CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

states that the vegetative screening that can be made a condition of approval to mitigate the concerns of Opponents and that the condition of approval will reduce the impact of noise on nearby land uses. Opponents argue that the grinding is "extremely loud with major impacts to surrounding farm uses" and that the noise is in the dangerous category. Steve Adelman argues that the level of noise far exceeds what is expected in an agricultural area and cannot be mitigated by the conditions of approval. Ms. Reed testified that the level of noise is not similar to typical farm noise of tractors and harvesters. The evidence indicates that the operation is not just grinding, but also includes chainsaws, and equipment to transport the logs and tree debris. Although the actual grinding is approximately four times a year and averages 40-60 hours, the record indicates that there are significant additional noise concerns that impact surrounding farms. Applicant states that the noise produced by the Commercial Use does not exceed the type of noise ordinarily permitted in the EFU zone and that residential structures to the north and northwest are at a distance that the noise is unlikely to reach them. However, Mr. Adelman's statement indicates that the noise can be heard approximately one-half mile away and is more akin to a jet engine that anticipated noise from farm equipment. The record is insufficient to establish that the noise from the commercial activity will not have a significant adverse impact on nearby land uses. The criterion is not met. (e) The use will not have a significant adverse impact on potential water impoundments identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and not create significant conflicts with operations included in the Comprehensive Plan inventory of*significant mineral and aggregate sites. There are no nearby water impoundments or mineral and aggregate sites identified in the Comprehensive Plan which would conflict or be adversely impacted by the proposed use. The criterion is met. MCC 17.110.680 9. Marion County Code authorizes denial of an application where there is noncompliance with the land use regulations or any other "local, state or federal law[.]" MCC 17.110.680 see also MCC 17.110.820. This principal was upheld by the Oregon Court of Appeals in Woosley v. Marion County, 118 Or. App. 206 (1993). The only exceptions to the rule are (1) noncompliance with federal marijuana laws is not a basis for denial, and (2) Marion County has discretionary authority to approve an application if "issuance of the permit or land use approval would correct the violation." See MCC 17.110.680. The Oregon Land UseBoard of Appeals recently construed the exact code provision. See Ivanov v. Marion County, LUBA No. 2023-076 (2024) In Ivanov, LUBA upheld Marion County's denial of a land use application based upon outstanding violations even when the application otherwise met the approval criteria for the permit. Ivanov, at 4-7. CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 17 Page 22 of 26