Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tualatin Council Upholds Staff on Honeybucket Yard, Rules Portable‑toilet Operations Align With Solid‑waste Use
Summary
Tualatin City Council on Sept. 22 affirmed staff's code interpretation that Honeybucket's portable‑toilet yard is a solid‑waste treatment and recycling use, a finding that means the site's current operations are not permitted in the city's Light Manufacturing zone.
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tualatin City Council on Sept. 22 affirmed a staff code interpretation that classified Honeybucket's portable‑toilet rental yard at 18805 Southwest 100th and Eighth Avenue as a solid‑waste treatment and recycling use rather than a wholesale sales use, a determination that makes the existing operations prohibited in the city's Light Manufacturing (ML) planning district.
Staff Associate Planner Madeline Nelson told council the site spans three tax lots totaling 3.8 acres and that staff found the business's essential activities include collection, temporary on‑site storage, washing and related handling of portable toilets — activities that align with the Tualatin Development Code (TDC) use category for solid‑waste treatment and recycling. Nelson said pumping is listed in the code's example language and that the rental operation's on‑site collection and temporary storage meant those activities could not be treated as merely accessory to a wholesale rental business. The staff decision was issued July 11, 2025; the applicant appealed on July 24 and requested review by council. Public notice of the hearing was issued Aug. 25, 2025, and the staff report dated 09/22/2025 provided the criteria council was required to use.
The applicant, represented by land use attorney Marissa Mueller for Northwest Cascade Inc. (Honeybucket), argued the yard's primary activity is rental of portable toilets and related equipment to contractors and event operators — a wholesale sales activity that the ML zone permits. Jason Perry, Honeybucket COO, and Mueller told council trucks pump full units at job sites and bring back empty units, that a closed‑loop wash rack reclaims wash water and that trucks haul any wastewater to permitted treatment facilities. They said much of the handling occurs off‑site and that the yard primarily stages and stocks empty, serviced units for redeployment.
Council members pressed staff and the applicant on operational details: whether toilets are pumped on‑site or at job sites; how the wash rack operates and where reclaimed water is disposed; whether a temporary storage ("frac") tank on the Honeybucket site temporarily holds waste between route pickups and disposal; and whether state DEQ or Clean Water Services permits or inspections applied. Honeybucket acknowledged a temporary storage tank on site that is emptied to tanker trucks for permitted disposal and described a closed‑loop exterior wash system whose reclaimed water is periodically hauled to Clean Water Services.
After deliberation, the council voted (roll call) to affirm staff's interpretation and adopt the staff position that the use aligns with the solid‑waste treatment and recycling category and thus is not a permitted wholesale sales use in the ML zone. Council members said the presence of storage and handling activities on site weighed heavily in their determination. The vote upholding staff was recorded by roll call as the council's decision on the request for review; staff will proceed on that basis.
The decision means, per the city's land‑use code, that Honeybucket would need to stop the prohibited activity at that site unless it secures an applicable land‑use approval (for example, a rezone or other approval) or otherwise changes site operations so they no longer meet the prohibited use definition. The council noted the applicant may pursue other land‑use options, and staff said the decision will be a controlling interpretation for similar properties in ML zones unless amended by council.
The hearing record included applicant materials submitted June and follow‑up letters received Sept. 18; staff relied on inspections, code text and the applicant's descriptions in reaching its determination. Councilors emphasized they were interpreting the code as written and that the choice before them was the competing textual readings of the Tualatin Development Code.

