CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

use is that the logs sent to lumber mills spend up to two weeks on the property in storage, but that they do not spend much time beyond this on the Subject Property. Applicant identifies the staging area dedicated to storage of logs for lumber and stated it would take up no more than 6,000 square feet of the area dedicated to the proposed use (which the applicant calculated as 9% of the total area). However, apart from the 9%, a significant portion of the property is used for vehicles and equipment that are used for the tree services and enter and exit the property daily. Applicant does not satisfy the requirements of MCC 17.136.060(D) because the record does demonstrate mulching is the true "commercial activity" proposed and because any mulching operations on the property are merely incidental, relatively infrequent, and occur only because of the Applicant's need to store and destroy debris related to Applicant's tree trimming business. The criterion is not met. (b) The commercial activity must enhance the farming enterprises of the local agricultural community to which the land hosting that commercial activity relates. Applicant must establish that the mulching operation must enhance the farming enterprises of the local agricultural community. In other words, does the proposed conditional use support or benefit existing agricultural activities. In the Application, Applicant provides supplemental information discussing the role and uses of mulch in agricultural operations, including the retention of moisture and as padding for animals. Applicant argues that providing mulching products to local farmers will enhance their operations in various ways. Applicant supplied additional information in the form of attestations by local farming operations that receive mulch from the Applicant to support its position that the commercial activity enhances local farming enterprises. Applicant's Affidavits from local farming operations establish that the mulch does positively contribute to the farming operations. Applicant supplies and delivers the mulch to local cattle ranches and nurseries without cost. In opposition to the Application, Adelman argues that the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals has already held that a proposed mulching operation failed to demonstrate, as a matter of law, that the proposed activity qualified as a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use. Chauncey v. Multnomah County, LUBA No. 91-212 (1992). In the Chauncey decision, LUBA affirmed Multnomah County's denial of a conditional use permit when the record showed that the mulch and wood by-products were provided to both farm uses and nonfarm uses. Adelman argues that the potential universe of non -farm uses is too large to be limited to the farming community. The use of mulch as provided by Applicant is beneficial to the cattle ranchers and nurseries who receive it. The record supports that mulch as provided to the recipients whom provided Affidavits enhances their farming practices. This criterion is met. CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 12 Page 17 of 26