This seems perfectly safe and acceptable especially since it is a charted "fly visual to airport" segment from the VOR to the runway.
Not sure if I agree...as this runway in question has an ILS...
The surfaces used for an approach, 34:1 and 20:1 are used for obstacle clearance. These surfaces originate at runway endpoint, while the GPA is a function of the standard 50' TCH.
The 20:1 surface, 2.86°, is used for the visual portion of an approach.
The 34:1 surface, 1.68° is the absolute obstacle surface for the approach.
The 50:1 surface, is used for on-airport appurtenances, such as the VOR ,and lighting.
The minimum of 2.5° GPA for non precision due to temperature limitations of baro-vnav is the absolute minimum the obstacle surfaces allow.
The VOR approach with a 1500' min or 2.42° GPA, falls outside any criteria for obstacle evaluation.
This is not to say that an exemption or variance has been provided for with a more detailed obstacle/terrain assessment. It would be difficult given general assumptions of a 200' AAO, but I would allow for that to be mitigated with restrictions...Rad-alt may possibly get one to the VOR min, but there is no definition on the plate as to the method of altitude calculation, or temperature limit...
Again, AustoControl has some questions to answer...