CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

as a courtesy when it is delivered. and no consideration is paid. The mulch is created using trees/wood by-products/and other debris generated from Applicant's tree service business. Applicant only uses wood debris than cannot be otherwise sold to lumber mill. Opponents argue that the commercial activity is not a customer or supplier of farm uses because vehicles and equipment come and go from subject property virtually every day for Applicant's business (MVTS), but the actual mulching only occurs approximately four times per year. Opponents posit that the mulching operation would not exist but for the nonfarm general commercial operations of MVTS and the need to dispose of tree debris (albeit responsible and beneficial use of the tree debris). The statutory phrase "[c]ommercial activities that are in conjunction with farm use" is not defined and is determined on a case -by -case and fact specific basis. Friends of Marion County v. Marion County (Jones/Agritainment), LUBA No. 2021-088/89 at 17-19 (2022). The inquiry is whether there is the "requisite connection between [the] commercial activity and a farm use." Id at 18. To that end, the commercial activity must "enhance the farming enterprises of the local agricultural community" given the goals of Oregon land use law. Craven v. Jackson County (Craven II), 308 Or. 281, 289 (1989). The above inquiry turns on (1) whether the commercial operator is "exclusively or primarily a customer or supplier of farm uses" and (2) whether the proposed nonfarm operations are "essential to the practice of agriculture." See, e.g., Friends of Yamhill County v. Yamhill County (Ground 152, LLC), LUBA No. 2024-008 at 23-25 (2024) (citing City of Sandy v. Clackamas County, LUBA No. 94-104 (1994)). The case of Chauncy v. Multnomah County (LUBA No. 91-012) is examined. In Chauncey v. Multnomah County, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) addressed whether a proposed wood by-products operation, specifically involving mulching activities, qualified as a "commercial activity in conjunction with farm use" within an Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) zone. The petitioners sought approval to operate a facility that would process wood by-products into mulch. Multnomah County denied the application, concluding that the proposed operation did not meet the criteria for a commercial activity associated with farm use as outlined in the county code. Upon appeal, LUBA upheld the county's decision, emphasizing that for a commercial activity to be considered "in conjunction with farm use," there must be a demonstrable relationship between the proposed commercial activity and existing farm operations (emphasis added). In this instance, LUBA found insufficient evidence to establish that the mulching operation had a supportive relationship with agriculture in the area. The proposed use did not satisfy the necessary criteria to be deemed a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use. Applicant seeks to justify that the mulching operation is a primary supplier of farm uses, and that there is a coinciding use of the property as a storage space for logs sold for lumber production does not primarily supply farming operations. Applicant's justification of this CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 11 Page 16 of 26