Ord 1312 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

adjacent to an existing golf course. The Board finds that the Elkhorn Estates Planned Development, approved by the county in 1982, cannot be "reasonably accommodated" in the alternative locations suggested by the opponents. C. The Application Does Not Propose a "Destination Resort" Several opponents argued that the application requested the siting of a "small destination resort," and therefore should be denied under the destination resort criteria of ORS 197.445 and Goal 8. However, the application does not propose a destination resort pursuant to ORS 197.435 - 467 or Goal 8 and this decision is not based on the criteria of ORS 197.435 —467 or Goal 8. The site does not qualify as a destination resort location because it is not within the map of eligible lands adopted by Marion County pursuant to ORS 197.455. The application addresses all applicable subdivision approval criteria and is not subject to the requirements of the destination resort statute or Goal 8. The Board finds that opponents have not explained why the county should be required to treat an application as a "destination resort" where the application does not fit within the statutory criteria for such a resort and the applicant has not requested treatment as a destination resort under the county's plan and the applicable statutes. See Doherty v. Morrow County, 44 Or LUBA 141 (2003). D. Compliance With Goal 11 and Goal 14 Exception Criteria Opponents express general disagreement with the premise that the county may approve an "urban" resort with "urban" level of services on rural land under the applicable goal exception criteria. However, the Board finds that this is precisely what the Goal 11 and Goal 14 exception rules are designed to allow, so long as those criteria are satisfied. Opponents assert that the applicant may not be allowed to rely in part on a need for specific "rural" characteristics in order to satisfy the applicable criteria for a goal exception. However, the actual criteria set forth in the applicable state rules contain no such prohibition. Rather, the rules provide that the county may approve the requested exception if it finds that the proposed development cannot be "reasonably accommodated" within an urban area or through the expansion of a UGB. The applicant has submitted a significant amount of evidence on which the Board has adopted findings that the proposed use cannot be reasonably accommodated on urban land, or other land that would not require an exception, and that the applicable criteria for the requested exceptions are met. The Board finds that the project complies with the criteria for exceptions to Goal 11 and 14. E. Environmental Issues Opponents assert that the project will result in adverse environmental consequences to elk herds, salmon and steelhead, and that the application violates MCCP Fish and Wildlife Habitat Policies 4 and 5. Opponents also assert that the proposed development would have a devastating impact on wildlife habitat and water quality. The Board relies on testimony by the applicant and its consultants, including the letters from Steven Shropshire, dated January 10, 2008 and July 23, 2008, as well as letters from Tracy Cork, dated December 10, 2007 and June 12, 2008, and finds that it is feasible to provide an appropriate level of water and sewer service to the proposed development. Additionally, the Board finds that development of the project will not pose any threat to human health or the health of aquatic species, and will provide enhancement to water quality. The Board also finds that the Habitat Management Plan, to be approved by ODFW, appropriately and sufficiently addresses wildlife issues raised by the opponents. The Board therefore imposes as conditions of approval the requirement that the applicant continue to work with state and federal agencies to create and implement such environmental management plans. These conditions are attached. -35-