Ordinance No. 20226 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

The Porters~ then~ talked to a drain tile installer about installin~ subsurface field drainage, but were told such drainage would not function unless the area s drayage ditches were deepened to provide an adequate drahaage outlet. Bravado Excavation and Constmctmn, lnc, after examination of the subject site provided a letter estimating the cost to be $4,000 per acre for installing ~eld drains and a ~en~eptual drawing showing how the lack ora drainage outlet preventk drainage of the The Board Finds, based upon the evidence presented to the Metro Plannin Commisslo area drama e wa s are no~ g ' n~ that the g Y dee enou to . . . . p gh acco~rmmdate a subsurface drm subject s~te along with not beina cost e~Eec, t{w ~ ~, ....... nage system fbr the Urban Reserve ............ ,*~mmn m mmre urr>an development of this Area. The Board also concludes~ based Upon the evidence, that {be sub' property is too wet most of the year to be used f~r in};;s~,~ ~-*-~2-Z, 71 , ~ject The County stalTs second issue was that the applicant's narrative needs to address all the Exception Criteria, specifically to supplement khe record with information pertaining to: a. Parcel histo~ pursuant to OAR 660-004-0028(6)(c) b. Showing that "farm use" on the site is impracticable c. Impacts concerning future residential development. The goard F~nds based upon the follnw~ng Metro Planning Commission's PnI>I~c Hearing facts that: As evidenced by the Lane County Legal Lot Verification determ/nafions # 99-5523 and 99-5382, the su~iect site consist~ oft~,o legal lots ofrecor& No records were found in the U.S.D.A. property files showing any federally subsidized government funding. 2b~ The Board Finds, based upon evidence presented to the Metro Planning Commission, that sbace the adjokn~g and surroun~ting Exception Area, including lots to the so~th, are all ~der separate owne~hip a~d the subject site were all created prior to ~hy applicable Statewide Planning Goals and, therefore~ such p~rcets may be used to justify commi{ted exception. The Board F~ads based upon the fo~low~ng Metro P~anr~ing Commission Public Hearing facts that: The skews agricultural capability is restricted to limited towdntensity grazing during non wet parts of the year ~late sprkng ~d earth, summer). In addkion~ the site has ~e~er been used for orchards, vegetable crops, ~eld ~rops, gr~ns, blueberries, ginseng, etc. Not having an adequate draknage outlet, surface field drains will not 5unction properly to dm~n the i , soil~ therefore, the site is too 4et for an~ type of intensive agricultural use (se~ pr~vi;us Fhad~gs). OAR Section 660 004 0028 . - - (3) states ~t shall not be requir, ed that local government demonstrate that every use alloWed by the applicable goal is :. The Board finds that determinations as to whether farm uses are impracticable is a matter of case- by-case analysis, after consideration of all the criteria set fbrth in the OAR. The Board Fknds, 26