Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Columbia Ridge Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Gilliam County closes public hearing on Columbia Ridge Landfill permit updates; decision delayed to December
Summary
The Gilliam County Court closed public testimony on proposed revisions to Waste Management’s conditional use permit for the Columbia Ridge Landfill and Recycling Center and will consider a formal order at a later meeting.
The Gilliam County Court closed public testimony on proposed revisions to Waste Management Disposal Services of Oregon’s conditional use permit for the Columbia Ridge Landfill and Recycling Center, but delayed any final decision until a future meeting.
Stephanie Case, a city planning staffer who presented the staff report, told the court the original conditional use permit dated to 1987 and that the county has periodically reviewed and modified the permit since then. Case said staff recommended “bifurcat[ing] the conditions in two distinct documents,” keeping land‑use conditions with the planning commission under Article 7 of the Gilliam County Zoning and Lands Development Ordinance while leaving host‑fee and road‑use agreements under county‑court purview. She said the applicant’s proposed language changes retain the 150‑foot screening and buffer requirement.
“For this application, the intent would be that this conditional use permit would be a standalone document that is approved, reviewed, or altered as appropriate by the planning commission,” Case said. She recommended closing the public hearing and preparing an order so the court could take formal action at a later meeting.
Jay Harlan, agent for Waste Management with CSA Planning, said he worked with staff and the planning commission to clean up the permit language and asked the court to approve the draft before it. “This draft that is before you tonight reflects their direction,” Harlan said, and requested approval.
Court members discussed procedure and confirmed there was no action on the agenda that day requiring an immediate court order; they agreed staff could prepare a court order for the December 3 meeting and that closing the hearing now was reasonable because no opposing testimony had been submitted. The court then closed the hearing to additional comment.
Next steps: the court asked staff to prepare an order for formal action at a future meeting (the court noted December 3 as the likely date).
