Ord 1446 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

farm that area with the large-scale heavy machinery used in modern farming operations. When tenant farmers were accessing the Property, they were required to travel along public and private roadways to access the Property, leave that road system, cross private property outside of the Enchanted Ridge subdivision, then enter back into the Property, using the existing residential access which is a system of private roads that further limit the ability to farm the balance of the Property. As the residential area around the Property developed under the previously applied goal exception, there has been an increase in residential traffic, including an increased level of vehicular, bike, and pedestrian traffic which has increasingly limited the hours of farm operation due to the noise, dust, and inability to maneuver large farm equipment around residential traffic and over the maze of roads that bisects the Property. These limitations have rendered the resource use impracticable, making the barriers to farming the Homesites unsustainable. Applicant has provided a letter from the neighboring farm property owner (Doerfler Farms) to the east, off of Parrish Gap Road, outlining how the entire ,Property is so restricted as to make farming of the Property impracticable. If Doerfler Farms finds that the Property is too impracticable to farm and walked away from fanning it, this makes the Homesites even more impracticable as has been noted above. This application of the goal exception process is consistent with the type of analysis that is required for determining whether farm use on a property has been rendered "impracticable." While cost alone is not dispositive to determine whether land zoned for exclusive farm use is "impracticable" as statutorily defined, a local jurisdiction is not precluded in evaluating whether "the current employment of the land for the primary purpose of obtaining a profit in money by engaging in specified farm or agricultural activities" is rendered impracticable by virtue of the level of costs or expenses required. Wetherell v. Douglas Cty., 342 Or. 666, 160 P.3d 614 (2007). However, in this instance it is a factor weighing in favor of a determination that the Homesites are irrevocably committed by the adjacent development. The Farm Parcel itself is not as steeply sloped as the surrounding area and the impact of the adjacent residential development is somewhat minimized by the location of the utilities and roads along only the developed portions of the perimeter, committing.a smaller proportion of the Property to irrevocable development. The Farm Parcel will still be accessed via the private road on the north, but crossings across Enchanted Ridge Court SE and Valley View Way SE will be eliminated and more of the work will be confined in a specified, usable area. Rather than allowing for a cascading effect, permitting unrestricted residential development in the area, reconstructing the Property in this way attempts to constrain the proposed residential development to those parcels that are already constricted by the existing residential uses while maintaining the land that may be feasibly employed for agricultural production, although at a reduced parcel size, requiring the application of a Goal 3 exception. The Applicant proposed to place a restrictive covenant on the Farm Parcel as a condition of approval for this Application in order to prevent concern by DLCD and others that this proposed change would result in a cascading effect on the Farm Parcel rendering it impracticable to farm. Staff has considered the restrictive covenant and does not agree with adding it as a condition of approval. Staff finds that the restrictive covenant would not be consistent with Marion County's land use program. Meaning, if Marion County desired to initiate a county wide legislative process to change certain SA or EFU zoned properties to AR, Exhibit A - Findings Case No. CP/ZC 21-005 12 4864-0600-7078, v. 3