CU24-043 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

within the parcel that are farther away from neighboring farm parcels than the proposed location. Placing non- farm dwellings and accessory structures closer than 100 feet to neighboring farm fields impacts the farm operations through increased costs related to the application of chemical sprays and fertilizer—which is standard practice for commercial agriculture. The applicant claims that their proposed location follows the soils patterns to allow for a septic system. The applicant currently has not obtained a septic site evaluation on the parcel with Marion County Septic, so there is no evidence to support the claim. If the applicant’s claim is true and the only viable location for a septic system on the parcel is the northeast corner proposed, the adjustment is justifiable as that location would technically have the least impact on nearby or adjoining forest or agricultural lands since there is no alternative site on the property. In addition, their proposal sites the dwelling farther from the property line than the accessory structure, an intentional orientation by the applicant to reduce the risks of potential conflicts with the neighboring farm. The applicant has also stated they will accept any conditions imposed to prevent wildfire danger on the neighboring tree lot. However, the applicant holds the burden of proof to show why the adjustment is necessary, which they have not yet sufficiently done. Staff finds the applicant’s reasoning for an adjustment justifiable, however evidence is not readily available that the physical characteristics of the subject parcel preclude development outside of the proposed site. b. The site ensures that adverse impacts on forest operations and accepted farming practices on the tract will be minimized. The proposed location would site the dwelling will site it within the only portion of the property that is historically farmed. Siting the dwelling in that location would adversely impact the accepted farming practices on the parcel by forcing the removal of the orchard and removing that land from available farmland in the future. As stated previously, the applicant’s claim is that the site is necessary for obtaining an approved septic system, and as of writing this decision, the applicant has not applied for or conducted an official septic site evaluation with Marion County Septic. Therefore, the applicant’s claims are not substantiated. If, however, the developable area is restricted by the physical characteristics of the property to the proposed location, the site would meet the criterion because there is no alternative site that would minimize adverse impacts on forest operation and accepted farming practices on the subject tract. c. The amount of agricultural and forestlands used to site access roads, service corridors, the dwelling and structures is minimized. The proposed location of the dwelling, septic system, and accessory structures would site them within the only portion of the property historically shown to be viable for use in commercial agriculture. Visible in both historic imagery available on Google Earth, as well as in photographs submitted by the applicant that go back to the 1950’s, there has been a hazelnut orchard located on the parcel that up until at least 2012. In images from Google Street View in May 2012 the orchard and access point to the hazelnut orchard are in good and maintained condition. In the July 2023 imagery from the same location the access point to the orchard is completely overgrown and similarly the orchard is in an overgrown condition from lack of maintenance. While the applicant argues this is due to the poor farming soils, the available photographic evidence does not support this assertion in the northern 2 acres. Any location outside of the northern 2 acres of the property would satisfy this criterion as it has been shown to not be viable for farming through the soil reclassification and is supported by the historic imagery available. Therefore, the criterion is not met based on the proposal by the applicant unless the septic site evaluations mentioned in the previous two sections find that a septic system is only feasible in the proposed area. d. The risks associated with wildfire are minimized The proposed location for the new dwelling is within 100 feet of a small, wooded portion of the neighboring farm parcel. Wildfires are not likely to be a significant risk in this area as most of the surrounding area is utilized as farmland, not timberland. That said, the applicant states they will comply with a wildfire mitigation plan and take steps to reduce the risk of the new residence starting a wildfire in the area. The criterion is met.