Following a public
hearing the board, by a 5-0 vote, found that the consolidated application from
Oregon Pipeline LLC did not meet several criteria among the county’s land-use
standards.
The vote brings to an
end a review process that was put on hold for almost two and a half years by the
applicant’s legal challenge to the board’s jurisdiction.
Testimony in
Wednesday’s hearing was allowed only from representatives of Oregon Pipeline and
project opponent Columbia Riverkeeper, but the board also reviewed written
comments submitted by citizens and other parties prior to the
hearing.
Wednesday’s decision
reverses the original ruling made by the board of commissioners in November 2010
to approve the application. In January 2011 the board, with three new members,
voted to withdraw the approval and reconsider the application. In a new hearing
in March of that year the board tentatively rejected the application, but was
prevented from finalizing that decision when the Oregon Supreme Court issued a
stay on the county at the request of Oregon Pipeline.
The company argued
that the board’s move to withdrawn the original November 2010 approval was done
after the mandated deadline. The company’s motion was denied by a Clatsop County
Circuit Court judge and the Oregon Court of Appeals, and in April 2013 the
Oregon Supreme Court declined to review the appeals court ruling. In August the
Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals approved a motion from the county to resume the
reconsideration process.
At Wednesday’s
hearing the board deliberated whether Oregon Pipeline’s application met the
standards of twelve comprehensive plan land-use goals, eight zoning
designations, four land-use overlays and other criteria. As they did at the
March 2011 hearing, the commissioners largely accepted the findings of Community
Development Department staff, who recommended denial of the application based on
their findings that the proposed project did not meet several of the
criteria.
In particular, staff
determined that the pipeline meets the definition of a “transmission” line,
which is not allowed in two of the affected zones, versus a “distribution” line,
and that the project was not compatible with other uses on surrounding
lands.
No comments:
Post a Comment