Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

Page 6- June 1995 Z.B. timber operations. The state Board of Forestry had to divide the state into dis- tricts and create rules and regulations for each district. The rules were to deal with issues like fire prevention, soil erosion, water quality, flood control, g~:owth and productivity, pest control, and protection of natural and scenic qualities. The act also preempted local attempts to regulate the ti.mb'er 'industry. The state's Timberland Productivity Act of 1982 (timber act) required'cit- ies and counties to zone certain areas as "timberland production zones." The law was intended to protect timber operations from being restricted because of conflicts with surrounding land uses. The Legislature required "all qualifying timberland" (which was a defined term) to be included in the timberland pro- duction zones. The forest act regulated the conduct of timber operations in these zones. San Mateo County had several timberland production zones. It also had other districts in which timber harvesting was allowed as one of many permit- ted uses. In 1992, the county passed an ordinance that applied to the districts that allowed timber operations, but not to timberland production zones. It ad- dressed the noise, erosion, and wildfire risks associated with timber harvest- ing. Timber harvesting also impacted the scenic and aesthetic qualities of resi- dences. Therefore, the ordinance sought to create "buffer" zones by prohibit- ing commercial timber harvesting in certain rural areas within 1,000 feet of any legal dwelling. Big Creek Lumber Co. Inc. had operations on land subject to the ordi- nance. It sued the county, asking the court to declare that the ordinance was preempted, by the forest act and unenforceable. The court granted the declara- tion and ordered the county to set aside the ordinance. The county appealed. DECISION: Reversed, in favor of the county. The forest act preempted any issues regarding the conduct of timber har- vesting, but it said nothing about where harvesting could take place. Although the timber act required the county to zone all 'qualified timberland as timber- land production zones, it let local authorities decide how to zone particular areas within the statute's guidelines. Neither act said anything about what lo- calities had to allow or prohibit in areas that were not timberland production zones. Agricultural Use -- County Denies Permit for Agricultural School in Exclusive Farm Use Zone Brentmar v. Jackson County, 882 P2d 1117 (Orego~O 1994 Peace Garden Institute applied for a conditional use permit to open an ag- ricultural and horticultural school in an exclusive farm use zone in Jackson' County, Ore.. According to the application, the school algo would have related facilities and "commercial activities." Two state statutes regulated permissible farm and non-farm uses in exclu- sive farm use zones.' They both allowed the establishment of scho'ols, "includ- ing all buildings essential to the operation of a school."