CU25-014 PC Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

evidence that they have transported hay in these enclosed trailers. Furthermore, the applicant could not provide any evidence that they have ever been involved in the growing or harvesting of hay. The impacts related to construction and installation of the agricultural exempt building and parking area have already occurred. The parcel is specially assessed by the tax assessor, and was farmed for several decades for grass seed by a neighbor who leased the field. That lease has ended and the property is no longer farmed. The applicant did not provide any evidence that they are involved in farming. If the 15,000 square foot structure and associated parking area are in fact a part of the applicant’s commercial operation, then the impacts have increased the cost of farming in the area and changed the farm use on the parcel itself because the field is no longer farmed for grass seed. Both Friends of French Prairie and Manton A. Carl LLC submitted to the record minutes from a City of Hubbard Planning Commission hearing for a conditional use permit for this same business on a parcel within the City of Hubbard. After this was brought up, the applicant stated that the rent was raised on urban property, so he moved the towing operation to the subject property. During the public hearing before the Marion County Planning commission, Manton A. Carl LLC’s representative brought up that once farmland is paved over, graveled, or built upon, it will never be farmed again. (F) In the consideration of potentially mitigating conditions of approval under ORS215.296(2), the governing body may not impose such a condition upon the owner of the affected farm or forest land or on such land itself, nor compel said owner to accept payment to compensate for the significant changes or significant increases in costs described in subsection (a) and (b). The County recognizes this requirement. No conditions of approval are being imposed on affected farm or forest landowners, nor are any landowners being compelled to accept payment as compensation for significant changes to, or significant increases in costs of, accepted farm and forest practices in the area. In Summary of MCC 17.136.060(A)(1): The applicant provided a brief analysis of the proposal subject to the farm impacts test in ORS 215.296(1) subsection (a) and (b) via the process outlined in subsection (c)(A-F). The applicant suggested the farm impacts test was met, but significant information provided by neighbors prior to and during the public hearing called into question whether the proposal actually meets the criteria of not significantly increasing cost of, or significantly changing, farm practices in the area. The applicant was given the opportunity to respond to all of the issues brought up, and was unable to provide any evidence that the tow truck business did not involve the transport of non-farm goods as advertised on the B&T Towing Facebook Page, nor evidence that the applicant is at all involved in farming, nor evidence that the agricultural structure was utilized for agricultural purposes and not in fact a structure used for solely commercial and personal purposes. During the public hearing, opponents brought up how moving commercial businesses from appropriately zoned commercial or industrial parcels to exclusive