Two members of the public asked the Polk County Board of Commissioners on Nov. 26 to review and postpone a hearings officer's recent approval of a proposed Apple Tree Holdings solid waste transfer facility.

E. M. Easterly, of West Salem, said they attempted to appeal the hearings officer's decision but were unsuccessful and asked the board to "review between now and January 1 the 8 statutory legal requirements that the hearings officer failed to address." Easterly told commissioners that Director McGuigan had not responded to emails and asked the board to "postpone a final decision on hearings officers' decisions until you have conducted a public review of the legal underpinnings of her decision." Easterly referenced the franchise attachment (Attachment A) and LP 25-02 parcel 2 when describing the site at issue.

Steve Anderson, West Salem Neighborhood Association Land Use Chair, speaking as a Polk County citizen, said he is not opposed to a transfer facility somewhere in the franchise area but argued the specific approved location is on exclusive farm-use land and mapped as high-value soils. Anderson cited Polk County zoning code language, saying PCZO 136.50 z "states clearly that 'no new solid waste disposal sites are authorized on lands classified as high value,'" and added: "The approval of CU 2505 is an illegal act." He asked commissioners to allow submission of missing testimony and analysis before they make a decision by Jan. 1, 2026.

The presenters identified several references that they said were not adequately considered in the hearings officer's record, including what they described in testimony as code citations (PCZO 136.50 z) and state administrative rules and statutes (transcript references to ORS and OAR entries). Neither speaker reported receiving a substantive response from county staff before the meeting. The board did not announce a follow-up action on the record at the time public comment ended.

The public comment portion concluded and the board moved to routine business. The record shows the appeals and requests for postponement were presented to commissioners but does not record a formal vote or an explicit direction to staff to reopen or delay the hearings officer's decision.