Clackamas County hearing on proposed private event venue highlights disputes over state rules, noise, traffic and water

Clackamas County hearings officer Joe Turner on April 9 heard arguments over a conditional‑use application (Z047‑25/Z0477‑25) for a home occupation to host events on a roughly 79.9‑acre Exclusive Farm Use parcel at 12112 South New Era Road.

Turner opened the hearing by outlining the process, evidence rules and appeal rights. County planner Joy Fields presented staff’s report, saying staff recommended denial because the application, as submitted, did not satisfy recent changes to Oregon administrative rules and raised unresolved concerns about outdoor noise, intensity of use and whether the proposal is subordinate and incidental to the residence and farm use. Fields noted the applicant submitted additional materials late (exhibit 11) that staff had not yet fully reviewed.

The applicant, represented by attorney Tyler Smith, said the application is a home occupation under ORS 215.448 and not an agritourism/winery matter governed by different statutes cited in the staff report. Smith told the hearing the venue is intended to support long‑term farm viability and that the applicant had proposed mitigation and limits — including a proposed cap of up to three events per week (a maximum of 84 events per year) and hours framed as windows rather than guaranteed occupancy times.

Applicant Michael Barlay (the operator) described the property as a mixed farm with about 50 acres in active farming, including a 20‑acre vineyard and a 150‑chicken operation, and said hosting events would provide income to preserve agricultural use.

Experts for the applicant addressed technical issues. Architect Ken Diner walked the record through detailed site plans and renderings showing the proposed building footprint, parking layout, a trash enclosure, tree screening and shielded lighting fixtures. Traffic engineer Joe Bestman summarized the traffic impact study and testified that, under reasonable trip generation assumptions for rural event centers (including higher vehicle occupancy), the northern, previously permitted entrance and on‑site circulation would be adequate and the venue would not create a systemic safety problem on New Era Road. Bestman acknowledged cyclists and pedestrians use the corridor but said typical event traffic would be passenger vehicles rather than oversized farm or equestrian trailers.

Noise was a central disputed issue. The applicant’s sound study (by Sound Palace) measured a 60‑dB source level at the ceremony area with lower levels measured at dispersed receptor points; the applicant proposed limiting exterior ceremony sound, using directional speakers, interior soundproofing, closing doors after 7 p.m., and employing monitoring or electronic volume limits to prevent exceedances at property lines. Staff and Turner questioned whether a 60‑dB cap is enforceable in practice (for example, with live acoustic singing or doors open) and asked for clearer monitoring and automatic cut‑off strategies or other objective evidence that the mitigation would work.

Water and utility capacity were also contested. Staff highlighted calculations in the applicant’s late submission that estimated per‑guest water use; using the applicant’s 15‑gallons‑per‑guest figure for an eight‑hour event, staff calculated 84 events of 200 guests would consume about 252,000 gallons annually — substantially more than the example residential annual use cited in the applicant’s materials. The applicant responded that events are more likely four‑hour peak uses and that the property’s well falls under a domestic exemption with considerably larger annual allowance; the hearings officer said he would weigh those competing presentations against the new OAR standard when deciding whether the event use is truly incidental and subordinate to the residence.

Multiple past county approvals for EFU event centers were discussed as local precedents; the hearings officer noted those approvals predated the new administrative‑rule provisions and said they do not eliminate the present statutory and rule analysis.

A nearby neighbor, Damaris Smith of 11638 South New Era Road, testified in support, saying she runs an equestrian facility adjacent to the site and had no concerns about noise, lights or traffic and believed the venue could be positive for nearby businesses.

Turner limited the post‑hearing record schedule to allow review of the materials submitted the night before the hearing. He held the record open in three stages: new evidence by April 16, responses by April 23 (responses only), and the applicant’s final written argument by April 30 at 4:00 p.m. He asked the applicant to agree to a short extension of the county’s 150‑day statutory decision clock to accommodate the open‑record schedule; the applicant agreed. Turner said he would aim to issue his written decision by May 14.

The hearing focused on three technical and legal thresholds for the officer’s decision: whether the application meets the county’s 1203 conditional‑use criteria (site suitability, transportation safety, utilities and submittal completeness); whether, under recent Oregon administrative rules and state statutes, the event hosting is accessory, incidental and subordinate to the primary residential use; and whether proposed mitigation (noise controls, lighting, parking and water management) is demonstrably sufficient and enforceable. The hearings officer will issue a written decision after reviewing the supplemental evidence filed during the limited open record.

Next steps: parties and the public may submit new evidence and responses during the announced windows; Turner will consider that material, then issue a written decision that the county will distribute to parties of record.