Tualatin council upholds staff land‑use interpretation, finds Honeybucket’s yard is a solid‑waste use

Tualatin City Council on Sept. 22 denied an appeal from Northwest Cascade (doing business as Honeybucket) and affirmed a staff interpretation that classified Honeybucket’s portable‑toilet and equipment yard as a “solid waste treatment and recycling” use rather than a wholesale sales use. The council adopted Resolution 5915‑25 to uphold the July 11, 2025 staff decision (case INT25‑0001).

The interpretation centered on whether the operation’s essential activities — collection, storage, washing and temporary storage of waste from portable toilets — make the site a solid‑waste facility (which is prohibited in the Light Manufacturing, ML, zone except under narrow conditional uses), or whether Honeybucket’s primary business is wholesale rental of portable toilets and related equipment (a use the applicant argued should be treated as wholesale sales, permitted in ML).

Associate Planner Madeline Nelson presented staff’s report, telling council the site at 18805 Southwest 108th Avenue comprises 3.8 acres in the Light Manufacturing planning district and that staff’s analysis found the key activities aligned with the solid‑waste category. Nelson noted the Tualatin Development Code (TDC) specifically lists “portable toilet collection, storage, and pumping” as an example under the solid waste treatment and recycling definition and concluded Honeybucket’s on‑site storage, washing and temporary waste storage were integral to the use and therefore not incidental or accessory.

Land‑use attorney Marissa Mueller, representing Honeybucket, and Jason Perry, Honeybucket’s chief operating officer, argued the primary commercial activity is rental of portable restrooms and event/construction equipment — a wholesale sales activity that, they said, should be permitted in the ML zone. Mueller told council that reasonable interpretations of the code differ and urged a pragmatic reading that would treat Honeybucket like other businesses that rent construction and industrial equipment to contractors.

Council members directed detailed questions to the applicant about daily operations. Honeybucket representatives described their trash/waste handling chain: route trucks pump full units at customer sites and haul waste to permitted disposal facilities; units returned to the yard are predominantly empty, are pressure‑washed on a closed‑loop wash rack that recycles water, are re‑stocked with a small amount of additive and then staged for re‑delivery. Honeybucket also acknowledged a large temporary storage tank (a frac tank) on site that receives consolidated waste from route trucks before a larger tanker hauls the load to a wastewater facility.

City Attorney and staff emphasized that the presence of collection, storage and on‑site washing — plus the temporary storage tank — matched the code’s solid‑waste characteristics. Staff and several councilors said the existence of a storage tank that holds consolidated waste prior to off‑haul was decisive in their reading of the code.

Before voting on the appeal, council briefly reopened the record so Honeybucket could offer further discussion about the on‑site storage tank. The motion to reopen passed by council vote. Honeybucket’s representatives said they would be willing to remove the storage tank and move consolidated waste off‑site if that would address council’s concerns. Council members gave informal feedback that removing the tank could change how staff and council treat a future application, but stressed the decision before them applied to the site and operations as described in the record.

After deliberation the council voted to affirm staff’s interpretation and deny Honeybucket’s appeal. A roll‑call recorded votes in favor from Councilors Sacco, Reyes, Gonzales, Brooks and Council President Pratt; the interpretation was upheld and Resolution 5915‑25 was adopted.

Why it matters: The ruling restricts where Honeybucket may operate in Tualatin under current code and sets a precedent for interpreting similar service yards. Staff warned that if Honeybucket’s operation remains classified as solid waste treatment and recycling, the company would need to seek either rezoning, a conditional use permit in a zone where the use is allowed or relocate to an appropriately zoned site. Honeybucket’s offer to remove the temporary storage tank may form the basis of a future application or staff review, but council’s ruling applies to the yard as documented in the record.

Technical and legal context: Staff cited the following Tualatin Development Code provisions during the hearing: TDC 31 (general provisions), TDC 32 (procedures), TDC 39 (use categories and characteristics), TDC 60 (Light Manufacturing planning district allowed uses) and TDC 63 (industrial uses and utilities). The appeal was filed under the city’s interpretation review process (INT25‑0001).

Next steps and options: Honeybucket representatives described options if the decision stands: closing the yard, seeking rezoning or filing a conditional use application in a different zone. They said removing the on‑site storage tank would increase their operating cost and logistics burden but could be done. Staff said it would treat any materially different future application on its merits and that council’s interpretation will guide code enforcement and future application reviews.

Attribution: Quotes and operational descriptions in this report are drawn from staff presentation (Madeline Nelson), applicant presentations (Marissa Mueller and Jason Perry) and council deliberations recorded on the public meeting record.