CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Exhibit A the practice of agriculture. The Affidavit of Marvin Klopfenstein establishes that Mr. Klopfenstein delivers mulch to cattle ranchers, blueberry farmers, and nursery farms. Mr. Klopfenstein does not charge for the mulch or the delivery of the mulch. (Applicant's October 31, 2024 Submission, Exhibit G). Dale G. Kaufman submitted an Affidavit that states: "The Applicant's supply of Mulch Chips to the Cattle Ranch is significant to the Cattle Ranch operations. The Mulch helps fight against the hard ground becoming thick mud where the cattle are at risk of sinking and injury and without the mulch, alternative practices would need to be taken which could result in higher operating costs for KCC (Kaufinan Cattle Ranch). (Applicant's October 31, 2024 Submission, Exhibit H). Applicant provided the Affidavit of Lynn Richman Construction, LLC, in which Lynn Richman states that "Applicant's supply of Mulch is valued throughout cattle ranch and farming communities. (Applicant's October 31, 2024 Submission, Exhibit I). Applicant's October 31, 2024 submission argues that the affidavits submitted, in addition to the initial application, establishes that the "mulch is a necessity and benefit to cattle ranches. Applicant provided support for the position that mulch can have a beneficial impact to the practice of agriculture. Applicant establishes that mulch can have the benefits of moisture retention, natural weed suppression, and the protection of soil erosion by mitigating the impact of rainfall and runoff. Opponents counter Applicant's argument arguing that mulching is beneficial for home uses, including yard appearance and landscaping. Adelman submits Exhibit 2 to its pre - hearing submission which states that there can be problems with mulching attaching insects. Increased insects are a concern for Adelman's farming operations located directly across from the Subject Property. Analyzing whether a nonfarm operation is "essential to the practice of agriculture" is paramount even when the operation primarily or exclusively supplies to farms. See City of Sandy v. Clackamas County, LUBA No. 94-104 at 9-10 (1994) (stating that connection must be "closer to the `essential practice of agriculture"' to be valid). While there is no single test for what is "essential" to the practice of agriculture, the case law gives examples of what is sufficiently "essential" pursuant to Oregon's land use framework. It is not sufficient if the commercial activity's products or services are frequently used — or even indispensable — to farming. The relevant question is whether the commercial activity is something particularly unique to farm users and farm use practices. As stated in City of Sandy, "the Oregon Court of Appeals had little difficulty concluding a hop warehouse that would store hops grown by many hops growers, and sell string and burlap used in hop production, qualified as a commercial activity in conjunction with farm use." Id. at 9. String and burlap are not exclusively used in hop production, but was approved as part of the commercial activity in conjunction with farm use because it is essential to the production of hops. However, in the hops case, all of the warehouses purchases and sales were to commercial hop growers. CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 6