CU24-043 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In the findings of the 2000-acre study, it was found that out of the 112 full and partial tax lots 79 already contained a dwelling, leaving 33 vacant tax lots. 27 of the 33 vacant lots either contained high value soils or were in contiguous ownership with other parcels that already had dwellings, meaning they would not qualify for a non- farm dwelling. Of the remaining 6 vacant tax lots, 4 contained a majority high value soils and would not qualify for a lot-of-record due to the date of ownership transfer. This leaves one additional parcel within the study area that could be developed with a non-farm dwelling. In their analysis, the applicant addresses the fact that one of the study area parcels was under review for a Lot-of-Record dwelling (case AR24-019) and since a decision had not been made at the time of their analysis, it was inventoried as not having a dwelling. In addition to describing the land use within the full study area, the applicant narrows down the focus and describes the immediate local land use pattern as a combination of the typical row crop farms and 3 smaller lots with dwellings that aren’t acting as primary farm dwellings. c) Determine whether approval of the proposed non-farm dwellings together with existing non-farm dwellings will materially alter the stability of the land use pattern. The stability of the land use pattern will be materially altered if the cumulative effect of existing and potential non-farm dwellings will make it more difficult for the existing types of farms in the area to continue operation due to diminished opportunities to expand, purchase, or lease farmland, or acquire waste rights or diminish the number of tracts or acreage in farm use in a manner that will destabilize the overall character of the study area. The applicant contends that due to the drainage way bisecting the subject parcel, the soil reclassification report finding that the subject parcel is predominantly non-high value farm soils, and the size of the parcel (8.4-acres) all coalesce to limit the viability of the parcel to be commercially farmed. Additionally, they assert that permitting a non-farm dwelling on the subject parcel would be compatible with the smaller parcels containing dwellings located across Union School Rd to the west and adjacent to the south. Staff finds that these elements, in combination with aerial imagery dating back to the 1950’s showing failed attempts to farm the southern 6-acres of the parcel, sufficiently demonstrate the unsuitability of the parcel for commercial agriculture on its own. They have also shown that a non-farm dwelling in the immediate local area is consistent with the existing land use pattern, as there are three neighboring parcels with dwellings not serving as primary farm dwellings, all predating the adoption of land use ordinances. Lastly, the applicant addresses the impact of the proposed non-farm dwelling and potential future non-farm dwellings together with the impact of existing non-farm dwellings in the area, showing through the 2000-acre study that there is only one other parcel capable of qualifying for a non-farm dwelling within the subject area. Staff finds that two potential new non-farm dwellings are unlikely to materially alter the stability of the existing land use pattern within the area, so long as the dwellings are sited away from neighboring farming operations and in locations that maintain as much historically farmed land as possible. Therefore, the criteria 3a-3c are met. 8. Since the property is located in an EFU zone, the proposal must also satisfy the conditional use criteria in MCC 17.136.060(A). Those requirements are: (a) The use will not force a significant change in, or significantly increase the cost of, accepted farm or forest practices on surrounding lands devoted to farm or forest use. Land devoted to farm or forest use does not include farm or forest use on lots or parcels upon which a non-farm or non-forest dwelling has been approved and established, in exception areas approved under ORS 197.732, or in an acknowledged urban growth boundary. The proposed non-farm dwelling is anticipated to bring impacts typical of residential use into the area. Residential uses from a single-family dwelling are not intense to a degree that their negative impacts on surrounding farming uses cannot be mitigated and are unlikely to force a significant alteration in the current land use pattern. Put plainly, row crops can still be farmed on the neighboring parcel even if a new house were placed on the subject parcel. The criterion is met. (b) Adequate fire protection and other rural services are, or will be, available when the use is established.