CU26-005 PC Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

structures and some have evidence of “hobby” farm or non-farm uses on parcels attached to tax accounts that have dwellings or other structures. Others are tax lots that may be related to adjacent agricultural uses. Some appear to be tax lots that serve as access lots to adjacent tax lots from private or public roads. Several are tax lots inside of condominium complexes or are parts of rural subdivisions that are still undeveloped or serve as access tax lots to adjacent dwelling tax lots. A further 29 are rated high value farm soils with irrigation, another 13 parcels are contiguous with identical ownerships. That leaves 9 parcels, 4 of which are Measure 37/49 approved which might be developable with dwellings in the future. That leaves 5 parcels including the applicants’ tax lots. That leaves at least three remaining parcels within the subject area that could establish a dwelling – depending on the ability to meet Marion County code requirements. The applicable criteria require the applicant to identify the broad types of farms used within the study area. However, due to the number of smaller hobby farms within the study area, it becomes difficult to determine all the uses within the study area. The larger commercial farm operations are generally to the east and south of the subject property. To the south where a large parcel is located, the use is grass seed and grains, with some livestock such as cattle, and nursey operations. Further to the east within the study area is where most of the irrigated crops are grown. In these areas there is grass sod, nursery crops, hazelnut orchards, and a few cattle farms. In general, larger tracts simply do not exist within the study area, most of the smaller hobby farms are developed with homesites and have been for many years. While the AR zoned parcels inside the study area to the north have influence on the SA and EFU zoned lands within the study area, it cannot be ignored, and in many ways are representative of the land use pattern that has developed over the last 30 years. In addition to above, of the total parcels in the study area, 246 are developed with at least one dwelling and some have 2 dwellings, and one property has 3 dwellings. That is approximately 77% of the parcels in the study area containing at least one dwelling. The applicants’ representative’s review of Marion County records indicates that most of these parcels were developed with dwellings prior to January 1, 1993. Resulting in over 60% of the parcels in the study area having had some type of residential structure on the properties for at least the past 30 years. There has been additional residential development since January 1, 1993, through to the present day, but most of the residential uses have been established, and have been the predominate use in the study area for decades. The applicants’ proposed non-farm dwelling would be consistent with, and continue the development patten that has been established on the majority of parcels in the study area, even prior to 1993. It is not expected that the addition of one additional non-farm dwelling in the area will significantly or materially alter the land use stability of the area. Staff concludes that the area presented by the applicant is a fair representation of the surrounding area and is sufficient to arrive at a sampling of the land use pattern and satisfies the above criteria: A,B,C. 10. ADJUSTMENT: In addition, non-farm dwellings shall be subject to the following code as provided for in 17.137.070, Non-farm dwelling requirements: A. Special Setbacks. 1. Dwellings. A special dwelling setback of 200 feet from any abutting parcel in farm use or timber production is required. 2. Accessory Buildings. A special setback of 100 feet is required for buildings accessory to a dwelling from any abutting parcel in farm use or timber production. 3. Adjustments. The special setbacks in subsections (A)(1) and (2) of this section may be reduced if it is determined, concurrently with any land use application or as provided in Chapter 17.116 MCC, that a lesser setback will meet the following review criteria for alternative sites: a. The site will have the least impact on nearby or adjoining forest or agricultural lands. b. The site ensures that adverse impacts on forest operations and accepted farming practices on the tract will be minimized. c. The amount of agricultural and forestlands used to site access roads, service corridors, the dwelling and structures is minimized. d. The risks associated with wildfire are minimized. The subject parcel is approximately 1,100 feet from north to south and 310 feet at the widest position at the far south. The applicants are proposing to reduce the setbacks from 200 feet to 120 feet for the eastern property line, and reducing the southern property line from 200 feet to 100 feet. Considering the dimensions of the property and the presence of Willa Lake and the required 30 foot setback from the lake, 200 foot setbacks would not allow for a suitable building site, nor the locating of septic systems or accessory structures.