Court delays decision on bio-refinery
Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:40 PM PDT
Larry Meyer Argus Observer
ONTARIO
A decision by the Malheur County Court on whether to place a new zone in Malheur County to allow a bio-refinery to be sited near Ontario is now in a holding pattern until January to allow proponents and opponents adequate time to arguments.
The delay has left at least one county official frustrated. Malheur County Judge Russ Hursh said he thought a decision could, and should, have been made before last week.
"I was kind of hoping we would get the thing resolved . . . one way or another," he said. Hursh said he was not sure what more information needs to be heard.
A county court hearing Wednesday at Four Rivers Cultural Center was designed to hear from proponents and opponents who did not testify at the first hearing and to also provide a platform for those who wanted to provide additional testimony.
Representing Concerned Citizens of Malheur County, the group opposing the proposed site of the bio-refinery, attorney, Tom Okai, Ontario, requested the hearing be continued so he could respond to additional documents which had been submitted to the county by Treasure Valley Renewable Resources, the company pushing the bio-refinery concept.
TVRR wants to construct the bio-refinery at a site south of Ontario, on the south side Oregon Eastern Railroad, between Alameda Drive and the Union Pacific Railroad. So far, no one has declared openly an opposition to the creation of the new agricultural processing plant industrial zone. The debate is over whether to rezone the 115 acre site, about 1.5 miles south of Ontario, from exclusive farm use to the new industrial zone to allow construction of the bio-refinery.
Attorney for TVRR, Robert Van Brocklin, from the law firm of Stoel Rives, Portland, requested time to respond to Okai and also requested an additional time to submit arguments after the record is closed as allowed under Oregon statutes for proponents.
Upon recommendation of county counsel Stephanie Williams, the county court granted a continuation of the hearing to Wednesday to take additional comment from Okai. Van Brocklin and TVRR will have a week to respond.
TVRR will be allowed to submit further material up to Jan. 7, the court's first meeting of the new year, at which time court members may choose to act or wait until their next meeting.
People living close to, or in the general area, of the proposed site oppose the siting of the bio-refinery in their vicinity and are asking the company to pick another location in Malheur County, offering several suggestions.
Opponents list pollution, odors, additional traffic, noise, fog and traffic and a possible decline in property values as key issues.
TVRR officials said the proposed site is the one which best fits the criteria for a plant site: That includes having at least 75 acres, being situated along a shortline railroad; being situated on or near main transportation routes, and the availability of utilities such as natural gas, power and water.
The legal angle is boiling down to a debate over interpretations of state land use law and regulations.
Wednesday night, Okai, speaking for the opponents, said that in addition to seeking an exception to state planning goal 3, regarding preservation of agriculture land, the applicants for the zone change should get an exception to goal 11 which calls for efficient planning of public services such as water, law enforcement and fire protection.
He said there also needed to be an exception to goal 14, relating to urbanization and the zoning of land to meeting a city's need for growth.
Okai argued the proposed bio-refinery is an urban use, rather than a rural use because company officials plan to use city water and because of the projected amount of traffic to and from the facility and the number of people the company will employ.
Addressing claims that exceptions to goals 11 and 14 are not needed, Okai said, "We believe that is simply not the case," he said
Speaking for TVRR, Van Brocklin, said "We only need an exception to goal 3," and the city is allowed to extend water service outside an urban growth boundary. "Nothing in the text prohibits water service outside an urban growth boundary," he said. He submitted a letter from DLCD regional representative John Jinings to support his position.
Van Brocklin, explained that applies to non-residential service only, and water service for residences is not allowed and sewer service is not allowed for either residential or nonresidential. He also pointed out the proposed bio-refinery site has 103 acres of water rights, so the facility would have an alternative water sources. However, "We don't want to do that," he said.
As for goal 14, Van Brocklin said state regulations do not clearly define rural and urban uses.
In comparing TVRR's expected employment with urban industrial settings, Van Brocklin said the average density in urban settings is three to four workers per 100,000 square feet. At the bio-refinery, he said, the ratio would be 1 worker per 83,490 square feet.
"That is not an urban level employment," he said.
State statues does allow ag processing in rural areas, he said.
"It will not create an urban zone."
Larry Meyer is a reporter for the Argus Observer. He can be contacted at (541) 889-5387, or by e-mail, LarryM@argusobserver.com.
