Straw-compressing dispute raises Oregon land use questions
SALEM — A conflict over a straw-compressing facility has raised legal questions over what type of crop “processing” or “preparation” is allowed outright on Oregon farmland.
The Oregon Court of Appeals must now decide whether a farmer near Albany, Ore., may run the facility without a county permit restricting its operation.
The dispute centers on whether straw-compressing qualifies as the “preparation” of a crop, which is allowed outright in farm zones, or if it’s a form of “processing,” which requires a conditional use permit.
Jim Johnson, land use specialist for the Oregon Department of Agriculture, said the ruling would be significant if it affects which activities are considered “farm uses” under the state’s land use law.
Farmers depend on seed-cleaning and straw-compressing services to get crops ready for market, he said. “They also need infrastructure to support their operations.”
In the case, John Gilmour had obtained a conditional use permit from Linn County for the facility but then found that the operational time limits were hurting his reliability as a straw supplier.
In some circumstances, the facility must run around the clock to meet the demands of straw buyers in Asia, Gilmour said. “Without that ability, I’m not very competitive.”
Earlier this year, the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals, or LUBA, held that Gilmour doesn’t need a conditional use permit because straw-compressing is “essentially an extension of the initial baling of the straw, which occurs in the field, that is simply further preparation in the facility, and therefore accurately characterized as a farm use.”
Neighbors who are concerned about traffic and noise from the facility have challenged that finding before the Oregon Court of Appeals, which heard oral arguments in the case on May 5.
Suzi Maresh, a neighbor, said the facility is a “huge safety issue” because large trucks turning onto a narrow roadway are an “accident waiting to happen.”
Neighbors and the facility would be better off if it were located near a major freeway because the nearby roads are inadequate, she said.
Maresh said she doesn’t believe the straw-compressing facility is covered as a “farm use” under Oregon law because it brings most of its straw from other farmers and operates year-round.
“I don’t think this is farming,” she said.
Alan Sorem, attorney for Gilmour, said the facility can accept other people’s straw because it’s also grown on land that’s zoned exclusively for farming.
The fact that trucks are frequently needed to bring the compressed straw to market is expected and doesn’t preclude straw-compressing as a “farm use,” he said. “The commercial nature is not relevant here.”
Straw-compressing is clearly a type of crop “preparation,” unlike the “processing” of berries into jam, which cannot be reversed, Sorem said during oral arguments.
“Whether it’s been compressed or not, once you cut open the bale, it’s just straw,” he said.
Sean Malone, an attorney for the Friends of Linn County conservation group and concerned neighbors, said LUBA committed an error by declaring that straw-compressing is crop “preparation” without sufficiently examining whether it’s also “processing.”
“We’ve been given half a look. We haven’t been given the whole analysis by LUBA,” Malone said.
The agency acknowledged that the two terms were “potentially overlapping,” so the county’s interpretation that straw-compressing is “processing” should stand under Oregon’s land use law, he said.
“Given the ambiguity of the term, that provides the county with a certain latitude,” he said.