissions issued by Lincoln County, what activities are presently allowed?
5….Please keep us in the loop regarding this land use permit process, and let us know when a land use permit for Eckman Creek Quarry/ Kauffman Crushing has been applied for.
6….Who does the process require the county to inform? Adjacent property owners only, or all who may be impacted by an operation of this type. Will public notices be posted and sent to the media? What are the steps in a land use permit process application? How long does it usually take?
“Dave can, though, please understand, blast and do it legally.
Yes, Eckman Creek Quarry is operating.
As I noted in previous correspondence, Lincoln County won’t seek to shut them down because we are still working through the regulatory issues. I promised Dave, after I communicated to Dave that it looks like we need to run him through a CU, that I would visit the site, to understand — from his perspective — what’s happening on the ground.
And YES we are paying close attention to the 1989 expansion (the regulatory expansion) which may indeed enable us (indeed obligate us) to regulate the quarry. The bottom line is this time around I am going to MAKE SURE WE GOT IT RIGHT. And if it is clear Lincoln County is under obligation to regulate that quarry then we will put them through a CU process. That’s not a big deal. If that happens the conditions to run the quarry will, I anticipate, match the conditions we have for other quarries in Lincoln County subject to CUs.”
This is CLASSIC ONNO After his 2 emails from May claiming LCPD has the authority to regulate the quarry, including a BS apology, he is again backtracking, and reconsidering his May determination. ” The bottom line is this time around I am going to MAKE SURE WE GOT IT RIGHT. And if it is clear Lincoln County is under obligation to regulate that quarry then we will put them through a CU process. That’s not a big deal.” Not a big deal to Onno.
I will get you the information you are asking for, plus, reviewing the entire fileOnno
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 9:43 AM, <p@peak.org> wrote:
Dear Onno,Regarding Eckman Creek Quarry/Kauffman Crushing.At the recent 4/23 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission informed me they will not hear our side of the issue, and suggested we go to LUBA.We do not see any public record of the minutes from the meeting where this was decided.Please provide us with the minutes from the meeting when the Planning Commission made this decision.Please provide the date, location, and time of the meeting, plus who attended and how each commissioner voted.Thank youRobert Rubin
What our Planning Commission chose to do was follow instructions provided them by our County Counsel, communicated by me, about the proper path to have someone (like you) contest the staff's finding, under the land use system.In the meantime, I will speak with Dave Kauffman, get his views on the matter, again, make sure we are not missing something, and get ready to move forward on the CU.Again, I think this is a good outcome.Onno
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 4:36 PM, <p@peak.org> wrote:
Dear Onno,Thanks for the reply and the explanation of the CU process. * Regarding this statement......"We cannot, yet, impose land use restrictions on the quarry (things like hours of operation, blasting notices, etc) until the CU process is complete"It is surprising you still support this attitude despite your own revelations. Please verify that statement.We disagree with this as a fact. Again we assert, Lincoln County Planning Dept. has the authority to act now regarding Eckman Creek Quarries/Kauffman Crushing. We feel LCPD can, should, and is required by law, rules, statutes and codes, to enforce and regulate such things. We feel it is your mandate to enforce code violations, and prevent, suspend or shut down, non authorized, and non permitted, land use operations.We suggest you speak to county counsel and the county commissioners regarding this.We propose a temporary agreement, of set days and hours of operations, during the CU permitting process, versus a complete shutdown. As a temporary compromise, we propose LCPD immediately limit the operations and hours to M- F , 7 AM - 4 PM as mentioned by David Kauffman previously, as his preferred working days and hours. No drilling. No Blasting. That will prevent further violations, and the quarry can operate during the CUPWe propose this as an option to shutting it down due to the lack of a required local land use permit. Right now ECQ/KC DOES NOT have a conditional land use permit. yet they continue to operate. They can drill, blast crush and load trucks. These actions are a possible code violation subject to enforcement. Enforcement by LCPD. We will research other agencies and enforcement options if LCPD continues to neglect it's apparent responsibilities.For more than 25 years this quarry has operated without any necessary required local legal land use permissions. They crushed rocks, blasted and drilled without DOGAMI required local land use permissions. Working on Saturdays, starting a rock crusher 5 AM weekdays, drilling on Easter Sunday! {not authorized...illegal}Your statement implies that you still feel ECQ/KC can continue to operate with NO RESTRICTIONS. You acknowledge that after 26 month's with the same information, you finally recognize LCPD does have the authority to regulate. In fact, LCPD has had the authority to regulate since 1989. Yet you refuse to use that authority.There is nothing to prove a land use permit will ever be issued.
We regret, short of an agreement by all parties to these proposed hours during the CUP, the quarry should be shut down from all activities, until it receives CU permissions to operate on the site. ECQ/KC presently lacks a local land use permit and is in code violation. Lincoln County Planning Department is the 'enforcement' and regulatory arm of, Lincoln County, DOGAMI.
Ian Madin SEPT. 19, 2017 Deputy Director and Chief Scientist DOGAMI
“When the permit area was expanded in 1989, the expansion plan was circulated to other agencies for review and comment. We have no record that the County responded. Had the County objected to the expansion on the basis of land use, the permit for expansion would not have been issued. 2015 ORS 215.427¹ Final action on permit or zone change application(1) Except as provided in subsections (3), (5) and (10) of this section, for land within an urban growth boundary and applications for mineral aggregate extraction, the governing body of a county or its designee shall take final action on an application for a permit, limited land use decision or zone change, including resolution of all appeals under ORS 215.422
*We still would like the information requested below regarding the recent Planning Commission meeting and vote, where the planning commission choose to agree with your Dept. findings, resulting in our being told to go to LUBA at the 4/23 meeting.ThanksRobert
Robert, this weekend I wrote and sent an email (see below) to the Planning Commission. My message explains the change in position, we, the staff, have taken. That communication addresses much of what you are asking us to share with you in this email. The County Commissioners are also in the loop on this matter.I will be contacting Dave Kauffman this week (as noted in the statement below). We will start staff work on a set of recommendations to the Planning Commission for a set of conditions that would be built into a conditional use (CU) permit. We will start by reviewing the conditions we place on other quarries in Lincoln County. We will take this process through the Planning Commission (I will not elect to process the CU it administratively). Once that process starts, we will follow our administrative requirements under the code for public notice, etc. Property owners within 500 feet of the outer perimeter of the two parcels owned by Dave Kauffman will receive written notice of the CU process (because the zoning in this area is timber conservation). Other folks, outside the formal notice area (whether they are impacted or not), are welcomed to participate. To gain standing (standing to appeal) in the CU process you need to submit a letter or establish standing by attending the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission when this is on the agenda.We cannot, yet, impose land use restrictions on the quarry (things like hours of operation, blasting notices, etc) until the CU process is complete. I expect the staff work on the conditional use process to proceed, in earnest, next week. I will write the staff report. We will be working with our Planning Commission to set a date for an upcoming hearing on the CU. Of course we will keep you informed throughout the process. As such, since you asked me to speculate how long this will take, we may be at least two months or so out from when the CU process is complete (there are notice periods and potential appeal periods that need to be observed). If the CU is appealed my estimates about the length of the process won't apply.Thanks!Onno
I've had a follow up conversation with David.
It has been quite some time (20-30 years), Dave reports, since they (the quarry) did notifications about blasting. And, in those days, when the blasting was higher up in the quarry the sound would carry much farther than today. That was so long ago those folks may not live there anymore.
Robert, you claim to be representing these "people". Are you in conversation with these people? Who are these people? Give us the names of folks who want to be on a notification list. Dave will give notice of blasting to them, voluntarily, but, again, who wants notice?
If I don't get us a list, or, unless I hear from people who want notice, Dave will make sure you get notice.
------------------------
The quarry will, as Dave notes, continue to operate 7 am to 4 pm Monday through Friday.
Dave explained to me, maybe, very rarely, he will have the crews work on a Saturday (often just part of a Saturday).
Dave though, naturally, avoids being open on Saturday because like any business person, best to not pay overtime if you can avoid that. There are, in other words, powerful financial incentives to working within the work week.
Dave notes perhaps twice a year he as the driller come in to the quarry and they "do a shot" (early summer and then late summer/early winter just before the rains). And, Dave noted if there is an emergency and because, lets say, a road is out he will be open to address the emergency. FYI, DOGAMI staff told me that even with regulated quarries, the later-established quarries subject to local land use regulations, these quarries always have "emergency-you-can-open operating procedures" provisions. DOGAMI furnishes local government model ordinances for that purpose.
I will send you, soon, a short memo I prepared for the Lincoln County Planning Commission. The memo explains how we (the staff) reached a finding Lincoln County does not have the authority to regulate the quarry. I will share that memo with you and Dave Kaufmann and anyone who has an interest in this.
Thank you.
Onno Husing
EMAILS A MUST READ
“The act of the expansion of the quarry — during 1989 — when it encompassed this second parcel, in effect, gave Lincoln Count the authority to regulate Eckman Creek Quarry. That authority, to regulate that quarry under a CU, has existed since 1989. I then let Wayne Belmont and Jerry Herbage know what I learned.” Onno Husing May 7, 2018
PLEASE ENJOY these Emails!
Email from Lincoln County Planning Director, Onno Husing dated MAY 7, 2018
Robert, this weekend I wrote and sent an email (see below) to the Planning Commission. My message explains the change in position, we, the staff, have taken. That communication addresses much of what you are asking us to share with you in this email. The County Commissioners are also in the loop on this matter.
E mail from Onno: Sent to the Lincoln County Planning Commission yesterday [early May 2018]
DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION:
Last week Robert Rubin appeared at the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners meeting. He asked Lincoln County to regulate the Eckman Creek Quarry under a conditional use (CU) permit. Afterwards Wayne Belmont requested a packet of information to review.
I took that opportunity, once again, to review all the information. This time, though, when looking at that stack of information, I noticed a map showing the “permit boundary” that — to my eyes this time around — seemed an odd configuration.
That prompted me to look at our GIS system again. I saw the location (including aerial photography) of quarry activities, the permit history, and checked it against the arrangement of the parcels. To my surprise, I realized the quarry operations had, during 1989, been expanded (formalized through a DOGAMI permit) to encompass a second parcel. I contacted staff at DOGAMI, again, to ask their help interpreting DOGAMI’s regulatory record.
Here’s what I determined.
The act of the expansion of the quarry — during 1989 — when it encompassed this second parcel, in effect, gave Lincoln Count the authority to regulate Eckman Creek Quarry. That authority, to regulate that quarry under a CU, has existed since 1989. I then let Wayne Belmont and Jerry Herbage know what I learned.
Robert Rubin, it should be noted, pointed that out. But, I missed it. I thought the “expansion” was elsewhere on the existing parcel. I was in error.
I called Robert Rubin to explain what I learned. I let him know I now agreed with him; that Lincoln County has the authority to regulate the quarry under a CU permit.
I apologized to Robert. I take full responsibility. I told Robert I respected his tenacity in pursuing this matter because he genuinely believed he was correct.
And, as always, when something like this happens, I will take stock of what happened to learn from it.
——————————– NEXT STEPS
This week I will call to Dave Kauffman (the quarry owner/operator). Unless Dave can provide additional-new information to persuade us to reverse, again, the regulatory status of the quarry, he will need to go through a CU process. I don’t expect new information can change these factual circumstances.
Our first step, from a staff perspective, will be to review the list of conditions (operating hours, blasting notices, etc.) for the other quarries we regulate in Lincoln County. Intuitively, I believe our task of preparing a list of draft conditions to regulate the quarry, under a CU, starts with a review of what we require of other quarries (under their CU permits). In any event, I think this is a good outcome. Thank you. [written by Onno Husing, May 2018}
REPRINTED same 2 emails with my commentary 10/3/2018 in Larger BOLD
Email from Onno dated MAY 7, 2018
Robert, this weekend I wrote and sent an email (see below) to the Planning Commission. My message explains the change in position, we, the staff, have taken. That communication addresses much of what you are asking us to share with you in this email. The County Commissioners are also in the loop on this matter.
Dir. Husing has taken more than 26 months defending a 26 year old error, rather than addressing the merits of the complaint. This was bungled and mis handled from the moment Dir. Husing took over from staff.
I will be contacting Dave Kauffman this week (as noted in the statement below). We will start staff work on a set of recommendations to the Planning Commission for a set of conditions that would be built into a conditional use (CU) permit. We will start by reviewing the conditions we place on other quarries in Lincoln County. We will take this process through the Planning Commission (I will not elect to process the CU it administratively).
The reviewing of conditions of other quarries should take no longer than a week.
Onno claims to be relinquishing his authority to administratively process this permit application.
However someone is allowing that quarry to operate illegally, without any restrictions often before 7 AM, moving and crushing rocks , blasting, trucking and operating heavy equipment. According to Onno, since 1989!
Once that process starts, we will follow our administrative requirements under the code for public notice, etc. Property owners within 500 feet of the outer perimeter of the two parcels owned by Dave Kauffman will receive written notice of the CU process (because the zoning in this area is timber conservation). Other folks, outside the formal notice area (whether they are impacted or not), are welcomed to participate. To gain standing (standing to appeal) in the CU process you need to submit a letter or establish standing by attending the meeting(s) of the Planning Commission when this is on the agenda.
No adjacent neighbors have received any notices
THEN lincoln County Planning Director Onno Husing writes.
“We cannot, yet, impose land use restrictions on the quarry (things like hours of operation, blasting notices, etc) until the CU process is complete.”
THIS IS A MOST INTERESTING OPINION MR. HUSING. Can you back up this statement with law or statute? This apparent Catch -22 is a unique flaw in the land use laws enforcement.
Onno Husing states he cannot impose restrictions until the process is complete. Why would anyone apply for a permit, if they are aware the LCPD will not enforce land use laws. Why apply?
I expect the staff work on the conditional use process to proceed, in earnest, next week. I will write the staff report. We will be working with our Planning Commission to set a date for an upcoming hearing on the CU. Of course we will keep you informed throughout the process. As such, since you asked me to speculate how long this will take, we may be at least two months or so out from when the CU process is complete (there are notice periods and potential appeal periods that need to be observed). If the CU is appealed my estimates about the length of the process won’t apply.
THAT NEXT WEEK occurred in MAY 2018! Where is the staff report?
Thanks! Onno
Please see my Sept. 7 E mail below, to ONNO requesting information. NO RESPONSE yet. Not being kept “informed throughout the process”.
Onno’s email to commissioners referred to above:
“Sent to the Lincoln County Planning Commission yesterday” MAY 5-7 2018
“DEAR PLANNING COMMISSION:
Last week Robert Rubin appeared at the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners meeting. He asked Lincoln County to regulate the Eckman Creek Quarry under a conditional use (CU) permit. Afterwards Wayne Belmont requested a packet of information to review.
I attended the CC meeting, after a year repeated attempts to present the facts to the Planning Commission only to be denied that opportunity by Dir. Husing, and finally told to file an appeal with LUBA. Please read the E mails section of the website.
I took that opportunity, once again, to review all the information. This time, though, when looking at that stack of information, I noticed a map showing the “permit boundary” that — to my eyes this time around — seemed an odd configuration.
We received the majority of the information from DOGAMI in Sept. 2016. This included the maps referred to. When the Director issued his NOV. 2017 final determination letter, aka the “cut and paste statute” he wrote:
“the finding our Department issued was based on an exhaustive review of information related to the operation of Eckman Creek Quarry and its regulatory history”
I will address the fascinating cut and paste memorandum elsewhere on the qwyp.com website.
That prompted me to look at our GIS system again. I saw the location (including aerial photography) of quarry activities, the permit history, and checked it against the arrangement of the parcels. To my surprise, I realized the quarry operations had, during 1989, been expanded (formalized through a DOGAMI permit) to encompass a second parcel. I contacted staff at DOGAMI, again, to ask their help interpreting DOGAMI’s regulatory record.
Here’s what I determined.
The act of the expansion of the quarry — during 1989 — when it encompassed this second parcel, in effect, gave Lincoln Count the authority to regulate Eckman Creek Quarry. That authority, to regulate that quarry under a CU, has existed since 1989. I then let Wayne Belmont and Jerry Herbage know what I learned.
Robert Rubin, it should be noted, pointed that out. But, I missed it. I thought the “expansion” was elsewhere on the existing parcel. I was in error.
I called Robert Rubin to explain what I learned. I let him know I now agreed with him; that Lincoln County has the authority to regulate the quarry under a CU permit.
I apologized to Robert. I take full responsibility. I told Robert I respected his tenacity in pursuing this matter because he genuinely believed he was correct.
And, as always, when something like this happens, I will take stock of what happened to learn from it.
This quarry still operates without a permit Oct.3, 2018
——————————– NEXT STEPS
This week I will call to Dave Kauffman (the quarry owner/operator). Unless Dave can provide additional-new information to persuade us to reverse, again, the regulatory status of the quarry, he will need to go through a CU process. I don’t expect new information can change these factual circumstances.
This week, in context would be the second week of May, 2018. Onno uses a variety of methods to stall and delay the permit process. One consistent ploy is to say he has to contact David or visit the site. Aside from using this as a delaying tactic, it is a constant reminder that Onno only wants to do what’s right for the quarry. Not the neighborhood, nor enforcement of the law! Onno, in 2016 immediately adopted a one sided and unbalanced opinion of this land use issue based on his previous and recent “conversations with former Dept. employees and colleagues.“ Not the evidence provided by DOGAMI or statutes. He wasted dozens of hours defending his wrong position. He only discovered the error of his finding, after County Counsel Wayne Belmont requested a packet of information. Thank you Mr. Belmont The quarry operations have been now been leased to ARI a multi state quarry operator headquarted in Sprinfield Oregon. The quarry still operates without restrictions.
Our first step, from a staff perspective, will be to review the list of conditions (operating hours, blasting notices, etc.) for the other quarries we regulate in Lincoln County. Intuitively, I believe our task of preparing a list of draft conditions to regulate the quarry, under a CU, starts with a review of what we require of other quarries (under their CU permits). In any event, I think this is a good outcome. Thank you.
We have not seen or heard anything from your office to believe that process has started.
Has an application for a CUP been filed? What date was it filed?
Could we please get that?
Your May 7 comment below, clearly cannot be correct.
On Mon, May 7, 2018 at 11:38 AM, <perfect@peak.org> wrote:
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Archives
Categories
Meta