DIR1997-00002 DATE: 8/25/1997
CODE SECTIONS: 18.120 (was 18.26)
I,TOPIC :1 Definition: Defining Logging as Development
INTERPRETATION: APPEAL OF DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION DEFINING LOGGING AS
DEVELOPMENT - ERICKSON PROPERTY -
BACKGROUND:
On July 28, 1997, the Department of Forestry received an application to harvest timber.
The properties that are the subject of the request for logging are tax lots 00100, 00200 and
00500 of Washington County Tax Map 2S110DA. In August of 1997, an Erosion
Prevention & Sediment Control Report was submitted to address erosion issues related to
logging the property. On August 25, 1997, a Director's Interpretation was issued stating
that a logging operation was a development and thus, subject to a Site Development
Review.
BASIS FOR APPEAL:
The Appellant's basis for the appeal is addressed on the Appeal Filing Form dated
September 18, 1997. The Appellant states that cutting trees does not meet the definition
of development and, therefore, does not require review and approval through Site
Development Review. Furthermore, the Appellant states that their right to continue
operating the tree farm was grandfathered when the City adopted its tree ordinance and
that the City would have used a much different definition relating to timber harvesting when
the tree ordinance was adopted if it had intended to regulate their right to harvest.
The Community Development Code (Chapter 18.26.030) defines "Development" as:
"A building or mining operation, making a material change in the use or appearance of a
structure or land, dividing land into two or more parcels, including partitions and
subdivisions, as provided in the Oregon Revised Statutes 92."
In Addition, Section 18.120.020 (Site Development Review - Applicability of Provisions)
states:
"A site development review shall be applicable to all new developments and major
modification of existing developments, as provided in Section 18.120.070 except it shall
not apply to:
1. Single- family detached dwellings;
2. Manufactured homes on individual lots;
3. A duplex, which is not being reviewed as part of any other development;
4. Minor modifications as provided in Section 18.120.070;
5. Any proposed development which has a valid conditional use approved through the
conditional use permit application process; or
6. Mobile home parks and subdivisions;
7. Family day care;
8. Home occupation;
9. Temporary use;
10. Fuel tank; or
11. Accessory structures."
The request to log would result in a material change in the appearance of the land and is
not exempt from site development review.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
Site Development Review does not prohibit logging, nor does it conflict with the provisions
of the tree ordinance. It is recommended that the Tigard Planning Commission uphold the
Director's interpretation that logging does meet the definition of development and is
subject to review and approval through the Site Development Review process.
PLANNING COMMISSION FINAL ORDER NO. 97 -05 PC:
At the 10/20/97 public hearing, the Planning Commission upheld the appeal filed by Darren
Mahr of Woodland Management, Inc., owner's representative for Albert and Verlene
Erickson challenging the Director's interpretation that logging is defined as development.
Based on testimony heard at the hearing supporting the appellant's stand that logging
does not meet the definition of "development" and discussion among the Commissioners
that logging is not "a building or mining operation ", Commissioner Collson moved to repeal
the Director's interpretation and find in favor of the appellant. The appellant's basis for the
appeal is addressed on the appeal filing form dated September 18, 1997.
*AII information & exhibits pertaining to this appeal can be found in records. Request by
file name: "Erickson Property Director's Interpretation Appeal" 15200 SW 109th Avenue,
2S110DA, 100, 200, 500.