CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Exhibit A 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). Adelman Peony Gardens, LLC ("Adelman") disputes Applicant's characterization of the Applicant's commercial activity and argues that the real use of the property is for the storage and operation of MVTS's business equipment and is wholly unrelated to any farm use. Adelman argues that the mulching operations, to the extent they are connected to farm use, are secondary to the commercial use. 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. 91-212) 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. Opponents argue that the "commercial activity" proposed is in fact an equipment and debris storage/disposal site for the tree trimming business, Mountain View Tree Services ("MVTS"), which does not exclusively or primarily supply to farm uses. Opponents argue that the mulch generated onsite is not sold. It is merely provided to some farmers 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. 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). CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 3