Clackamas County hearing on O’Malley Brothers staging yard focuses on wetlands, fencing and Conex containers

Clackamas County held a quasi‑judicial hearing Jan. 15 on conditional use application Z0380‑25, seeking approval for a forestry staging yard and equipment/log storage yard on roughly 9.78 acres on Highway 212 in Boring. Hearing Officer Carl Cox opened the proceeding, said he had received no ex parte contacts and stated, “I do not have any bias or conflict of interest in this matter.”

County planner Joy Fields told the hearings officer that staff had reviewed the application and recommended approval with conditions, saying the proposal for log storage, sorting, air‑drying and on‑site equipment and truck storage could meet the conditional‑use criteria with conditions addressing design review, stormwater, setbacks and habitat protections. “Staff recommended approval with conditions,” Fields said.

A central point of contention at the hearing was environmental overlays. Fields and the applicant’s counsel discussed a habitat conservation area (HCA) and a water‑quality resource at the south of the property. County staff noted equipment is prohibited in the HCA unless a Habitat Conservation Area Development Permit is obtained and recommended a construction management plan and other conditions to prevent disturbance. The applicant acknowledged DEQ (the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality) has required restoration of a historic east‑to‑west drainage; counsel said the county’s role is limited to the land‑use compatibility statement DEQ needs for its 1,200Z permit.

Applicant counsel (Kellington Law Group) and O’Malley representatives framed the yard as a staging base for forest operations and emergency response, saying off‑forest staging reduces impacts to forest lands. Counsel argued that some contested items can and should be resolved through DEQ’s permit process and proposed language to make certain conditions operate only if relevant facilities (for example, septic or water) are proposed in the future.

Another debated issue was how to treat Conex (shipping) containers on the site. Fields said staff treated Conex containers shown on aerial images as structures that could trigger building‑design and design‑review requirements; applicant counsel countered that the containers are standardized, mobile units used as equipment in forestry operations and asked the hearings officer to avoid applying facade and building‑design standards to them. The record includes an earlier aerial showing containers on the ground; the applicant initially said three containers remain on site but later verified there are four.

The parties also discussed parking and landscaping triggers. County staff said parking‑area landscaping standards apply when a site has 15 or more parking spaces; counsel and staff agreed to limit authorization to 14 or fewer spaces as a condition, with county staff noting six employee parking spaces would be reasonable for the operation and the applicant agreeing to submit a detailed parking plan.

Several specific conditioning edits were proposed by the applicant and discussed on the record: limiting design review to site grading, stormwater, driveway/walkway circulation, parking (<=14 spaces) and on‑site lighting; clarifying that no staging, storage or development is authorized within the HCA; requiring compliance with any DEQ 1,200Z permit conditions; adding ZDO 10.21 language for solid‑waste and recycling receptacles if design review is removed; and replacing the wetland‑delineation requirement with a provision that a delineation be required only if a professional finds wetlands beyond the HCA boundary.

A member of the public who identified himself as Scott Tini, a neighboring landowner, asked whether there would be time restrictions for early‑morning activity and raised concerns about noise and perimeter delineation. Tini said neighbors arrive early to work and asked whether “there’s a time frame” for arrivals and whether a permanent fence or survey markers would be required; the hearings officer pointed to the proposed condition requiring a stamped site survey to verify setbacks and said noise is controlled by the county noise ordinance.

Procedurally, the applicant agreed to submit revised, clarified condition language to county staff by 4:00 p.m. on the day the record closes and signaled it would waive the additional seven‑day final‑argument period. The hearings officer closed oral testimony and left the record open until 4:00 p.m. for any additional written materials to be uploaded.

Next steps: the record will remain open until 4 p.m. for the applicant and others to submit written materials; thereafter the hearings officer will issue a written decision that may be appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals.