County and Waste Management Have Options Other than Appealing or Allowing Landfills on Farmland
Since July 6, when the Land Use Board of Appeals ruled that Yamhill County followed the wrong procedure in approving expansion of Riverbend Landfill, both the County and the landfill have considered whether to appeal or to follow the correct procedure (a process that requires amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow landfills on farmland).
Neither party seems to have considered an obvious third choice: establish a new timetable for closing the existing landfill.
The County's July 21 decision to put off amending the Zoning Ordinance creates an opportunity for both County and Riverbend to explore this option.
According to DEQ, the landfill currently accepts about 540,000 tons of waste annually, nearly two-thirds of it imported from outside Yamhill County. At this rate, DEQ estimates the landfill will close by July 2014.
Yamhill County and Waste Management, which owns Riverbend Landfill, both have a say in when the landfill closes.
Waste Management could direct some of waste now going to Riverbend to other facilities, including its dry-country facility at Arlington. The County could take advantage of a law Metro adopted that allows the County to ask Metro to send less waste to Riverbend. Since Metro accounts for 50% of the garbage deposited at Riverbend, taking this step alone would allow Riverbend Landfill to remain open well past 2014, without expanding.
Keeping the existing landfill open longer will allow Waste Management to implement a sustainable alternative technology for processing solid waste in Yamhill County. WMI and other waste handlers are already exploring modern technologies and using them elsewhere. Contrary to assertions made by Waste Management spokespeople, composting organic waste, requiring recovery of recyclable materials, and converting waste (not landfill gas) to fuel can reduce the volume of unusable waste to such a great extent that expansion should never be necessary.
More than 500 people own property within three miles of Riverbend Landfill -- an area of 18,000 acres, 4% of all the land in the County, including high-value farmland farmed by some of the County's largest agricultural enterprises. The Riverbend neighborhood and the South Yamhill River have borne the environmental, financial, and aesthetic burdens of a landfill for nearly thirty years. It's time for the County and Waste Management to explore a new way to handle our solid waste. Extending the landfill's life without expanding is an excellent first step.
The Solid Waste Advisory Commission (SWAC) is currently reviewing the County's Solid Waste Management Plan. Waste Not calls on the County to ask Waste Management to meet with SWAC to reshape the future of solid waste in Yamhill County. SWAC and Waste Management should engage in an open and frank discussion of alternative processes that will not destroy farmland, risk our air and water, diminish our County's beauty and tourist allure, or exploit local resources for the benefit of out-of-area garbage-generators and business owners.
Waste Not of Yamhill County, the Yamhill County Soil and Water Conservation District, Yamhill County Farm Bureau, Willamette Valley Wineries Association, Willamette Riverkeeper, and fourteen other individuals and businesses filed the appeal that led to LUBA's decision. This coalition remains opposed to expanding Riverbend Landfill. Expansion is not necessary to serve the County's residents and businesses today. With waste reduction and implementation of environmentally-sound waste processing alternatives, expansion will never be necessary.
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Commission stacked in WM’s favor
To the editor:
Regarding the Riverbend Landfill situation, appeals and now a new application for use — I have to comment. First off, we have to consider that we only have two county commissioners that are able to vote on this. The third one has a husband employed by the landfill’s owners.
Now we take into consideration that the county planning commissioners recommended denial and yet the two county commissioners voted for it. So, now we have both of these two that are in total support of approval (which are the only voters on the matter), requesting an ordinance change. The new change (when approved) would then allow the extension of the landfill onto farmland.
Of course, the use of farmland was the sole reason for denial by LUBA. And if the commissioners recommended new ordinance (which they are the only vote) passes, the landfill extension may then be approved by the two commissioners that changed the ordinance.
Is it just me or is this working out to be a Kangaroo court? Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that this may be a very biased situation here? To have the only two votes that supported it in the first place (over objections), ask for and be the only votes on a new ordinance that would almost outright permit the use, has got to be wrong!
Get busy Waste Management and build a burner or something that has less impact to the surrounding area, our home.
Roger Currier, Newberg
Regarding the Riverbend Landfill situation, appeals and now a new application for use — I have to comment. First off, we have to consider that we only have two county commissioners that are able to vote on this. The third one has a husband employed by the landfill’s owners.
Now we take into consideration that the county planning commissioners recommended denial and yet the two county commissioners voted for it. So, now we have both of these two that are in total support of approval (which are the only voters on the matter), requesting an ordinance change. The new change (when approved) would then allow the extension of the landfill onto farmland.
Of course, the use of farmland was the sole reason for denial by LUBA. And if the commissioners recommended new ordinance (which they are the only vote) passes, the landfill extension may then be approved by the two commissioners that changed the ordinance.
Is it just me or is this working out to be a Kangaroo court? Does anyone else have a problem with the fact that this may be a very biased situation here? To have the only two votes that supported it in the first place (over objections), ask for and be the only votes on a new ordinance that would almost outright permit the use, has got to be wrong!
Get busy Waste Management and build a burner or something that has less impact to the surrounding area, our home.
Roger Currier, Newberg
County appeals landfill decision
Land use — Comp plan change held in reserve; opponents urge new strategy
By: David Sale 7/24/2010
McMINNVILLE — The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners has elected not to pursue a change to the county comprehensive plan, but will appeal the recent verdict of the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) blocking expansion of Riverbend Landfill.
The decision came at the request of Riverbend’s parent company, Waste Management, which sought permission to expand the landfill footprint onto 87 adjacent acres zoned for agriculture.
“Initially we thought it was important to move quickly to initiate both processes, in the interest of time,” said Waste Management spokeswoman Jackie Lang. “After looking more closely at the options this week, we believe it makes sense to pursue the appeal as the first priority.”
Waste Management had sought approval for a goal exception to state land use law, which otherwise prioritizes farmland preservation. However, expansion opponents made a case — with which LUBA concurred — that while such an exception was permissible at the state level, the county’s own land use laws specifically blocked this type of development.
“The other process is still available if, in time, it becomes clear that we need to take that path,” Lang said. This would involve changing the county’s comprehensive plan to allow landfills on land zoned for exclusive farm use — a process likely to be as controversial as the two-year public hearings process that ensued to bring the expansion proposal this far.
Meanwhile, the members of Waste Not of Yamhill County — the coalition of landfill expansion opponents — urge a different tack.
“We feel strongly that the county and Waste Management should expend some of that energy they are investing in appeals ... on working out a deal to extend the existing landfill’s life while they develop a new long-term vision for handling our solid waste,” said Waste Not president Susan Watkins, adding that the Yamhill County Soil and Water Advisory Committee “can play a big role” in such a deal. The quasi-governmental agency has gone on record as opposing the landfill’s expansion.
“We know Waste Management is working with several alternatives that promise to be less harsh on the environment and the neighborhood than a landfill,” Watkins said, referring to new incineration technology being tested by Waste Management at its facility in Gilliam County. “Both the county and Waste Management can take steps to slow down the process that’s filling up the dump and give the county time to work up a new plan that can be implemented here if feasible.”
The appeal will be heard by the state Court of Appeals; a hearing date has yet to be announced.
By: David Sale 7/24/2010
McMINNVILLE — The Yamhill County Board of Commissioners has elected not to pursue a change to the county comprehensive plan, but will appeal the recent verdict of the state Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) blocking expansion of Riverbend Landfill.
The decision came at the request of Riverbend’s parent company, Waste Management, which sought permission to expand the landfill footprint onto 87 adjacent acres zoned for agriculture.
“Initially we thought it was important to move quickly to initiate both processes, in the interest of time,” said Waste Management spokeswoman Jackie Lang. “After looking more closely at the options this week, we believe it makes sense to pursue the appeal as the first priority.”
Waste Management had sought approval for a goal exception to state land use law, which otherwise prioritizes farmland preservation. However, expansion opponents made a case — with which LUBA concurred — that while such an exception was permissible at the state level, the county’s own land use laws specifically blocked this type of development.
“The other process is still available if, in time, it becomes clear that we need to take that path,” Lang said. This would involve changing the county’s comprehensive plan to allow landfills on land zoned for exclusive farm use — a process likely to be as controversial as the two-year public hearings process that ensued to bring the expansion proposal this far.
Meanwhile, the members of Waste Not of Yamhill County — the coalition of landfill expansion opponents — urge a different tack.
“We feel strongly that the county and Waste Management should expend some of that energy they are investing in appeals ... on working out a deal to extend the existing landfill’s life while they develop a new long-term vision for handling our solid waste,” said Waste Not president Susan Watkins, adding that the Yamhill County Soil and Water Advisory Committee “can play a big role” in such a deal. The quasi-governmental agency has gone on record as opposing the landfill’s expansion.
“We know Waste Management is working with several alternatives that promise to be less harsh on the environment and the neighborhood than a landfill,” Watkins said, referring to new incineration technology being tested by Waste Management at its facility in Gilliam County. “Both the county and Waste Management can take steps to slow down the process that’s filling up the dump and give the county time to work up a new plan that can be implemented here if feasible.”
The appeal will be heard by the state Court of Appeals; a hearing date has yet to be announced.
Friday, July 23, 2010
New Riverbend application hits snag
By Hannah Hoffman, News Register
UPDATE: Commissioners Kathy George and Leslie Lewis voted Wednesday to join Waste Management in its appeal of a July 7 decision by the state Land Use Board of Appeals denying a proposed Riverbend Landfill expansion. Oral argument before the Court of Appeals is expected in December, with a decision following a few months into the new year.
George and Lewis also directed the planning department to postpone initiating the process to change the county’s zoning ordinance until early next year. They decided they would revisit the issue in late February, reversing an earlier decision.
Waste Management spokeswoman Jackie Lang said the company supported the channge of course.
_____
Even if the county enacts a new zoning ordinance specifically authorizing landfills in farm zones, Riverbend Landfill's new expansion application will probably still require an exception to one element of Goal Three - a provision barring landfills on high-value farmland.
Ironically, taking a Goal Three exception was what led the state Land Use Board of Appeals to reverse the county's expansion approval in the first place. LUBA said the county should amend its zoning ordinance instead.
However, because the expansion targets what is virtually certain to qualify as high-value farmland, the county doesn't see any way around including an exception element once again. The only saving grace is that it would be much narrower in scope.
Jackie Lang, who speaks for Waste Management, Riverbend's Houston-based parent company, said the development shouldn't have any material effect.
She said, "This doesn't change our approach at all. We are pursuing this process because LUBA told us to do so."
However, Susan Watkins, president of the opposition group Waste Not, said incorporating an exceptions element into any new application by Riverbend or Waste Management for landfill expansion approval would, presumably, build more delay into the process. And she suggested that could create a time crunch for an operation expected to run out of room on its current site by 2014, less than four years away.
She said one constructive response would be to limit the landfill intake in the interim, giving everyone more time to work on solutions.
"They control how much waste they are taking in," Watkins said. "They can sit down at any time to limit the waste flow and keep the landfill open longer. That would allow time for the community to develop alternatives - a different way going forward."
LUBA issued its reversal July 7. It said the county and company had erred in taking an exception to state's farmland preservation goal in its entirety, since the goal specifically allows landfills on farmland under certain conditions.
In addition to submitting a new application, Riverbend plans to appeal the LUBA reversal to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Besides amending its zoning ordinance, the county is considering filing an appeal of its own or joining in Riverbend's appeal.
The two commissioners with a say in the matter, Leslie Lewis and Kathy George, told county counsel at the meeting last week that they supported an appeal of the LUBA decision. The counsel's office assumed that to mean the county would be joining Riverbend in a joint appeal, but George said Tuesday that she and Lewis wanted to consider the matter further.
She termed their initial response a hasty reaction to a frustrating decision, made at a point when it still wasn't clear what approach Waste Management would be taking. She said they had since decided they needed to explore the potential ramifications before making a hard and fast commitment.
Commissioner Mary Stern has recused herself throughout the process because her husband has long made his living in the waste disposal industry and currently works for Waste Management.
The Riverbend application went through the exceptions process because as it stands now, the county zoning ordinance forbids landfills on any farmland, regardless of value.
During last week's business meeting, Lewis and George authorized the staff to draft an amendment incorporating state language on the subject into the county ordinance. However, a complication has arisen.
One element of Goal Three is an Oregon Administrative Rule forbidding landfills on high value farmland. And County Planner Ken Friday included it in the draft amendment he submitted Monday to the state Department of Land Conservation and Development to meet a hearing deadline.
Planning Director Mike Brandt said the county had no choice but to include that language.
He said that would force Riverbend to either argue the acreage targeted for the expansion doesn't qualify as high value or pursue an exception on that point. He said he would recommend the latter, saying that would be a legally sounder course in his view.
The commissioners have scheduled a public hearing on the new zoning ordinance for 7 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 2, in Room 32 of the county courthouse. The state requires 45 days notice, which dictated the time of Monday's filing.
In addition to incorporating the state Goal Three language on the siting of landfills in farm zones, the county also included language to permit the siting of biofuel processing facilities in farm zones.
UPDATE: Commissioners Kathy George and Leslie Lewis voted Wednesday to join Waste Management in its appeal of a July 7 decision by the state Land Use Board of Appeals denying a proposed Riverbend Landfill expansion. Oral argument before the Court of Appeals is expected in December, with a decision following a few months into the new year.
George and Lewis also directed the planning department to postpone initiating the process to change the county’s zoning ordinance until early next year. They decided they would revisit the issue in late February, reversing an earlier decision.
Waste Management spokeswoman Jackie Lang said the company supported the channge of course.
_____
Even if the county enacts a new zoning ordinance specifically authorizing landfills in farm zones, Riverbend Landfill's new expansion application will probably still require an exception to one element of Goal Three - a provision barring landfills on high-value farmland.
Ironically, taking a Goal Three exception was what led the state Land Use Board of Appeals to reverse the county's expansion approval in the first place. LUBA said the county should amend its zoning ordinance instead.
However, because the expansion targets what is virtually certain to qualify as high-value farmland, the county doesn't see any way around including an exception element once again. The only saving grace is that it would be much narrower in scope.
Jackie Lang, who speaks for Waste Management, Riverbend's Houston-based parent company, said the development shouldn't have any material effect.
She said, "This doesn't change our approach at all. We are pursuing this process because LUBA told us to do so."
However, Susan Watkins, president of the opposition group Waste Not, said incorporating an exceptions element into any new application by Riverbend or Waste Management for landfill expansion approval would, presumably, build more delay into the process. And she suggested that could create a time crunch for an operation expected to run out of room on its current site by 2014, less than four years away.
She said one constructive response would be to limit the landfill intake in the interim, giving everyone more time to work on solutions.
"They control how much waste they are taking in," Watkins said. "They can sit down at any time to limit the waste flow and keep the landfill open longer. That would allow time for the community to develop alternatives - a different way going forward."
LUBA issued its reversal July 7. It said the county and company had erred in taking an exception to state's farmland preservation goal in its entirety, since the goal specifically allows landfills on farmland under certain conditions.
In addition to submitting a new application, Riverbend plans to appeal the LUBA reversal to the Oregon Court of Appeals. Besides amending its zoning ordinance, the county is considering filing an appeal of its own or joining in Riverbend's appeal.
The two commissioners with a say in the matter, Leslie Lewis and Kathy George, told county counsel at the meeting last week that they supported an appeal of the LUBA decision. The counsel's office assumed that to mean the county would be joining Riverbend in a joint appeal, but George said Tuesday that she and Lewis wanted to consider the matter further.
She termed their initial response a hasty reaction to a frustrating decision, made at a point when it still wasn't clear what approach Waste Management would be taking. She said they had since decided they needed to explore the potential ramifications before making a hard and fast commitment.
Commissioner Mary Stern has recused herself throughout the process because her husband has long made his living in the waste disposal industry and currently works for Waste Management.
The Riverbend application went through the exceptions process because as it stands now, the county zoning ordinance forbids landfills on any farmland, regardless of value.
During last week's business meeting, Lewis and George authorized the staff to draft an amendment incorporating state language on the subject into the county ordinance. However, a complication has arisen.
One element of Goal Three is an Oregon Administrative Rule forbidding landfills on high value farmland. And County Planner Ken Friday included it in the draft amendment he submitted Monday to the state Department of Land Conservation and Development to meet a hearing deadline.
Planning Director Mike Brandt said the county had no choice but to include that language.
He said that would force Riverbend to either argue the acreage targeted for the expansion doesn't qualify as high value or pursue an exception on that point. He said he would recommend the latter, saying that would be a legally sounder course in his view.
The commissioners have scheduled a public hearing on the new zoning ordinance for 7 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 2, in Room 32 of the county courthouse. The state requires 45 days notice, which dictated the time of Monday's filing.
In addition to incorporating the state Goal Three language on the siting of landfills in farm zones, the county also included language to permit the siting of biofuel processing facilities in farm zones.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Landfill hits another snag
Editorial: New berg Graphic
Last week’s decision by LUBA to overturn approval of Riverbend Landfill’s expansion by the Board of Commissioners was a proper one.
Simply put, the county approved the landfill’s expansion on exclusive farm use (EFU) land through a standard exemption process, but LUBA said that was improper because, while permissible under state law, this particular use was disallowed by the county’s own zoning law.
The solution, proposed by Waste Management, Riverbend’s parent company, would simply be for the commissioners to revisit the issue and change county ordinance to allow landfill on all EFU land.
But, be careful what you wish for. Sure, it may seem like Waste Management is just interested in expansion at this particular site, but open up the whole county to landfills and WM or some other company could decide there’s reason to construct another landfill elsewhere. After all, much of Riverbend’s garbage comes from the metro area and it’s not likely that waste stream, or the revenue it generates, is ever going to decrease.
Even though WM has indicated it will also appeal the LUBA decision, our hope is the company, the county and landfill opponents will get together and hash out a compromise, one that benefits all the parties involved.
Last week’s decision by LUBA to overturn approval of Riverbend Landfill’s expansion by the Board of Commissioners was a proper one.
Simply put, the county approved the landfill’s expansion on exclusive farm use (EFU) land through a standard exemption process, but LUBA said that was improper because, while permissible under state law, this particular use was disallowed by the county’s own zoning law.
The solution, proposed by Waste Management, Riverbend’s parent company, would simply be for the commissioners to revisit the issue and change county ordinance to allow landfill on all EFU land.
But, be careful what you wish for. Sure, it may seem like Waste Management is just interested in expansion at this particular site, but open up the whole county to landfills and WM or some other company could decide there’s reason to construct another landfill elsewhere. After all, much of Riverbend’s garbage comes from the metro area and it’s not likely that waste stream, or the revenue it generates, is ever going to decrease.
Even though WM has indicated it will also appeal the LUBA decision, our hope is the company, the county and landfill opponents will get together and hash out a compromise, one that benefits all the parties involved.
LUBA decision is just one step on landfill
To the editor: Newberg Graphic
Riverbend Landfill lost at the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). For now, they cannot build their towering landfill expansion into the banks of our river.
Texas-based Waste Management generated $11 billion last year — this court result is nothing more than a bad day at work. But to the dozens of local families whose lives have been overturned by this conflict, whose farms have been destroyed by the smells, noise and property devaluation, who are moving because the choking air makes their asthma act up, whose crops are in jeopardy and irrigation water suspect — this is a huge, life-changing victory.
To those who know the claim that our garbage bills will go through the roof unless we sacrifice a vast swath of prime farmland — the myth — this is a real truth-telling outcome.
To those who desperately need a green job, this is a banner decision of our courts. To those who have always wanted to pass their farms on to their kids, this is a shining day.
No one should think this is the end of the landfill wars. Waste Management wants its quick money made off the backs of their neighbors and will flood the county with fresh media and legal dollars.
Portland/Metro wants an “out of sight, out of mind” place to hide its trash and will continue to ignore this environmental menace they have filled to overflowing.
Perhaps the saddest aspect is that the county will continue its march to undermine the farming community by challenging our land use laws in the name of their own anti-agriculture political ideology.
We won, but the Fat Lady has yet to sing. Let’s hope that when she does, she isn’t singing “Deep in heart of Texas.”
Charles Ellis, McMinnville
Riverbend Landfill lost at the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA). For now, they cannot build their towering landfill expansion into the banks of our river.
Texas-based Waste Management generated $11 billion last year — this court result is nothing more than a bad day at work. But to the dozens of local families whose lives have been overturned by this conflict, whose farms have been destroyed by the smells, noise and property devaluation, who are moving because the choking air makes their asthma act up, whose crops are in jeopardy and irrigation water suspect — this is a huge, life-changing victory.
To those who know the claim that our garbage bills will go through the roof unless we sacrifice a vast swath of prime farmland — the myth — this is a real truth-telling outcome.
To those who desperately need a green job, this is a banner decision of our courts. To those who have always wanted to pass their farms on to their kids, this is a shining day.
No one should think this is the end of the landfill wars. Waste Management wants its quick money made off the backs of their neighbors and will flood the county with fresh media and legal dollars.
Portland/Metro wants an “out of sight, out of mind” place to hide its trash and will continue to ignore this environmental menace they have filled to overflowing.
Perhaps the saddest aspect is that the county will continue its march to undermine the farming community by challenging our land use laws in the name of their own anti-agriculture political ideology.
We won, but the Fat Lady has yet to sing. Let’s hope that when she does, she isn’t singing “Deep in heart of Texas.”
Charles Ellis, McMinnville
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Waste Management will appeal LUBA ruling
Land use — Company officials announce Friday morning they will advance the landfill expansion to the Court of Appeals
By: David Sale
Representatives of Waste Management of Oregon, parent company of the Riverbend Landfill south of McMinnville, announced Friday their intent to appeal the Land Use Board of Appeals’ decision disallowing expansion approval on procedural grounds.
“It is unfortunate and disappointing that LUBA ignored the information showing that the expansion made sense and that the process was legally sound,” said company spokeswoman Jackie Lang. “LUBA did not address the merits of the county’s decision. Instead, it focused exclusively on a technical aspect of the process.”
The state board, which hears appeals to land use decisions around the state, reversed an ordinance enacted by the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners, which would have allowed Riverbend to expand onto nearly 100 adjoining acres, presently zoned for agricultural use.
To do so, the county sought a zone change under what is known as “Goal 3 exemption,” a finding that the need for the rezone outweighs state land use law as codified in Senate Bill 100. The bill sets a list of priorities for land use, with preservation of farmland the third among them.
However, LUBA ruled that the exemption was improper because it ran contrary to the legal precedent of the “goalpost rule,” which states that laws in place prior to a land use application cannot be waived by the application itself.
Since Yamhill County’s comprehensive plan had specifically disallowed landfills on land zoned for exclusive farm use, the board found, it could not grant the exemption as long as that law remains on the books and in force elsewhere in the county.
“Yamhill County does not allow, by virtue of their own county law, landfills on farmland. Period!” wrote Ramsey McPhillips on the blog of Waste Not of Yamhill County, a coalition of landfill opponents. “Blame LUBA all you want, but what you are blaming is LUBA making Yamhill County follow the letter of their own law.”
For this reason, in addition to bringing LUBA’s verdict before the state Court of Appeals, Waste Management has also requested that the Board of Commissioners change the county’s zoning ordinance to declare landfills permissible on all land zoned “exclusive farm use” throughout the county.
“What LUBA didn’t say is very important,” Lang said. “The board did not say the county made the wrong decision. They did not address the county’s conclusion that the continued operation of Riverbend is necessary for the economic health of the county. They did not say that expanding Riverbend is wrong... All they said is that we should have used a different process.”
However, in light of the two-year battle that led up to the recently-reversed zoning decision, a campaign to allow landfill development anywhere in the EFU zone may prove equally difficult and controversial — at least, if McPhillips and fellow Waste Not members have any say in the matter.
“Agriculture is 65 percent of this county’s tax base,” he said. “The wine industry is the brand that brings in the real tourist bacon. Not one agribusiness or large farm uses or needs Riverbend Landfill. We are all resolute.”
A longtime critic of the landfill whose farm adjoins the site, McPhillips added: “Everyone knows my agenda but at least I am advocating for a compromise — save the farms and the river and our garbage rates by extending the current dump, without expanding the footprint, until a better replacement is up and running in its place.”
Lang, meanwhile, argued that an expanded landfill footprint is necessary to continued operation, including the development of alternative disposal technology.
“By approving the expansion, the county made it clear that it needs Riverbend to ensure safe, affordable disposal and as a platform for new technologies,” she said. “Walking away is not an option.”
By: David Sale
Representatives of Waste Management of Oregon, parent company of the Riverbend Landfill south of McMinnville, announced Friday their intent to appeal the Land Use Board of Appeals’ decision disallowing expansion approval on procedural grounds.
“It is unfortunate and disappointing that LUBA ignored the information showing that the expansion made sense and that the process was legally sound,” said company spokeswoman Jackie Lang. “LUBA did not address the merits of the county’s decision. Instead, it focused exclusively on a technical aspect of the process.”
The state board, which hears appeals to land use decisions around the state, reversed an ordinance enacted by the Yamhill County Board of Commissioners, which would have allowed Riverbend to expand onto nearly 100 adjoining acres, presently zoned for agricultural use.
To do so, the county sought a zone change under what is known as “Goal 3 exemption,” a finding that the need for the rezone outweighs state land use law as codified in Senate Bill 100. The bill sets a list of priorities for land use, with preservation of farmland the third among them.
However, LUBA ruled that the exemption was improper because it ran contrary to the legal precedent of the “goalpost rule,” which states that laws in place prior to a land use application cannot be waived by the application itself.
Since Yamhill County’s comprehensive plan had specifically disallowed landfills on land zoned for exclusive farm use, the board found, it could not grant the exemption as long as that law remains on the books and in force elsewhere in the county.
“Yamhill County does not allow, by virtue of their own county law, landfills on farmland. Period!” wrote Ramsey McPhillips on the blog of Waste Not of Yamhill County, a coalition of landfill opponents. “Blame LUBA all you want, but what you are blaming is LUBA making Yamhill County follow the letter of their own law.”
For this reason, in addition to bringing LUBA’s verdict before the state Court of Appeals, Waste Management has also requested that the Board of Commissioners change the county’s zoning ordinance to declare landfills permissible on all land zoned “exclusive farm use” throughout the county.
“What LUBA didn’t say is very important,” Lang said. “The board did not say the county made the wrong decision. They did not address the county’s conclusion that the continued operation of Riverbend is necessary for the economic health of the county. They did not say that expanding Riverbend is wrong... All they said is that we should have used a different process.”
However, in light of the two-year battle that led up to the recently-reversed zoning decision, a campaign to allow landfill development anywhere in the EFU zone may prove equally difficult and controversial — at least, if McPhillips and fellow Waste Not members have any say in the matter.
“Agriculture is 65 percent of this county’s tax base,” he said. “The wine industry is the brand that brings in the real tourist bacon. Not one agribusiness or large farm uses or needs Riverbend Landfill. We are all resolute.”
A longtime critic of the landfill whose farm adjoins the site, McPhillips added: “Everyone knows my agenda but at least I am advocating for a compromise — save the farms and the river and our garbage rates by extending the current dump, without expanding the footprint, until a better replacement is up and running in its place.”
Lang, meanwhile, argued that an expanded landfill footprint is necessary to continued operation, including the development of alternative disposal technology.
“By approving the expansion, the county made it clear that it needs Riverbend to ensure safe, affordable disposal and as a platform for new technologies,” she said. “Walking away is not an option.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
