CUP26-015 Staff Decision - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

d. For purposes of this subsection, examples of potential impacts for consideration may include but are not limited to traffic, water availability and delivery, introduction of weeds or pests, damage to crops or livestock, litter, trespass, reduction in crop yields, or flooding. These potential impacts were all considered and the only two possible impacts were traffic as a result of Fish and Wildlife personnel visiting the conservation parcel, and reduction of crop yields as a result of more birds in the area. The applicant explains that the habitat restoration activities planned for the proposed conservation parcel include converting more land to Oak savanna and encouraging native plant species such as Roemers fescue, golden paintbrush and the Willamette daisy. These plant species do not attract pest species of birds as Canadian geese that may prey upon grass seed. e. For purposes of this section, potential impacts to farm and forest practices or the cost of farm and forest practices, impacts relating to the construction or installation of the proposed use shall be deemed part of the use itself for the purpose of conducting a review under this section. No construction is proposed for establishment of the conservation parcel. The parcel will not be open to the public, so no parking area or structures will be required. Any access by US Fish and Wildlife staff will be in the same manner and similar frequency that a farmer would access their fields. Any future proposed storage structures for tools would be consistent with acceptable farm practices such as agricultural exemption structures. f. In the consideration of potentially mitigating conditions of approval under ORS 215.296(2), the governing body may not impose such a condition upon the owner of the affected farm or forest land or on such land itself, nor compel said owner to accept payment to compensate for the significant changes or significant increases in costs described in this section. The county understands this standard and does not propose any such conditions. The applicant provided information consistent with the requirements for addressing the farm impacts test. Staff assessed the required information and did not identify any way that the proposed conservation parcel could force a significant change in accepted farm or forest practices in the area. Staff found that the potential for increased traffic to the area as the result of establishment of the conservation parcel would be limited to only US Fish and Wildlife staff and therefore consistent with the type of traffic resulting from active farm use of the parcel. Staff found that the potential for the conservation parcel to attract pest species of bird was negligible, and that the applicants actively plan to promote habitat for other species of birds that have potential to be beneficial to farm uses in the area because of the insectivorous diet of these other bird species. Therefore, staff found that the proposal would not force a significant increase in the cost of accepted farm or forest practices in the area. The farm impacts test criterion is met. 2. Adequate fire protection and other rural services are, or will be, available when the use is established. The properties are both served by Sublimity Fire District and the Marion County Sheriff’s Office. The criterion is met. 3. The use will not have a significant adverse impact on watersheds, groundwater, fish and wildlife habitat, soil and slope stability, air and water quality. The use is likely to have a beneficial impact on all of these factors. No aspect of the conservation parcel proposal would have an adverse impact on any of these factors. The criterion is met. 4. Any noise associated with the use will not have a significant adverse impact on nearby land uses. An increase in the bird population on the conservation parcel may result in more noise in the immediate area from bird calls. The volume of these bird calls is not anticipated to negatively impact nearby land uses. The criterion is met. 5. The use will not have a significant adverse impact on potential water impoundments identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and not create significant conflicts with operations included in the Comprehensive Plan inventory of significant mineral and aggregate sites. There are no nearby water impoundments or aggregate sites. The criterion does not apply.