AR26-005 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

d. If the tract is 60 acres or larger and abuts a road or perennial stream the measurements shall be made by using a 160-acre rectangle that is one mile long and one-quarter mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract and is to the maximum extent possible aligned with the road or stream; and If a road crosses the tract on which the dwelling will be located, at least one of the required dwellings shall be on the same side of the road as the proposed dwelling and be located within the 160-acre rectangle or within one-quarter mile from the edge of the subject tract and not outside the length of the 160-acre rectangle; or e. If the tract abuts a road that existed on January 1, 1993, and subsection (B)(3)(d) of this section does not apply, the measurements may be made using a 160-acre rectangle that is one mile long and one- quarter mile wide centered on the center of the subject tract and is to the maximum extent possible aligned with the road; f. Lots or parcels within an urban growth boundary cannot be used to satisfy the requirements in this subsection; g. Any property line adjustment to the lot or parcel after January 1, 2019, did not have the effect of qualifying the lot or parcel for a dwelling under this section; and h. As used in this section, “centered on the subject tract” means the mathematical centroid of the tract. Soil analysis (see finding #4) found that the parcel can produce up to 184 cubic feet per acre of wood fiber and therefore qualifies under 17.139.030(B)(3)(c) above. No parcels within an Urban Growth Boundary were included in the template test. No property line adjustment on or after January 1, 2019 has had the effect of qualifying the subject property under this section. A 160-acre square was used to run the template test in accordance with the requirements above (e & h). Using this test, staff found that the square contained at least 11 other parcels, and at least 3 of those parcels were developed with a dwelling that was established before January 1, 1993, and continue to exist. None of these parcels are located within an urban growth boundary. The criteria are satisfied. (4) The proposed dwelling is not prohibited by and will comply with land use regulations and other provisions of law including Sections 17.110.830 through 17.110.836. There is no evidence indicating that there will be a significant negative impact on water resources which complies with 17.110.830. There are no identified aggregate sites in the area around the property so 17.110.831 does not apply. Development of a home site on the property should not create significant stormwater issues and LDEP has had the opportunity to review this application, as they will have opportunity to review any future building permit and therefore the proposal complies with 17.110.833. A dwelling is a residential use and is not likely to create excessive noise in the area, consistent with 17.110.834. The property does not contain any structures that are designated as historic in the County’s Comprehensive Plan consistent with 17.110.836. These criteria are satisfied. MCC 17.110.835 “Fish and wildlife habitats” requires specific attention due to the proposal exceeding the density limitation in the comprehensive plan, as discussed in more detail under the following criterion. 17.110.835 states: “The impact of land use actions regulated by this title on fish and wildlife habitat identified in the Marion County Comprehensive Plan shall be evaluated and the proposal modified or conditioned as necessary to minimize potential adverse impacts and to preserve the existing resource.” The applicant provided an extensive review of potential impacts on wildlife within the 640-acre circle. The application was sent to Oregon Fish and Wildlife for review as well. ODFW commented that the applicants provided sufficient evidence to show how the proposed dwelling will not impact wildlife on the subject parcel. Staff has applied conditions to limit the buildable area. Therefore, as referenced in this policy, the proposal has been modified and conditioned as necessary to minimize potential adverse impacts. This criterion is met. (5) The dwelling will be consistent with the density policy if located in the big game habitat area identified in the Comprehensive Plan.