CU24-028 BOC Order - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Exhibit A While farmers must eat and farm equipment frequently operates on gasoline, that is not sufficient to make grocery stores or gas stations commercial activities in conjunction with farm use. The comnection must be closer to the 'essential practice of agriculture. Id. at 9. The Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA) has emphasized the necessity of a direct and substantial relationship between the proposed use and existing farm practices. In Friends of Marion County v. Marion County and .Tones, Seasons at Red Oak Farm, LUBA 2021-089 (2022), LUBA determined that a program aimed at inspiring youth to pursue agricultural careers did not meet the criteria.set forth in MCC 17.136.060(D)(4). LUBA concluded that the connection between participating in the program and future agricultural employment was "too remote and speculative," and thus did not qualify as providing products or services essential to agriculture. This interpretation underscores that for a conditional use to be approved under MCC 17.136.060(D)(4), Applicant must demonstrate a clear, immediate, and beneficial impact on agricultural practices. The inquiry demanded by caselaw is that indirect support, even if beneficial, does not satisfy the criterion. The Affidavits submitted by Applicant establish that Applicant does not charge for the mulch. Although Applicant states that the supply of mulch to the cattle farmers and blueberry farmers is "essential to the aforementioned farm operations" (October 31, 2024 Submission, Exhibit G), the farm operators state that the mulch is "significant" to the cattle operations, and without the mulch, alternative practices would need to be taken. (Exhibit H). The supply of mulch is "valued through the cattle ranch and farming communities." (Exhibit I). Mr. Klopfenstein does not charge for the mulch, and indicates the mulch is provided as service to the agricultural community. However, the lack of cost it is not considered as a significant factor in determining the "essential" nature of the mulch. Additionally, the reduced cost of using mulch in cattle ranches and blue berry farms compared to alternative practices does not in itself make the use of mulch essential. The Affidavits do not establish in the record that the mulch is "essential" or that other alternatives could not be used. Opponents establish that mulch has many non -farm or residential uses. Additionally, the Chip Drop service used by the applicant is primarily for residential customers and gardeners, based on the language from their website. Applicants fail to provide facts in the record showing how this mulch is essential to the practice of agriculture. While the affidavits do show the mulch is used by farmers, none of these state that it is essential to their farming practice or that they could not continue to farm if mulch was not provided. For instance, cattle typically graze in large grass fields that are not covered in mulch. The application of the mulch appears to be applied in a small scale form on a farm when land becomes too saturated with water to be otherwise usable. The Board finds there is insufficient evidence to establish that mulch is essential to the practice of agriculture, and the criterion is not met. MCC 17.136.060 A CU 24-028 - ORDER Klopfenstein Page 7