ADJ25-010 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

compatibility with the area and highlights that the recent complaints are an anomaly rather than evidence of ongoing land use conflicts. While farm use is a permitted use in the UT (Urban Transition) zone pursuant to MCC 16.13.010(B), the required 100-foot setbacks create unique challenges for preexisting parcels with limited acreage. Although the Comprehensive Plan designates this area for eventual residential development—reflected in nearby land use cases dating back to 1984 (e.g., CU84-057)—current zoning still permits farm use, and the property has operated accordingly for decades. Prior to the establishment of the UT zone in 1990, this neighborhood, north of Hazelgreen, was zoned RA (Residential Agriculture). The RA zone allowed more flexibility for small-scale farming operations and no longer exists in Marion County Code. A different version of RA (Residential Agriculture) does exist in the City of Salem’s zone code. Salem’s Planning department commented on this application the following: “This property is designated DR (Developing Residential) in the Salem Comprehensive Plan and would be zoned RA (Residential Agriculture) upon annexation.” The city goes on to explain that the livestock on this property would be considered a legal non-conforming use upon annexation. Furthermore, that livestock on RA is a conditional use, and therefore if there were no livestock on this property upon annexation there is a land use process available to permit their establishment. Given this context, an adjustment to the required setbacks is both reasonable and consistent with the Adjustment Criteria outlined in MCC 16.41.030. The setbacks for farm animals and related structures are quantifiable development standards, and the applicants have demonstrated compliance with the intent of these standards by proposing mitigation measures that minimize potential impacts on surrounding residential uses. These include (but are not limited to) managing animal waste, maintaining fencing, and situating structures to buffer neighboring properties as much as possible within the physical constraints of the lot. Therefore, the proposed adjustment maintains the intent and purpose of the original setback provision. The criterion is met. 7. Based on the above findings, it has been determined that the request satisfies all applicable criteria and is, therefore, APPROVED. Brandon Reich Date: October 9th, 2025 Planning Director/Zoning Administrator If you have any questions regarding this decision contact Gillian Peden at (503) 588-5038. Notice to Mortgagee, Lienholder, Vendor or Seller: ORS Chapter 215 requires that if you receive this Notice, it must promptly be forwarded to the purchaser.