Item B: Parks, Recreation and Open Space Comprehensive Plan

Home Browse Search

" " ... August 8, 1988 Agenda Item #3 Page 8 of 9 5. The planting of grass and minor contouring are exempt from the 'definition of "change' of usell since they are Illandscapingll which is expressly exempted. . The Oregon Court of Appeals would characterize the applicant's argument as tlnovel." The Hearings Official must agree. The applicant fails to address the prima.ry impact the proposed use will have on the property: people. The property was presumably in nonintensive farm use in December of 1975. It must be assumed that the land was occupied by only a few individuals at anyone time, spraying, irrigating, and discing the soil, and harvesting the crops. An IS-hold golf course can be assumed to be used by hundreds of individuals on any given day. The Hearings Official considers this impact to represent a substantial effect upon the lan.d. The fact that the physical alteration of the property is minimal and will not impair future farm potential is not determinate. A Ifsubstantial alterationtl for the purposes of issuing a special use permit for development within a floodway is not necessarily equivalent to a similar finding for purposes of the Greeway setback requirement. The flOOdplain special use permit is concerned with development and its affect on flood levels. Flood levels are affected by two primary causes: a fill which would cause, the flood waters to be displaced elsewhere and a major topographic change which would have the same effect. Clearly. no such f1developmentU is contemplated by the applicant. However, the proposed use would generate a substantial increase i H, hLJman activity on the property and can thus be considered to have a substantial affect on the land. Finally, a close reading of Lane Code 16.254(2)(f) shows that only landscaping which is accessory to an existing use is considered outside the definition of lJchange of use," For these reasons, the Hearings Official must conclude that the proposed use would substantially affect the property and therefore represents a change in the prior agricultural use of the property. The. Proposed' Use is a Water Dependant Use Lane Code 16.254(4)(b) reads "New intensificationsl developments and changes of use'shall be set back 100 feet from ordinary high waterline of the river) except for a water related or water dependent use. It [Emphasi s added] A water dependent use is defined by Lane Code 16.254(2)(c) as tlA use or activity which can be carried out only on. 1n or adjacent to water areas because' the.. use requires access to the water bOdy for waterborne transportationl recreation, energy production, or source of water." [Emphasis added] The applicant cannot irrigate the property with water from the Eugene Water and Electric Board ,because the land is outside of the Eugene Urban Growth Boundary and Public Utilities. Services, and Facilities Element Policy #2 of the Metro Plan precludes the extension of water and sewer. service outside of the urban growth boundary except to Mahlon Sweet Field Airport or to remedy a health hazard,situation. Evidence indicates that the proposed golf course could not be irrigated by a single well and that there is good.cause to doubt that the.aqulfer could support more than one well. An analysis of golf courses in the area indicates that it is uncommon for a golf course to rely upon wells for irrigation and that most of them have a more reliable source, such as a river or creek. Finally) it is dangerous to rely upon wells as a source for irrigation since they may be insufficient during times of drought and significant damage to go If courses may occur if they are not constant 1y watered.