Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Land Use Aggregate Sites topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Crook County moves to enact ordinance adding significant aggregate site after rejecting late submission

3848665 · May 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

County staff recommended the board not consider a letter and survey calculations submitted two days after the record closed; the board proceeded to sign the final decision and enact Ordinance 3-46 to add a new significant aggregate site to the county inventory.

Crook County staff told the Board of Commissioners on May 21 that a letter and survey calculations received two days after the record closed constituted untimely additional evidence for Ordinance 3-46, and staff recommended the board not consider the material when finalizing its decision. The board proceeded with its prior final decision and enacted the ordinance.

A staff speaker explained the county’s prior evidentiary schedule: the final evidentiary hearing was April 8, the record was kept open for a fixed period, and the board convened for deliberations on May 6 when it rendered its decision to increase a setback to 100 feet from a neighbor property line (rather than 150 feet from the dwelling as proposed by the applicant). The letter delivered two days before the May 21 meeting contained Kelso surveying and engineering computations and a cover letter from the applicant’s attorney; staff said the submission did not request reopening the record and therefore was additional evidence filed after the deadline.

County staff recommended the board decline to consider the late material; staff said accepting it would require reopening the entire record and repeating the evidentiary process. The board approved the consent agenda that included enactment of Ordinance 3-46; the motion to approve the consent agenda passed unanimously with one commissioner noted absent.

The county did not reopen the record or delay adoption; staff characterized the late submission as information the board could note but not consider without restarting the hearing process.