News

Stories about land use and planning from local and national sources. Ideas and events that affect livable urban and rural communities.

Archived

Applegate gravel pit project hits roadblock

Mail Tribune
December 06, 2007

Winery owners and other neighbors have prevailed in appeals to stop plans for a gravel pit in the Applegate Valley.

A Jackson County hearings officer decided that neither the traffic plan nor a flood plain study for a proposed aggregate mine at the Krouse Ranch were adequate. He denied the applications that would be needed for the proposed pit.

"It was quite a community effort," said Ted Warrick, an owner of Wooldridge Creek Winery who filed the appeals.

"The hearings officer made a good decision to deny the application on its merits," he said, noting that the involved neighbors were pleased with the result.

Ranch owner Phil Krouse and his attorney Dan O'Connor of Medford weren't available for comment Wednesday after hearings officer Donald Rubenstein handed down his decisions.

However, the company that planned to mine the rock, Copeland Sand and Gravel Inc. of Grants Pass, will "analyze the decisions and try to decide the next steps," said Bill Peterson, its director of administration.

Krouse filed a Measure 37 claim that would clear land-use restrictions on the ranch in June 2005, and, a year later, Copeland proposed a 20-acre pit operation that would remove 514,000 tons of rock. Measure 49 has cast the future of that claim into doubt, legal experts have said in past news stories.

This summer opponents disputed a preliminary decision by Jackson County planners that the pit could operate without disrupting traffic or disturbing the safety of North Applegate Road, the sole access to the proposed pit. Appeals by Warrick and Steve Rouse pointed out that the road is too narrow for heavy gravel-hauling trucks and claimed that such trucks couldn't safely share the road with school buses, tourists, commuters, cyclists, fire trucks and ambulances.

"The hearings officer considered all the users," Warrick said.

Rubenstein's decision and final order concludes Krouse's original application didn't have adequate plans to handle damage to the shoulder of the narrow road by large trucks, or to the road's emergency vehicle traffic access, limited visibility, and potential conflicts between trucks and pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycle riders. Krouse's application also lacked plans to deal with the inability of gravel trucks to safely pass one another and with dust in the air and scattered gravel on the road, both caused by trucks having to move to the shoulder for oncoming traffic to pass.

The county also had given tentative approval to a review of flood plain data Krouse submitted, prompting another appeal by Warrick and one by Nancy Fleischman. The appeals claimed that Krouse's proposal could cause flooding at neighboring properties, didn't take into account current conditions on the land where the gravel pit was proposed and failed to meet federal, state and local regulations.

Rubenstein concluded that Krouse's flood plain study failed to use data and methodology approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The county requires that studies of potential flooding meet the federal agencies standards.

Rubenstein found the same failings in a flood plain review submitted by John and Wesley Hill on property across the river from the proposed Krouse pit. The Hills also sought to develop a gravel pit for Copeland and the plans, which were approved in January, were appealed by neighbor Linda Ford. On appeal, Rubenstein denied the Hill application, too.

Reach reporter Anita Burke at 776-4485 or at aburke@mailtribune.com

LInk to the artile

TAKE ACTION

Get Involved with 1000 Friends of Oregon.

Support

Action Items

Volunteer