Ord 1417 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

V. Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1. This is the decision of the Marion County Board of Commissioners (BOC). The BOC is the final decision making authority. 2. Applicant has the burden of proving all applicable standards and criteria are met. As explained in Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corporation, 303 Or 390 at 394-95 (1987): 'Preponderance of the evidence' means the greater weight of evidence. It is such evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more convincing force and is more probably true and accurate. If, upon any question in the case, the evidence appears to be equally balanced, or if you cannot say upon which side it weighs heavier, you must resolve that question against the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. (Citation omitted.) Applicant must prove, by substantial evidence in the whole record, that it is more likely than not that each criterion is met. If the evidence for any criterion is equally likely or less likely, Applicant has not met its burden and the application must be denied. If the evidence for every criterion is in Applicant's favor, then the burden of proof is met and the application must be approved. GOAL EXCEPTION 3. The subject property is within the urban unincorporated community of Brooks-Hopmere, a community identified in 2000 under the provisions in OAR 660-022. As such, the entire community is rural exception land, to which Statewide Planning Goal 3, Agricultural Lands (to preserve and maintain agricultural lands), no longer applies. However, this property was subject to a limited use overlay zone designation upon the adoption of the Brooks-Hopmere Community Plan, based on a reasons exception to Goal 3. In order for the limited use overlay to be removed, an exception to Goal 3 must be taken. Under OAR 660-004-0005(1), an exception to a statewide planning goal is a comprehensive plan provision. The goal exception requires an MCCP amendment. OAR 660-004-0005(1) defines an exception as a comprehensive plan provision, including an amendment to an acknowledged comprehensive plan, that: (a) Is applicable to specific properties or situations and does not establish a planning or zoning policy of general applicability; (b) Does not comply with some or all goal requirements applicable to the subject properties or situations; and (c) Complies with ORS 197.732(2), the provisions of [OAR 660-004] and, if applicable, the provisions of OAR 660-011-0060, 660-012-0070, 660-014-0030 or 660-014-0040. ZC/CP 20-001 - DECISION 4 CHEMEKETA COMMUNITY COLLEGE 4840-6347-8718,v. 1