Laserfiche WebLink
EXHIBIT A <br /> H. County GIS mapping shows an NWI wetland pond on TLs 1300 and 1400. Wetland <br /> delineation is recommended prior to development. Evidence of DEQ coordination will <br /> be required, as necessary. <br /> The City of Salem's Assistant Traffic Engineer responded: The City recommends placing a trip <br /> cap on the proposed Comprehensive Plan Change/Zone Change that limits the development <br /> to 448 daily trips or 55 pm peak hours trips identified in Table 3 of the TIA. <br /> Marion County Fire District 1 submitted code requirements that are necessary for approval. <br /> Those comments can be found in the file. <br /> All other contacted agencies either failed to respond or stated no objection to the proposal. <br /> VI. Additional Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law <br /> 1. This is a recommendation to the Marion County Board of Commissioners (the <br /> Board). The Board is the final decision making authority. <br /> 2. Applicant has the burden of proving all applicable standards and criteria are met. As <br /> explained in Riley Hill General Contractor, Inc. v. Tandy Corporation, 303 Or 390 at <br /> 394-95 (1987): <br /> "Preponderance of the evidence" means the greater weight of evidence. It <br /> is such evidence that, when weighed with that opposed to it, has more <br /> convincing force and is more probably true and accurate. If, upon any <br /> question in the case, the evidence appears to be equally balanced, or if <br /> you cannot say upon which side it weighs heavier, you must resolve that <br /> question against the party upon whom the burden of proof rests. (Citation <br /> omitted.) <br /> Applicant must prove, by substantial evidence in the whole record, that it is more likely <br /> than not that each criterion is met. If the evidence for any criterion is equally likely or <br /> less likely, Applicant has not met its burden and the application must be denied. If the <br /> evidence for every criterion is in Applicant's favor, then the burden of proof is met and <br /> the application must be approved. <br /> 3. There is no opposition to the application. I have reviewed the staff report, and I <br /> agree with the findings and conclusions in the staff report. The following findings <br /> and conclusions are drawn largely from the staff report. <br /> STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS <br /> 4. The MCCP plan amendments section states that comprehensive plan amendments <br /> must be consistent with statewide planning goals. <br /> ZC/CP 20-003- RECOMMENDATION -3 <br /> M.F. BAKKE, ET AL <br />